Loading...
Automated Speed EnforcementCopyrighted November 20, 2023 City of Dubuque Action Items # 04. City Council Meeting ITEM TITLE: Automated Speed Enforcement SUMMARY: City Manager recommending City Council implement Automated Speed Enforcement in the City of Dubuque ORDINANCE Amending Title 9 Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Chapter 7 Operation, Division 5 Speed Restrictions by enacting a new Section 9-7- 321.286 Automated Speed Enforcement regarding automated speed enforcement and the process for challenging an automated speed citation SUGGESTED Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Motion B; Motion DISPOSITION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type MVM Memo City Manager Memo Memo to MVM Automated Speed Enforcement Staff Memo ASE Ordinance Ordinance 2021 ATE Annual Report Cedar Rapids Supporting Documentation I I HS Automated Enforcement Checklist Supporting Documentation CDC Automated Speed Camera Enforcement Supporting Documentation CDC Cost of Crash Deaths Fact Sheets Supporting Documentation City of Portland 2023 AS Supporting Documentation Congressional Research Service Safety Impact of Supporting Documentation Speed and Redlight Cameras NHTSA Countermeasures that Work 2017 Supporting Documentation NHTSA Countermeasures that Work 2020 Supporting Documentation NHTSA Countermeasures that Work 2011 Supporting Documentation NHTSA Countermeasures that work 2015 Supporting Documentation IACP Traffic Safety Report Supporting Documentation I I HS Speed Report Supporting Documentation Iowa ACLU position paper 2021 Supporting Documentation City of Davenport ATE report Supporting Documentation NHTSA Speed Enforcement Cameras Operational Supporting Documentation Guidelines NTSB 2017 Reducing Speeding Related Crashes Supporting Documentation DPD Accident Reconstruction Reaction Time and Supporting Documentation Stopping Distance Chart University of Chicago Camera Ticketing Executive Supporting Documentation Study State of Iowa Accident Coding Sheet Supporting Documentation THE CITY OF Dubuque DU-BQTE DA1tet'ica City I I Masterpiece on the Mississippi � pp �oo�.*o 13 z0i720zoi9 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Automated Speed Enforcement DATE: November 16, 2023 Chief of Police Jeremy Jensen is recommending City Council implement Automated Speed Enforcement in the City of Dubuque. This was first on a City Council agenda on February 6, 2023 and then again on February 20, 2023. The City Council then held a work session to discuss this topic on June 20, 2023. Traffic enforcement, particularly speed enforcement, is a frequent request of the Dubuque Police Department. The purpose of traffic enforcement, particularly speed enforcement, is to reduce the amount of motor vehicle crashes and reduce the severity of those crashes by ultimately changing drivers' patterns of behavior. Motor vehicle crashes cause not only impacts to individuals in the form of injuries and monetary loss, they disrupt traffic flow, potentially cause additional crashes, and take a great deal of staff allocation and time to complete. In 2022, the Dubuque Police Department investigated 1510 motor vehicle crashes. Six of those crashes were fatal car crashes (a 10 year high). Excessive speed was a contributing factor in almost all of these crashes. Data provided by the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau shows that in Iowa, speed was a factor in many of the fatal crashes. Iowa State Patrol Statistics for the last three years has shown an exponential increase in speed citations over 100 mph. The Police Department receives on average two to three requests per week for speed enforcement. Currently the department has 13 sworn officer vacancies. The department responded to over 50,000 calls for service in 2022.Traffic enforcement is a proactive activity done when time allows as responding to calls takes priority. Traffic enforcement often becomes a secondary priority due to the volume of calls for service and staffing issues, even when the Police Department is fully staffed. Police Officer safety is an important issue. Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous activities officers partake in. Not only does the officer have to contend with an unknown driver, the officer also has to contend with other vehicle traffic. Additionally, traffic stops, i.e. flashing lights, cause erratic behavior from drivers resulting in additional crashes as people slow, look, or erratically change lanes. Certain areas (such as lower Dodge St), generate speed complaints and are prone to crashes which are often difficult and dangerous for officers to work in a traffic enforcement capacity, without further impacting traffic patterns. Racial profiling, pretextual stops, and bias are allegations made around traffic enforcement, as there is a human factor when an officer decides to stop a vehicle. Additionally, when an officer makes a stop on a motorist, the claim is that the officer has now missed 10 other violations. Automated Speed Enforcement is common in many cities throughout Iowa, such as Cedar Rapids, Des Moines (and Des Moines metro), Waterloo, and Davenport, as well as a number of small towns. Cedar Rapids has had this technology for many years. Chief Jensen discussed the use and potential problems of the system with Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne Jerman. Chief Jerman advises that the system has had a positive effect on reducing motor vehicle crashes. On a particular stretch of Interstate 380 fatal accidents went from five per year to one in 10 years (and this one was not speed related). Cons of the system include, not being popular with some people. It is not perfect. However, there is oversight. A police officer is required to review the violations identified by the ASE system. There is also an appeal process. Citations are issued to registered owners, which some people will argue this is not fair to the owner as it may not be the owner driving the vehicle. Conversely, others would argue, the owner is responsible for the use of their vehicle and who they allow to drive the vehicle. The benefits of automated speed enforcement include the following. First, is 24/7/365 coverage of an area. Staffing does not allow for officers to sit in an area for this amount of time. ASE is a force multiplier that offsets Police Department staffing issues and leverages technology. Second, there is a safety factor for both officers and motorists by not conducting physical traffic stops on often busy and high speed roadways. Third, the cameras keep working during the time an officer would be out of service during that stop. Fourth, the citation is a civil citation that does not count against driving records or insurance. The ultimate goal is not to have drivers suspended for non-payment of fines, but to have accountability that ultimately changes driving behavior. And finally, there is minimal or no cost to the City. The vendors of these systems, do not charge for the installation, maintenance, etc, as they are paid by a percentage from each ticket issued (roughly 35% depending on the vendor). The benefit is this is a standalone system, not related to our traffic camera system, that is maintained by the vendor. My intent would be to recommend through the city budget process any revenue go towards traffic safety expenses. Traffic safety includes the safety of the motoring public, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The City Council budgeted in FY23 to create two new positions to deal with diversion through the City of Dubuque Notice of Violation system and the court system, so people can reduce their fines or avoid jail time by doing community service. One of the new positions is to connect with people who need diversion services, and the other is to develop a community 2 service system so there is a system and place for that diversion to exist and so that successfully performing that community service can be tracked. In the case of normal speeding tickets issued by a Police Officer (not automated speed enforcement) a person speeding at 11 - 15 miles over the speed limit would be subject to a $175.15 fine. Higher speeds increase the fine. There have been significant changes to this recommendation since it came to the City Council earlier this year as we listened to community input. The largest change is the emphasis on enforcement of vehicles traveling at higher speeds. If a vehicle is on a roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH or higher the penalties for speeding would not start until the vehicle was traveling at least 16 MPH over the speed limit, instead of the previously recommended 11 MPH over the speed limit, unless it is a school zone or a construction zone. In other areas where the speed limit is less than 45 MPH there would be violations in the 11-15 MPH range. Violations in the 11-15 MPH, where applicable, and 16-20 MPH would receive a courtesy violation warning ticket with no fine on their first offense. The second violation in the range of 11-15 MPH, and 16-20 MPH would be a fine with a 50% discount. The third violation in the range of 11-15 MPH, and 16-20 MPH would be eligible to do community service to reduce the fine by 50%. For the fourth and subsequent violations in the range of 11-15 MPH and 16-20 MPH only low/moderate income individuals would be eligible for a 50% fine reduction with community service. For the fourth and subsequent violations at 21 MPH and over low/moderate income individuals would be eligible for a 50% discount with extra community service over standard requirement at lower speeds. Charts are included in the ordinance for clarity and visualizing the speed zone and fine structure. The purpose of the request for Automated Speed Enforcement was based upon several factors: A Safe and Livable Community is a City Council priority. If the Chief and I can identify methods to promote proactive safety measures, then it is our job to propose those ideas. 2. With staff shortages and hiring impediments, finding force multiplier methods that leverage technology that can be used to address: a. Crash prevention, b. Reduction in crash severity, c. Addressing frequent complaints about speed enforcement, 3 d. Promoting officer safety, and e. To reduce bias or perceived bias in stops. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval to implement automated speed enforcement. k 4 Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM:sv Attachment cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager Jeremy Jensen, Chief of Police Marie Ware, Leisure Services Director Heather Satterly, Community Impact Director 12 THE C DUUB_&FE Masterpiece on the Mississippi Dubuque Police Department Dubuque Law Enforcement Center 770 Iowa Street All-AmemCity P.O. Box 875 ' I ICI Dubuque, IA 52004-0875 Office (563) 589-4410 Fax (563) 589-4497 2007.2m2 •2o13 TTY (563) 583-1711 E-mail: police@cityofdubuque.org www.cityofdubuque.org TO: Mike Van Milligan, City Manager FROM: Jeremy Jensen, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Automated Speed Enforcement DATE: November 20, 2023 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memo is to provide a recommendation to implement Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). BACKGROUND: In February 2023, 1 presented to the City Council a recommendation to implement Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) within the City of Dubuque. The purpose of the request for Automated Speed Enforcement was based upon several factors: 1. A Safe and Livable Community is a City Council priority. If I can provide methods to promote proactive safety measures, then it is my job to propose those ideas. 2. With staff shortages and hiring impediments, finding force multiplier methods that leverage technology that can be used to address: a. Crash prevention, b. Reduction in crash severity, c. Addressing frequent complaints about speed enforcement, d. Promoting officer safety, and e. To reduce bias or perceived bias in stops. However, an incident on the NW Arterial involving extreme speed was the initial reason as to why I brought the idea of ASE forward. At the time of the original presentation, I presented traffic crash data for the City of Dubuque. The data was questioned, as the causation shown in the crash data did not show speed as a major contributing factor. As I explained, accidents have extreme nuances, and require an officer to report based upon a lot of factors (see the attached TraCs coding sheet for accident reporting). One of the hardest things to show or enforce is speed in an accident (hence why you don't see speeding tickets assigned to accidents very often). To enforce speed on an accident, the officer needs an admission, camera footage (though it does not show a speed), or the officer can complete a search warrant for the "black box" contained in each vehicle. The last is a very labor intensive and time consuming endeavor that would require us to seize a person's vehicle. This is not feasible and is only used on fatality or severe injury crashes. Additionally, at that time I introduced data from the City of Cedar Rapids, which has had an automated traffic enforcement program for a number of years. The data outlined their success with the system. Multiple presentations earlier this year raised questions and requests for information as to: 1. How the technology works, 2. A need for more data, 3. For additional assurances about the technology, the safety of the data. We addressed the technology piece, when Dorian Grubaugh from Jenoptik, an ASE vendor, presented to the City Council on the technology. At the June 20, 2023, City Council Work Session, Abishek Rai, the ICMA City Manager Intern presented the City Council with data from other cities in Iowa as to the reduction in crash severity at the locations of Automated Traffic Enforcement cameras (ATE). It should be noted that most cities have both automated speed and red light cameras. Simply, the data showed a reduction. Additionally, Abishek presented studies from various sources such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In a 2011 publication from the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration titled, "Countermeasures that work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Officer, Sixth Edition, 2011" it states "Countermeasures to reduce aggressive driving and speeding." The only two that received a 5 star rating, "Demonstrated to be effective by several high quality evaluations with consistent results" were "Speed Limits" and "Automated enforcement." In 2011, no activity received 4 stars, "Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations." In 2011 only "Public Information supporting enforcement" received 3 stars, "Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high quality evaluations and other sources." E In 2011, three items received 2 stars, "Effectiveness still undetermined, different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results" and those were, • "High visibility enforcement," • "Other enforcement methods," and • "Penalty types and levels." In 2011 two items received one star, "Limited or no high quality evaluation evidence" and those were, • "Aggressive driving laws" and • "Diversion and plea agreements." In the 2020 Tenth Edition of this same publication once again 5 stars were awarded to • "Speed Limits" and • "Automated Enforcement." Again in 2020 no activity received 4 stars and only one activity received 3 stars, "Public Information supporting enforcement". At this presentation, the City Council asked for speed data. In June 2023, community members associated with Bryant School presented to the City Council about safety on South Grandview near Bryant St. One of the concerns was speeding, and one member asked the City Council to have an officer to sit at that location. The City has since reengineered the crosswalk at that location, to make pedestrians more visible to oncoming traffic. Placing an officer in that location every single day is not feasible as this is the busiest time of day, with some of the heaviest traffic, and every school in Dubuque letting out at approximately the same time. In response to the request for speed studies, the City of Dubuque Engineering Department presented speed data to the City Council that had been conducted over various locations throughout the City of Dubuque. The data almost unequivocally showed speeding to be a problem. Particularly disturbing was the speed in residential neighborhoods. At the time of this presentation, the Council asked for an ordinance proposal and additional crash data at the locations of the speed studies. DISCUSSION: The previous discussions as to the location of ASE's were based upon locations of crashes, using crash data. As I pointed out before, crash data is extremely nuanced as to the causation. This is a reactive way to respond to a problem after there is an issue. Issues in traffic crashes can have dire consequences. While crash data is necessary to determine if there is a problem at the location, the whole premise of traffic enforcement is to change driver behavior proactively. Proactive means addressing the issues before 3 they become problems. In the case of crashes, it means addressing the issue to reduce the number and severity of crashes. Prevention is slowing an area down through design, education, and concentrated and consistent enforcement so that "a kid doesn't get hit", which is common language when the community requests proactive enforcement. Additionally, people have stated both to me and publicly that a few fatalities are acceptable considering the amount of traffic moving through Dubuque. As the Police Chief and a resident of Dubuque, I do not think this is acceptable. Every year and every week, the Police Department receives requests for speed enforcement or speed shield placement. Most of these locations require an officer to be at a location for a period of time. Many of the locations are neighborhoods, where the concern is either frequent speeders at a specific time or individual speeders which may be at all hours. This is in addition to many other traffic enforcement requests such as noise and commercial motor vehicle traffic. These take time. An officer's job is not only to respond to crashes but to prevent crashes. On the law enforcement side, this is done by concentrated and routine enforcement. Simply, an officer cannot be everywhere at all times. Additionally, in the past two (2) years the Dubuque Police Department has seen been down, or short, 12-17 officers, while calls for service in calendar years have remained above 50,000, with the projected calls for service in 2023 to be approximately 56,000 calls for service which is in line with the 10 year average. Cameras of all sorts are simply a force multiplier that aid in time savings and accuracy. ASE's do not replace traditional officer enforcement but complement traditional enforcement efforts by being in place 24/7/365 and in locations that are hazardous or have geographical issues preventing traditional enforcement. As I stated before, a lot of things can contribute to crashes. Things such as distracted driving, failure to obey traffic control devices (road signs, stop signs, traffic lights, etc), failure to maintain control, speeding, erratic driving (reckless, improper lane changes, failing to use signals, braking suddenly, etc.), roadway conditions and weather conditions. Which areas can we consistently enforce with traditional officer initiated stops? None of them consistently as we cannot be in "the right spot" all of the time. hich ones can we currently enforce with technology? Speed and red lights. This proposal is only for automated speed enforcement. Distracted driving is a major concern. However, distracted driving is not just cell phone use. Distracted driving is eating, loud music, kids screaming in the backseat, things along the roadway (Iowa is pretty and has lots of deer), dropping your napkin, or reading a book. These things are not enforceable in and of themselves. What we can we address in the multiple factors that contribute to crash severity and crash avoidance using technology to create consistent enforcement at locations? One of those answers is speed enforcement. n Distracted driving contributes to reaction time. The time it takes for a driver to recognize and react to a hazard. Also, what contributes to reaction time is speed, weather conditions, and physical/cognitive ability. Corporal Travis Kramer, a Dubuque Police Department Accident Reconstruction ist, has completed the attached graphs to show reaction time and how speed and distraction can greatly increase the distance needed to react to a hazard. This does not show actual stopping distances which also increase with speed, vehicle size, mechanical condition, weather and roadway conditions. This is physics. Numerous studies and reports from reputable sources such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB), Texas A & M, the University of Chicago, the City of Portland, Oregon, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Congressional Research Service and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show ASE's do have an impact on reducing crash severity, reducing speeds, and ultimately aiding in crash avoidance. The NHTSA study was mentioned above. The NTSB study states, "ASE has some advantages over in -person speed enforcement by an officer. It provides a force multiplier effect that can free up limited law enforcement resources to be used for other purposes. ASE can operate in location and under conditions that would make traffic stops dangerous or impractical, and it may reduce congestion from other drivers distracted by traffic stops, Finally, its high rate of speeding detection may provide a higher general deterrence effect." This study also refers to misuse surrounding best practices, privacy issues, and no vendor oversight can cause concerns. The IIHS study states, "Speed safety cameras, when used properly, can be an important tool for discouraging drivers from exceeding the posted speed limits". The University of Chicago study showed a 15% reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes. Additionally, the study points to the need for good policy on placement and fines to minimize the disproportionate impact on people of color and people in poverty. The City of Portland created the Vision Zero initiative which includes 20 cameras. In 2020, their data showed a 94% decrease in top end speeding (11 mph or more over the posted speed limit). This data was from a 4 year period. The Congressional Research Service paper states that vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of death. This paper states, 5 "There have been many studies of speed camera programs: most have concluded that speed cameras reduced speeding and/or crashes in the vicinity of the camera, and in some cases in the surrounding areas. Several reviews that looked at dozens of studies from around the world found that despite methodological issues in most studies, speed cameras reduce speeding and/or crashes". The IIHS study states, "Speed safety cameras, when used properly, can be an important tool for discouraging drivers from exceeding the posted speed limits". IIHS refers to several studies that show a reduction in speed, reduction in crashes and crash injuries. It cannot be stated that ASE is the only answer to address the problems presented by speeding. As was presented in July there is a speeding problem on a number of streets in the City of Dubuque. In response to a question raised about crash data directly associated with the time and date of the speed studies at the locations of the speed study. There are no crashes at the locations and times of the data collection. This is not complete data as it only shows a specific time and place. None of the speed studies were done at intersections, where again a reduced speed may allow for more reaction time, thus avoiding a crash all together and if a crash happens, reduce the severity. Additionally, a speed study or crash data does not show how many crashes were averted. Quite frankly, this is not data that can be sourced. To move forward the City Council has asked for more information, based upon input, more crash data, and a draft policy. There have been many comments for and against the cameras. People for the cameras almost always state that people need to slow down and if they don't speed or break the law they don't have anything to worry about. The comments against included the following; my responses are in red: It should be noted that some of the comments were from social media trolls that are not from Dubuque. - Hire more police officers, instead of cameras. Hiring is a nationwide issue in law enforcement. Agencies are turning to technology to complete the mission of keeping communities safe. - Reduced tourism and commerce. This has not been shown in response to implementation in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids and is unlikely to occur in Dubuque. 0 It unfairly tracks or enforces on protected class drivers. ASE doesn't track anyone, as it is specific to a time and location of a vehicle. Unfair if I loan my car to someone. Owners of vehicles are already held accountable in the Iowa code when it comes to identifying drivers in crashes. Simply, owners know who they loan the car to and can hold them accountable. Rental companies have this as part of their agreements and simply charge it to the credit card that is on file. - The technology is unreliable or lies. There are checks and balances within the system. I want to take my chances with an officer (a. less likely to get caught and b. want the ability to "plead my case as to why I was speeding". ASE actually reduces the impact to the motorist and the 4t" amendment issue of potentially being seized. They are not proven. Numerous studies support the use of automated speed enforcement to reduce speeding, thus having an impact on crash avoidance and crash severity. In 2021, the ACLU of Iowa wrote a paper in opposition to traffic enforcement cameras. They state the data is conflicting, they don't protect against dangerous drivers, and automated traffic enforcement systems are revenue generators with no oversight as to where the money is spent. There is no due process since the owner of the vehicle receives the citation instead of the driver. The ACLU cited insufficient notices of the devices being used and issues around citations directly related to automated traffic light enforcement. The ACLU cites that vendors are not subject to open records laws, which can lead to misuse and abuse. Additionally, the ACLU notes the Big Brother approach to governing bodies using cameras to monitor driving behavior. I agree with many of the concerns of the ACLU. • Good data in the form of speed studies, crash data, and complaints about speeding is needed to properly identify locations. One of the benefits of the system, particularly in mobile ASE is that we can see data before the system issues citations. Simply, there does need to be oversight and transparency as to how ASE's are used, recognizing the balance between the privilege of driving and constitutional rights, transparency and oversight as to what vendors are doing and how the data is kept. Hence, a good ordinance with good policy is necessary. • The City Manager has stated the funds need to go into traffic safety initiatives. • Owners receiving a civil citation allows for two things. First, it is not tracking an individual. Second, the citation itself does not count against a driving record or insurance. As far as repeat offenders, while some people may find it acceptable to pay fines, most people do not want multiple fines. Dangerous drivers will still 7 be dangerous drivers no matter what the enforcement effort or the status of their driver's license. All violations are confirmed by a City of Dubuque police officer. • As far as tracking driver's behavior, ASE is a time and place device and does not "track" vehicles. Any vehicle with the above mentioned black box tracks driver behavior as do the cell phones often with the vehicle occupants, and the safe driving apps initiated by insurance companies to track behavior for purposes of accurate billing and credits for good behavior. Black box tracking, cell phone tracking, and insurance app tracking is all done by private entities with no oversight as to what they do with the data. One of the City Council requests was to create an ordinance. The City Legal Department has created an ordinance based upon best practice, case law, current law and with input from the previous sessions as instructed by the City Council and from comments from the community. Specific care is taken into account with the draft ordinance to allow for due process of the owner of the vehicle, to allow the owner to contest and challenge. Additionally, a sworn police officer must conduct a review of the ASE violation. Another issue that needed to be addressed within an ordinance was the possible inequity of fines and notice of speed. Signage and public announcements as to the locations of the cameras is one way to address the notice, but additionally, the City of Dubuque proposed ordinance allows for a warning for first offense, unless the speed is excessive or in a school or construction zone. The fine schedule as proposed in the ordinance is based upon a warning (courtesy waiver) for lower speed first time offenders except for speeds in construction zones and school zones. Additionally, in most circumstances, the second offense for lower speed offenders is eligible for a 50% fine reduction, and community service is available after third offense in some cases. Community service will be coordinated the City of Dubuque's Community Impact Division. The second component to this is to draft a policy to the use of ASE's. Some of the key components to a policy are as follows: - Locations based upon data (public safety need, using crash data, speed studies, traffic volume and complaints). - Locations that are not within 1000 feet of a speed change. - Complete transparency as to the locations and how to communicate that transparency such as social media, websites, and signage. - How many days of non -enforcement readings are required before "turning on" the enforcement? - What do to with revenues from the system? Traffic safety that has a budgetary impact has been proposed. This includes public safety, traffic calming, Safe Routes to Schools. - How to measure effectiveness? My proposal would be to provide a quarterly report to the City Council, in the first year, coupled with an annual report thereafter outlining the effectiveness. - Requirements of the vendor, such as a data retention policy, and what they can do with the data. RECOMMENDATION: My recommendation is to approve the proposed ordinance which allows us to begin the vendor selection which impacts the development of the policy. ASE's are not a standalone solution to traffic enforcement problems. In addition to the recommendation for ASE's, we have created traditional enforcement projects. Even with staffing being short, we have prioritized traffic enforcement. Patrol, when possible, will assign traffic enforcement officers during each shift. Starting in September, we asked each patrol lieutenant to conduct traffic enforcement projects on an overtime basis in the territories they oversee, using grant monies received from the Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau. Additionally, the Police Department is partnering with other enforcement agencies and projects, such as an ongoing Hwy 20 project that is being facilitated by the Iowa State Patrol and covers multiple counties and states. The Public Information Officer has begun a more proactive social media campaign about safety initiatives. This is coupled with the Department of Public Safety's safety campaigns about speed and crash reduction. Additionally, the City has approached traffic safety holistically through other safety methods in an effort to look to physical traffic calming solutions. An example of this is what was done with the Bryant School crossing on South Grandview. Other initiatives revolve around non -enforcement speed shields, flashing lights on signs, and crosswalk enhancements. However, these efforts do have a budgetary impact. None of these things individually accomplish the total goal of roadway safety. Simply, it comes down to a voluntary commitment on behalf of drivers to slow down, pay more attention and avoid distractions. However, when left unchecked these things become a problem. ACTION REQUESTED: I recommend approving of the proposed ordinance. E Prepared by: Crenna M. Srumwell, Esq. 300 Main Street Suite 330 Dubuque IA 52001 563 589-4381 ORDINANCE NO. 52 - 23 AMENDING TITLE 9 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 7 OPERATION, DIVISION 5 SPEED RESTRICTIONS BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 9-7-321.286 AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT REGARDING AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING AN AUTOMATED SPEED CITATION WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with information and opinions concerning Automated Speed Enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Dubuque City Council finds the use of Automated Speed Enforcement advances a multitude of public interests including but not limited to traffic safety, safety of emergency responders, acting as a police force multiplier, and as a cost effective mechanism for the enforcement of speed laws benefiting taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the use of Automated Speed Enforcement devices which capture license plate image(s) strikes a desirable balance between the above -stated public interests and privacy interests of the motoring public; and WHEREAS, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System is a cost effective means for determining ownership of vehicles detected as traveling in violation of speed laws within the City limits; and WHEREAS, the technology underlying Automated Speed Enforcement is reliable and its accuracy is verified by a police officer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA: Section 1. Title 9, Chapter 7, Division 5 of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following section: 9-7-321.286: AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT: A. General: In accordance with its police powers, the City may deploy, erect, or cause to have erected an automated speed enforcement system for capturing images of motor vehicles that violate speed laws by failing to obey the posted speed regulations within the City. The system may be managed by an Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor that owns and operates the requisite equipment. The police department shall retain supervisory control over the system. The Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall provide photographic and/or video images of any potential violations to the police department to review and, in the event the police department determines a vehicle was operated in violation of the City's speed ordinances, the police department shall direct that a notice of Automated Speed Citation be issued to the vehicle owner in accordance with this section. B. Definitions: 1. Automated Speed Citation shall mean a notice of violation generated in connection with the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 2. Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall mean the company or entity, if any, with which the City of Dubuque contracts to provide equipment and/or services in connection with the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 3. Automated Speed Enforcement System shall mean an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, electronic, or digital camera, a speed sensor, and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to automatically produce photographs, video, or digital images of each vehicle violating a speed limit ordinance. 4. Divided Highway shall mean a roadway that is separated by a median. 5. "Low or moderate income" also referred to as "LMI°, means an individual earning no more than eighty percent of the higher of the median family income of the county or the statewide nonmetropolitan area as determined by the latest United States department of housing and urban development, section 8 income guidelines. 6. Undivided Highway shall mean a roadway without median separation. 7. Vehicle Owner shall mean the person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of Transportation, or identified by any other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle detected violating a traffic ordinance by failing to obey a speed regulation within the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Iowa Department of Transportation or any other state vehicle registration office identifies a person or entity as the lessee of the vehicle, that lessee shall be the Vehicle Owner for purposes of this section. in the event a state registration office does not specify whether a person or entity listed on the registration for the vehicle is the owner or the lessee of the vehicle, any person or entity listed on that vehicle registration may be deemed the Vehicle Owner and held jointly and severally responsible for a violation of this section. C. Vehicle Owner Subject to Civil Fine for Automated Speed Citations: 1. If a vehicle is detected traveling at a speed above the posted limit, the Vehicle Owner shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled below in subsection 9-7-321.286(D). 2. Exemptions from this section are set forth in subsection 9-7-321.286(G) and shall not be considered violations for purposes of the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 3. In no event will an Automated Speed Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record. D. Notice of Automated Speed Citation; Fines: 1. Upon a Dubuque Police Officer's determination that the Automated Speed Enforcement System has detected a violation described in subsection 9-7- 321.286(C)(1), a notice of an Automated Speed Citation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each such violation recorded by the Automated Speed Enforcement System. The Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice within thirty (30) days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and readily discernable; the vehicle registration number; the violation alleged; the time, date, and location of the alleged violation; the applicable civil penalty; information as to the manner in which the Automated Speed Citation may be challenged; and that the basis of the notice is a photographic or video record generated by an Automated Speed Enforcement System. 2. Speed Zone Under 45 Miles Per Hour and Undivided Highways with Speed Zone 45 Miles Per Hour. Any violation of subsection 9-7-321.280(C)(1) which occurs in an area: a. With a speed limit under 45 miles per hour or b. On an Undivided Highway where the speed zone is 45 miles per hour shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled in the table below, and the civil penalty for any violation committed in a designated construction zone (as provided by the Code of Iowa), shall be doubled, as scheduled below, subject in any event to the statutory limit on civil penalties applicable to municipal infractions. <45 mph Speed Limit and Undivided High as with 45 miles per hour Speed Limit First Second Third & Fourth Offense Offense Offense Subsequent Third Offense Community Construction & School Over Speed Civil Civil Offenses Community Service Options - Zones Civil Penalties Limit (MPH) Penalties Penalties Civil Service Options LMI Individuals Penalties* ONLY 1-5 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $0 6 — 10 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $100 11 —15 $100 Courtesy $105 50 /o $150 Community Community 151 Offense: $200 2nd Offense: $250 Waiver reduction to Service Available Service Available 3rd & Subsequent: $300 $62.50 $125 $150 50% Community Community 151 Offense: $250 16 — 20 Courtesy Waiver redu$c75n to $175 Service Available Service Available 2"d Offense: $300 3rd & Subsequent: $350 21 — 25 $150 $175 $200 NIA Extra Community 1st Offense: $300 2nd Offense: $350 Service Required �d 3 & Subsequent: $400 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 NIA Extra Community 1s1 Offense: $350 2"d Offense: $400 Service Required �d 3 & Subsequent: $450 31 + $200 $225 $250 NIA Extra Community 151 Offense: $400 2"d Offense: $450 Service Required 3,d & Subsequent: $500 *After issuance of a First and Second offense all Third and Subsequent Offenses shall move into the civil penalty category for Third & Subsequent Offenses. 3. Divided Highways with a Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour or Higher. Any violation of subsection 9-7-321.286(C)(1) which occurs on a divided highway with a speed limit 45 miles per hour or higher shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled in the table below, and the civil penalty for any violation committed in a designated construction zone (as provided by the Code of Iowa), shall be doubled, as scheduled below, subject in any event to the statutory limit on civil penalties applicable to municipal infractions. Divided Highways with a Speed Limit 45 miles per hour or Higher First Second Third & Third Fourth Offense Over Speed Offense Offense Subsequent Offense Community Construction & Limit (MPH) Civil Civil Offenses Community Service Options School Zones Civil Penalties Penalties Civil Service - LMI Individuals Penalties Penalties* Options ONLY 1-5 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $0 6 —10 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $100 11 —15 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA $200 $125 $1550 50 % Community Community 15t Offense: $250 16 — 20 Courtesy reduction to $175 Service Service Available 2r'd Offense: $300 3rd & Subsequent: $350 Waiver Available Extra Communi75 ty 1s' Offense: $300 21 — 25 $150 $175 $200 NIA Service Required 350 31d & Suubsequend Offense:nt $400 Extra Community 1It Offense: $350 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 NIA Service Required �d2,,d Offense: $400 3 & Subsequent: $450 Extra Community 151 Offense: $400 31 + $200 $225 $250 NIA Service Required d2nd Offense: $450 3 & Subsequent: $500 `After issuance of a First and Second offense, all subsequent offenses shall move into the civil penalty category for Third & Subsequent Offenses. E. Challenging an Automated Speed Citation: Within thirty (30) days from the date appearing at the top of a notice of Automated Speed Citation sent to the Vehicle Owner, the Vehicle Owner may either pay the fee associated with the citation or challenge the citation by submitting a written challenge to the citation or requesting that a municipal infraction be filed pursuant to Iowa Code §364.22. Any such written challenge or request must be on a form specified by and available from the City as indicated on the notice and be sent to the City according to the instructions on that form. Upon receipt of a written challenge, a Dubuque Police Officer shall determine whether the citation should be rescinded. Within thirty (30) days after the City receives such a challenge, the City shall notify the Vehicle Owner whether the challenge to the Automated Speed Citation is successful, in which case, the citation shall be rescinded. Otherwise, the citation shall stand. Thereafter, the City may seek voluntary payment and/or file the citation as a municipal infraction against the Vehicle Owner, all as set forth in subsection (F) hereof. F. Failure to Timely Pay or Challenge Automated Speed Citation: If the recipient of an Automated Speed Citation does not either pay the fine by the due date stated on the original citation or successfully challenge the citation as provided herein, the City may file a municipal infraction against the Vehicle Owner in accordance with City Code § 1-4-2 and § 364.22 of the Code of Iowa, seeking judgment for the violation and the applicable civil penalty provided in subsections 9-7-321.286(C) and (D), plus state -mandated filing fees and court costs. If judgment is entered for the City in the municipal infraction proceeding, the City may, subject to applicable law, pursue enforcement of the judgment together with interest as permitted by law. Collection of the judgment may include referral to the State of Iowa Offset Program administered by the Department of Administrative Services, State Accounting Enterprise, or any similar subsequent agency. Notwithstanding the City's right to file a municipal infraction, the City may first seek voluntary payment of the fine by sending a written request for payment to the Vehicle Owner and/or referring the matter to a private service agent to conduct collection in accordance with all applicable law. G. Exemptions from Section 9-7-321.386: The following shall not be considered violations of this ordinance: 1. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the violation in question pursuant to City Code §9-7-321.285 or Chapter 321 of the Code of Iowa. 2. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen, provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle Owner at the time of the alleged violation. 3. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle. 4. The Dubuque Police Officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question was lawfully participating in a funeral procession. The foregoing list of exemptions from Section 9-7-321.286 shall not be construed as limiting the defenses available to challenge an Automated Speed Citation or defend against a municipal infraction. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Passed, approved, and adopted this 20th day of November, 2023. ra M. Cavan t M r Attest: Adrienne Breitfelder, Cit'-y Clerk Cedar Rapids Police Department Automated Traffic Enforcement Program 2021 Annual Report CEDAR RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 2021 ANNUAL REPORT INTRODUCTION Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) is a significant safety countermeasure that the City of Cedar Rapids utilizes to enhance traffic safety. Speeding and red-light running are the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes. Traffic crashes in high -risk locations pose a safety concern for first responders, as well as other motorists. The use of ATE systems result in measurable safety improvements in high -crash locations. Automated traffic enforcement systems are not intended to replace traditional traffic enforcement operations, but to provide an effective supplement. These systems also reduce the opportunity for bias -based policing by minimizing physical traffic stops. The information presented in this report will convey the considerable impact the ATE systems have had on roadway safety in the City of Cedar Rapids. HISTORY In March 2009, the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) sponsored a study through CTRE (Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University) which identified multiple safety countermeasures to mitigate traffic concerns at high -risk and high -crash locations, one of which was the use of automated traffic enforcement. As suggested, automated traffic enforcement systems were introduced into Cedar Rapids in 2010. In April 2017, the Iowa District Court ruled that the IDOT had authority to regulate automated traffic cameras on state -maintained roadways. Due to this ruling, ATE cameras on I-380 ceased operation in April 2017 with all other locations ceasing operation in September 2018. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in January 2019 that the IDOT did not have authority to prescribe to local law enforcement how to enforce traffic laws. The Cedar Rapids ATE program was re-established in July 2019 and all camera locations resumed operation. IMPACT OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT This report details the Automated Traffic Enforcement locations in the City of Cedar Rapids. The City of Cedar Rapids has ATE cameras at five intersections within the city that monitor red-light and speed violations, while four locations along northbound and southbound Interstate 380 monitor speed violations only. Crash data comparisons show a measurable improvement in crash totals and crash severity while the ATE systems are active. Motorists braking due to an Automated Traffic Enforcement system was not listed as a contributing driver behavior. Based on analysis of accident reports, the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions were following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. The following crash data summations detail the effectiveness of the ATE systems and highlight the necessity to continue utilizing these monitoring systems to promote safe driving habits and safe roadways. Page 2 of 11 CRASH DATA SUMMATION Interstate 380 - All Locations Northbound and Southbound As indicated in Table 1.1, the average crashes per month from May 2017 to June 2019 was 3.69, which decreased to 3.10 from July 2019 to December 2021. The average injury crashes per month also decreased by 24% from the pre -camera timeframe to post -camera timeframe. Table 1.1 Average number of crashes per month, pre and post camera activation NumberAverage of Crashes per Month Total Crashes Injury Property Damage Pre -Camera (5/17 - 6/19) 3.69 1.19 2.46 Post -Camera (7/19-12/21) 3.10 0.90 2.17 One fatal crash was recorded in 2021 on Interstate 380. This crash involved a wrong -way driver under the influence traveling southbound in the northbound lanes of Interstate 380. Table 1.2 Total number of State reported crashes on I-380 separated into categories based on severity of crash Fixed Speed Cameras on Interstate 380 Personal Injury vs Property Damage vs Fatal Crashes Property Number of Injury Year Fatal Crashes Damage Crashes Crashes Crashes 2011 32 9 0 23 +z 2012 36 15 0 21 c� A 2013 38 10 0 28 c� 2014 46 12 0 34 2015 46 10 0 36 v y 2016 50 9 1 40 a; 2017* 8 1 0 7 Total. •. 1 189 2017* 29 8 0 21 c� 2018 35 11 0 24 a A 2019* 32 12 1 19 U Total• • 31 1 • 2019* 20 6 0 14 c� CU 2020 32 8 0 24 p°. G 2021 41 13 1 27 U Total• * Data separated into pre and post camera activation for years where the ATE system was active a partial year. ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from May 2017 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Page 3 of 11 Table 1.3 Crash types, pre and post camera activation, with totalspeed violations issued on I-380 Fixed Speed Cameras on Interstate 380 Year Number of Crash Type Crashes 2011 32 10 - Non -Collision 8 - Rear End" 10 - Side Swipe 4 - Other/Unknown 2012 36 14 - Non -Collision 16 - Rear End' 5 - Side Swipe 1 - Other/Unknown 2013 38 10 - Non -Collision 11- Rear End' A 15 - Side Swipe 2 - Other/Unknown c� 24 - Non -Collision 10 - Rear End" U 2014 46 9 - Side Swipe 3 - Other/Unknown 0 2015 46 17 - Non -Collision 6 - Rear End" w 2 - Side Swipe 5 - Other/Unknown 2016 50 14 - Non -Collision 13 - Rear End" 9 - Side Swipe 14 - Other/Unknown 2017* 8 2 - Non -Collision 2 - Rear End" 3 - Side Swipe 1 - Other/Unknown 2017* 29 13 - Non -Collision 9 - Rear End" M 6 - Side Swipe 1 - Other/Unknown M 2018 35 16 - Non -Collision 8 - Rear End" 6 - Side Swipe 5 - Other/Unknown a� A 2019* 32 16 - Non -Collision 6 - Rear End" 9 - Side Swipe 1 - Other/Unknown 2019* 20 7 - Non -Collision 6 - Rear End" a� 5 - Side Swipe 2 - Other/Unknown 2020 32 11- Non -Collision 9 - Rear End" A 11- Side Swipe 1- Other/Unknown a" 25 - Non -Collision 5 - Rear End" 2021 41 9 - Side Swipe 2 - Other/Unknown * Data separated into pre and post camera activation for years where the ATE system was active a partial year. ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from May 2017 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. ^ Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 4 of 11 1st Avenue & loth Street East As indicated in Table 2.1, the total number of crashes has decreased in 2021 by 67% when compared to the total number of crashes in 2020 at the intersection of 1St Avenue and 101h Street East. Table 2.1 Total number of Year State reported crashes separated into categories based on severity of crash Intersection: lst Avenue . loth Number of Crashes Injury Crashes Property Crashes 2011 4 0 4 2012 12 0 12 2013 9 2 7 2014 13 3 10 2015 9 3 6 2016 5 2 3 2017 9 1 8 2018** 2 1 1 2019** 4 1 3 2020 6 2 4 2021 2 1 1 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Table 2.2 Crash types b ear Intersection: lst Avenue & loth Street East Year Crash Types 1 - Broadside 2 - Rear End' 2017 4 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 1 - Non -Collision 1 - Side Swipe, Same Direction 2018** 1 - Rear End^ 1 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 1 - Broadside 2 - Rear End" 2019** 1- Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2 - Broadside 3 - Rear End' 2020 1- Non -Collision 2021 1- Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 1 - Non -Collision ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. ^ Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 5 of 11 1St Avenue & L Street West As indicated in Table 3.1, the total number of crashes has decreased in 2021 by 50% when compared to the total number of crashes in 2020 at the intersection of 1St Avenue and L Street West. Table 3.1 Total number of Year State reported crashes separated Intersection: ls' Number of Crashes into categories based on severity Avenue & L Street West Injury Crashes of crash Property Crashes 2011 10 1 9 2012 6 1 5 2013 9 3 6 2014 8 2 6 2015 15 3 12 2016 18 2 16 2017 4 1 3 2018** 13 0 13 2019** 12 5 7 2020 6 0 6 2021 3 2 1 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Table 3.2 Crash ty es by year Intersection: 1st Avenue & L Street West Year Crash Types 2017 1 - Broadside 3 - Rear End' 3 - Broadside 4 - Rear End' 2018** 2 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2 - Improper Turn, Left 1- Side Swipe, Same Direction 1 - Non -Collision 1 - Broadside 3 - Rear End' 2019** 2 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 4 - Improper Turn, Right 2 - Side Swipe, Same Direction 2 - Rear End" 1- Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2020 2 - Improper Turn - Right 1 - Improper Turn - Left 2021 1 - Broadside 2 - Rear End' ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. ^ Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 6 of 11 Williams Boulevard SW & 16th Avenue SW As indicated in Table 4. 1, zero crashes were recorded in 2021 at the intersection of Williams Boulevard & 161h Avenue SW. Zero injury crashes have been recorded at this intersection in the last three years. Table 4.1 Total number of State reported crashes separated into categories based on severity of crash Year Williams Number of Crashes BoulevardIntersection: & 16thStreet Injury Crashes Property Crashes 2011 6 1 5 2012 7 0 7 2013 5 0 5 2014 6 0 6 2015 9 1 8 2016 7 2 5 2017 8 1 7 2018** 11 3 8 2019** 4 0 4 2020 5 0 5 2021 0 0 0 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Table 4.2 Crash types by year Year BoulevardIntersection: Williams & 16thStreet Crash Types 2017 6 - Rear End,' 2 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2018** 5 - 2 - Rear End 4 Side Swipe, Same Direction - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2019** 2 - 1 - Rear End 1 Side Swipe, Same Direction - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2020 1 - Rear End 4 - Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2021 0 - Crashes ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. ^ Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 7 of 11 Edgewood Road & 42nd Street NE As indicated in Table 5.1, there was one crash in 2021 at the intersection of Edgewood Road and 42nd Street NE. This is an increase from zero crashes in 2020, but a steady decrease in crashes at this location has been recorded since 2011. Table 5.1 Total number of State reported crashes separated into categories based on severity of crash Year Intersection: Edgewood Number of Crashes Road Injury Crashes Property Crashes 2011 7 2 5 2012 4 1 3 2013 4 1 3 2014 6 3 3 2015 3 1 2 2016 6 1 5 2017 4 3 1 2018** 3 0 3 2019** 4 1 3 2020 0 0 0 2021 1 1 0 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Table 5.2 Crash ty es by year Intersection: Year Edgewood Road & 42nd Street NE Crash Types 2017 4 - Rear End" 2018** 3 - Rear End" 2019** 3 - Rear End" 1- Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2020 0 - No Crashes 2021 1- Rear End" ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. A Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 8 of 11 Center Point Road & Collins Road Ramp As indicated in Table 6.1, the total number of crashes in 2021 was the same as the total number of crashes in 2020 at the intersection of Center Point Road and Collins Road Ramp. The single crash in 2021 was a property damage crash with zero injury crashes recorded in 2021. Table 6.1 Total number of State reported crashes separated into categories based on severity of crash Year Intersection:1 1 1 & CollinsRoad Number of Crashes Injury Crashes Ramp Property Crashes 2011 3 0 3 2012 2 0 2 2013 2 0 2 2014 6 3 3 2015 3 0 3 2016 3 0 3 2017 4 1 3 2018** 5 3 2 2019** 5 0 5 2020 1 1 0 2021 l 0 1 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. Table 6.2 Crash types by year Intersection:I 1 1 & CollinsRoad Ramp Year Crash Types 2017 3 Broadside 1 — Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2018** 4 — Broadside 1 — Improper Turn 3 — Broadside 1 — Rear End' 2019** 1 — Angle Oncoming, Left Turn 2020 1 — Broadside 2021 1 — Broadside ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused the inactive period for this location from September 2018 to June 2019. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways in July 2019. ^ Crash data analysis reports the top three contributing factors for rear end collisions as following too close, failure to maintain control, and excessive speed. Page 9 of 11 CITATION TOTALS The following table displays the total red-light and speed citations issued at all ATE monitored locations from 2011 through 2021. Table 7.1 Total red-light and speed citations issued each calendar year CITATION TOTALS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 72020 2021 1ST Avenue & 10th Street ** Speed 491 374 663 1,252 1,593 2,101 893 41 7 2,774 12,859 Red -Light 293 541 412 696 700 811 1,111 1,046 610 847 879 TOTAL 784 915 1,075 1,948 2,293 2,912 2,004 1,087 617 3,621 13,738 1st Avenue & L Street ** Speed 476 578 586 561 760 883 1,240 674 429 922 1,327 Red -Light 400 929 647 428 447 417 717 612 531 1,206 1,371 TOTAL 876 1,507 1,233 989 907 1,300 1,957 1,286 960 2,128 2,698 Williams Boulevard & 16th Street SW ** Speed 1,107 1,101 1,322 985 1,355 1,400 1,021 620 100 303 2,240 Red -Light 425 509 637 379 373 434 316 195 103 351 621 TOTAL 1,532 1,610 1,959 1,364 1,728 1,834 1,337 815 203 654 2,861 Edgewood Road & 42nd Street NE ** Speed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,059 3,819 1,482 1,301 3,076 1,684 Red -Light 327 441 402 355 392 715 TOTAL --- --- --- --- --- 2,386 4,260 1,884 1,656 3,468 2,399 Center Point Road & Collins Road Ramp ** Speed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 964 932 525 236 162 762 Red -Light 0 0 5 18 410 1,247 TOTAL --- --- --- --- --- 964 932 530 254 572 2,009 Interstate 380 - Diagonal Drive SW Northbound ** Speed TOTAL 9190 10,109 4,218 8,249 10,775 12,161 3,621 0 10,831 17,492 24,889 Interstate 380 - J Avenue Northbound ** Speed 36 775 35,327 36,069 39,402 62,016 73,217 22,605 0 49,568 70,310 62,047 TOTAL Interstate 380 - J Avenue Southbound ** Speed 44,775 38,052 44,529 56,650 57,265 56,879 16,706 0 55,206 74,162 76,544 TOTAL Interstate 380 -1st Avenue West Southbound ** Speed TOTAL 1226 986 1,234 770 1,186 1,591 506 0 1,201 1,552 2,045 ** In April 2017, Iowa District Court ruled that IDOT had authority to regulate Automated Traffic Enforcement on state -maintained roadways. This caused inactive periods April 2017 through June 2019 on Interstate 380 and September 2018 through June 2019 for all other locations. Subsequently, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed this ruling in January 2019, reactivating the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement on state - maintained roadways in July 2019. --- Citation totals are not available for this timeframe. Page 10 of 11 ATE SYSTEM CALIBRATION Sensys Gatso, the City's third -party contractor, conducted annual calibration of each monitored lane of northbound and southbound Interstate 380 on October 11, 2021. Annual calibration for all other intersections within the city were conducted between the dates of September 9, 2021 and September 14, 2021. The Cedar Rapids Police Department conducted quarterly calibration verification for all reported ATE systems on the following dates: • February 2021 • May 2021 • August 2021 • December 2021 I :� Dif"di 11 DI:\ i 1tKIM"I D The City of Cedar Rapids partners with Sensys Gatso USA Inc. to assist with administering the Automated Traffic Enforcement Program. • For red light citations, Sensys Gatso receives $22.00 per paid citation and the City of Cedar Rapids receives $78.00 per paid citation. • For speed citations, Sensys Gatso receives $20.00 per paid citation. The amount the City of Cedar Rapids receives for speed citations varies depending upon the citation's value. Table 8.1 provides the percentage of citations that have been paid in full since the program was reinstated in July 2019. Table 8.1 Total number of active citations and citations from lulv 2019 through December 2021 Total Active Citations 483,804 Total Paid Citations 279,859 Percentage of Citations Paid 1 57.85% 1 Revenue generated from the Automated Traffic Enforcement Program is directed to public safety. The budgeted revenue for Fiscal Year 2021 was $5,575,000. This includes: • Funding for 27 police officer positions ($3,303,000) • ATE Service Provider and Collection Costs ($1,394,000) • Public safety equipment ($628,000) • Social justice programs ($250,000) For additional information about the Cedar Rapids Automated Traffic Enforcement Program, visit www.cityofcr.com/ate or contact the Automated Traffic Enforcement Coordinator, Hannah Myrom, at 319- 286-5716. Page 11 of 11 AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT 1 PROGRAM CHECKLIST For red light cameras and automated speed enforcement Automated enforcement is an effective tool to make roads safer. Research shows that red light cameras reduce violations and injury crashes, especially the violent front -into -side crashes most associat- ed with red light running. Speed cameras have been shown to reduce vehicle speeds, crashes, injuries and fatalities. Both types of programs should be designed, implemented and administered properly. Poorly run programs are less likely to be durable and may undermine support for automated enforcement generally. Speed and red light camera programs augment traditional enforce- ment to improve traffic safety by deterring dangerous driving be- haviors. Automated enforcement does not require traffic stops, and well -designed programs can improve safety for all road users in a neutral manner. Successful programs are transparent and have a strong public infor- mation component. Communities should take into account racial and economic equity when making decisions about camera placement and fines. Automated enforcement programs should be data -driven and should prioritize safety, not revenue. In fact, communities should expect that revenue will decline over time as fewer drivers run red lights or violate speed limits. This checklist assumes your community is already legally authorized to set up a program. It provides a minimum list of considerations to help you follow best practices. The goal is to operate a successful program that reduces crashes and prevents deaths and injuries while maintaining strong public support. Automated enforcement can be in- tegrated into broader efforts to discourage unsafe driving that include optimizing speed limits for safety and improving roadway design. ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY \ & AUTO SAFETY Governors Highway Safey Assoriarion.,. LSD I The Stages' Voice on Highway Safety :.nsc National Safety Council O FIRST STEPS ❑ Identify problem intersections and roadways. • Assess violation and crash data. • Conduct field observations. • Collect resident and roadway user input. ❑ Consider what role automated enforcement should play as part of a comprehensive traffic safety strategy. ❑ Make any engineering or signage changes needed to improve drivers' compliance with the law. • Ensure the road geometry conforms with guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, National Association of City Transportation Officials guidance or state road design manuals, as appropriate. • Remove sightline obstructions of signals and signage. For red light cameras: • Ensure that yellow light timing conforms to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines. For automated speed enforcement: • Ensure the speed limit is appropriate and accounts for all road users. Follow guidance and use tools from the Federal Highway Administration, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the National Association of City Transportation Officials. • Ensure the speed limit is appropriate for special conditions, such as work zones and school zones. • Assess whether engineering changes could be made to promote compliance with the speed limit. • Ensure adequate posting of speed limits. ❑ Establish an advisory committee comprised of stakeholders. • Consider including law enforcement, transportation department employees, victim advocates, equity and civil rights advocates, school officials, community residents, first responders, health officials and the courts. • Outline the committee's role. This may include developing guiding principles related to safety, equity, and transparency, as well as other aspects of the program. • Ensure committee meetings are open to the public and deliberations are transparent. ❑ Meet with the media, including newspaper editorial boards, to build support and educate the public. SECOND STEPS ❑ Make program design decisions, consulting with the advisory committee as appropriate. Program design considerations Target violations with the greatest safety consequences. For example, you might decide not to ticket for right -turn -on -red violations when pedestrians, bicyclists, and oncoming vehicles are not present or to limit violations in work zones to when workers are present, provided the road configuration has not also been altered for construction. Establish a reasonable fine structure. Create options for indigent violators such as payment plans or other alternatives. Establish a threshold that must be crossed before a vehicle is photographed for a violation of red light running or speeding (i.e., a period after a light turns red or a certain mph over the posted speed). The point is to target flagrant, rather than marginal, infractions. Programs should include a process for evidence review by appropriately trained personnel to determine if a violation occurred and issue a citation if warranted. Establish clear procedures for contesting an alleged violation. Consider options to contest online or by mail. When possible, red light camera violations should be recorded in real time video, and videos of the offense should be made available to the vehicle owner for review via the Internet. Fines in excess of program costs should be allocated to transportation safety programs. ❑ Use safety data gathered in the first steps to determine camera locations, ensuring that particular neighborhoods are neither overlooked nor overrepresented. ❑ Publicize the extent of the safety problem and the need for innovative solutions. ❑ Secure a vendor and establish payment based on the vendor's actual costs, not the number of citations. ❑ Publicize procedures for contesting an alleged violation. ❑ Create a website and social media plan to publicize program de- tails, such as how to pay and dispute tickets. Establish a method for answering questions accurately and in a timely manner. ❑ Develop an emergency action plan for handling problems, such as system malfunctions. O IMPLEMENTATION ❑ Hold a kickoff event with advisory committee members. Introduce a well -developed and sustained public education campaign focused on improving safety by changing driver attitudes and behavior. ❑ Connect the program to overall roadway safety in the community and identify the goal of zero tickets resulting from changes in driver behaviors. Install prominent warning signs. ❑ Start with a probationary period during which only warnings are issued. 71 Follow current guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation for implementation and operation of automated enforcement devices. ❑ Allow for due process. Minimize the number of days between the violation and citation issuance. Q LONGTERM ❑ Publicize changes, including new camera locations. Reinstate the probationary period before ticketing begins at new locations. Monitor program operation and publicize results. Undertake peri- odic reviews and ensure racial, economic and other equity issues and public concerns are addressed. Require regular field reviews. Verify monthly camera calibration and synchronization with signals. ❑ Require regular evaluations of the traffic safety benefits of the program by collecting crash and infraction data. Before -and -after comparisons must use control intersections and roadways. Include control intersections and roadways that are not subject to spillover effects. ❑ Regularly meet with the advisory committee and media to review program status and sustain public support. ❑ Continue to improve programs based on new and updated guidance and best practices and look for opportunities to expand automated enforcement use. ❑ Consider other changes, including roadway design improvements, in order to reduce opportunities for unsafe driving. AAA I Advocates for Highway Safety I Governors Highway Safety Association IIHS-HLDI I National Safety Council May 2021 5/18/23, 11:05 AM Transportation Safety ■❑ ■❑ 7 Automated Speed Camera Enforcement I Transportation Safety I Injury Center I CDC 0� Transportatlu, , Datecy Automated Speed Camera Enforcement A speed camera is a form of automated enforcement of traffic safety laws. Speed cameras photograph a vehicle's license plate if the driver is speeding, and the vehicle owner or driver is sent a ticket.' Mobile speed cameras are often used to cover multiple road segments, unlike red light cameras, which are used only at intersections. Automated speed camera enforcement should be used to aid traditional enforcement efforts or in locations where traffic stops are impractical or unsafe.' Effectiveness and Use of Automated Speed Camera Enforcement The relationship between driving speed and the risk of a crash and/or fatality is well established.',' In 2019, 26% of all motor vehicle fatalities occurred in crashes in which at least one driver was speeding.3 In the same year, results from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Crash Report Sampling System, a sample of police -reported crashes, found speeding was involved in 12% of crashes resulting in injuries/fatalities and 9% of property -damage -only crashes.' Increased travel speeds as a result of increasing speed limits have a detrimental impact on fatality rates.2 One study analyzed 1982-1989 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data to estimate the impact of the speed limit being raised from 55 to 65 mph on rural interstates in many states during 1987-1988. This study found an increase in the fatality risk corresponding to approximately one rural interstate fatality per day in 1989 being attributable to the increased speed limit.' Another study analyzed FARS data and estimated that 33,000 traffic fatalities would have been prevented if maximum speed limits had stayed the same from 1995-2013 instead of increasing.' Automated speed camera enforcement is effective in reducing speed and speed -related crashes. In a Cochrane review of studies through 2010 evaluating speed cameras, all studies measuring speed or speeding saw reductions when the cameras were present.6 All studies in the Cochrane review measuring crashes also showed reductions when the cameras were present.6 More recent research has also found reductions in speeding or injury crashes when cameras were present.'-' For example, a 2016 study reported on the results of a comprehensive evaluation of an automated speed camera enforcement program in Montgomery County, Maryland.8 The evaluation was conducted seven and a half years after the introduction of the speed cameras to residential streets and school zones. Relative to comparable sites without cameras, sites with cameras saw a decrease in mean speeds, a decrease in the likelihood that a driver was driving at more than ten miles per hour above the speed limit, and a reduction in the likelihood of a crash resulting in an incapacitating or fatal injury.' In a phone survey of drivers in the community, 95% were aware of the speed cameras, and 76% of those aware had reduced their speeds because of the cameras.8 Recent or Current Legislation by State You can visit the automated enforcement laws by state Z web page on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's website for up-to-date information on automated speed camera enforcement by state.' Costs of Automated Speed Camera Enforcement and Time to Implement Camera equipment may be purchased, leased, or operated by a vendor.' Most jurisdictions work with vendors to install cameras, process images, and issue citations.' Costs of implementation depend on equipment type, program characteristics, and vendor negotiations. Vendor payments are made either on a set monthly basis or based on the number of citations.' Several studies have found net cost benefits to society for the use of speed cameras.' It generally requires up to nine months for full automated speed camera enforcement implementation after any relevant legislation has been enacted.' https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/speed.html 1/2 5/18/23, 11:05 AM Automated Speed Camera Enforcement I Transportation Safety I Injury Center I CDC Other Issues and Resources In a report for the Governors Highway Safety Association, equitably implemented and transparent automated enforcement was recommended as a strategy to advance racial equity in traffic enforcement.10 You can read Chapter 3, Section 2.1 of NHTSA's Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices ® [� (Tenth Edition, 2020) to learn more about the topics above or other issues related to speed camera enforcement, such as variation in state laws, differential public acceptance (e.g., higher support of use around school zones), positive or negative spillover effects, average speed over distance enforcement, and enforcement thresholds.' You can read the RAND Corporation's final reports for MV PICCS 1.0/2.0 [, and MV PICCS 3.0 Ell for more information about how effectiveness and costs were incorporated into the MV PICCS tool for this intervention. History Each state is responsible for setting its own maximum speed limit laws.2 In 1901, Connecticut was the first state to pass a law regulating the speed of motor vehicles." In 1973, a national maximum speed limit of 55 mph was established using restrictions on federal funding for states.2 However, speed limits have increased since the relaxation of the law in 1987 to allow for speed limits of up to 65 mph on rural interstates and the repeal of the law in 1995.2 The first speed cameras in the United States were installed in 1987 in the Peoria and Paradise Valley communities in Arizona.2 As of January 2022, 171 communities in 18 states and the District of Columbia use automated speed camera enforcement.12 See above for current legislation. References 1. Venkatraman, V., Richard, C. M., Magee, K., & Johnson, K. (2021). Countermeasures that work: A highwaysafety countermeasures guide for State Highway Safety Offices. (Report No. DOT HS 813 097). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021- 09/15100-Countermeasures10th-080621-v5-tag.pdf ® [, 2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, & Highway Loss Data Institute. (2021). Speed. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed C", . Accessed on 1 /27/2022. 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2021). Quick facts 2019. (Report No. DOT HS 813 124). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813124 [", 4. Baum, H. M., Wells, J. K., & Lund, A. K. (1991). The fatality consequences of the 65 mph speed limits, 1989. journal of Safety Reseach, 22(4), 171-177. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002243759190027S [i 5. Farmer, C. M. (2017). Relationship of traffic fatality rates to maximum state speed limits. Traffic Injury Prevention, 18(4), 375-380. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2016.1213821 [, 6. Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J. K., Le Brocque, R., & Bellamy, N. (2010). Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11). https://www.cochranelibra ry.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/fuII Eli 7. Kloeden, C., Mackenzie, J., & Hutchinson, T. (2018). Analysis of crash data from safety camera intersections in South Australia. (CASR143). Adelaide, South Australia, Australia: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publications/list/?id=1723 C, 8. Hu, W., & McCartt, A. T. (2016). Effects of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland, on vehicle speeds, public opinion, and crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 17Suppl 1, 53-58. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2016.1189076 [, 9. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, & Highway Loss Data Institute. (2022). Automated enforcement laws. https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running/automated-enforcement-laws Ci . Accessed on 1/27/2022. 10. Kimley-Horn, & Governors Highway Safety Association. (2021). Equity in highway safety enforcement and engagement programs ® Z . Governors Highway Safety Association 11. CT Humanities. (2020). Setting speed limits - today in history: May 21. https://connecticuthistory.org/setting-speed-Iimits- today-in-history-may-21 / [, . Accessed on 1 /26/2022. 12. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, & Highway Loss Data Institute. (2022). U.S. Communities using speed cameras. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-camera-communities L,'] . Accessed on 1 /27/2022. Page last reviewed: February 28, 2022 https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/speed.html 2/2 Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths: Costly But Preventable Motor vehicle crashes and their resulting injuries COST OF TRAFFIC DEATHS BY TYPE OF ROAD USER are preventable; state -level changes are especially $312M IOWA Motor Vehicle effective for prevention. Occupants 73% TAKING ACTION CAN SAVE LIVES In 2018, about 340 people in Iowa were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Iowa can consider the following proven strategies, and the enforcement of related policies, to save lives and money: • A primary enforcement seat belt law that covers all seating positions • Child passenger safety laws that require proper car seat and booster seat use until at least age 9 • Publicized sobriety checkpoints to assess for driver impairment • A graduated driver licensing (GDL) system that includes: • A minimum age of 16 for obtaining a learner's permit • Restrictions against nighttime driving between 10:00 pm and 5:00 am (or longer) • A limit of zero or one young passenger allowed in the vehicle • A minimum age of 18 for lifting both nighttime driving and young passenger restrictions $66M Motorcyclists 15% $43M Pedestrians $7M' 1- Bicyclists 2% Source: CDC WISQARS (Web -based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System), 2018 'Cost is based on fewer than 20 deaths and may be unstable. COST OF TRAFFIC DEATHS BY AGE GROUP IOWA $17M Older Aduli 4% $15M* Children 3% $60M Teens 13% 198M ig Adults 43% Children: 0-14, Teens: 15-19, Young Adults: 20-34, Adults: 35-64, Older Adults: 65, Source: CDC WISQARS, 2018 "Cost is based on fewer than 20 deaths and may be unstable. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Working together, we can help keep people safe on the road —every day. National Center for Injury www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/statecosts Prevention and Control Nebraska Iowa Kansas Missouri Total population in 2018 Traffic crash death costs in 2018 1.9M $349M 3.2M $463M 2.9M $571M UM $1.31 i3 The cost figures presented in the fact sheets are based on information collected by each individual state.There may be differences between states' methods of collection and categorization of these data. PREVENTION SAVES MONEY The best way to reduce motor vehicle crash costs is to prevent crashes. Some effective strategies for preventing crashes include: • automated red-light and speed -camera enforcement • comprehensive graduated driver licensing systems • publicized sobriety checkpoints • mandatory ignition interlocks for all (including first-time) offenders convicted of alcohol -impaired driving The next best way to reduce costs is to prevent injuries when crashes occur. Proven ways to prevent injuries during a crash include: • high -visibility enforcement of seat belt and child restraint laws • primary seat belt laws for all seating positions • laws that require car seat or booster seat use for children until at least age 9 • distribution plus education programs for car seats and booster seats • bicycle helmet laws for children For more information about these and other effective programs,visit www.cdc.gov/motorvehiciesafety. CDC'S COST ESTIMATE TOOLS CDC's interactive calculator, MV PICCS (Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States), was designed to help decision makers prioritize and select from a suite of 14 effective motor vehicle injury prevention interventions. At the state level, MV PICCS calculates the expected number and monetized value of injuries prevented and lives saved and the costs of implementation, while taking into account available resources.Visit www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator. CDC's Web -based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISOARS) is an online, interactive system that provides reports of injury -related data. To find the costs of various injury deaths and WISQARS : nonfatal injuries, visitwww.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. July 2020 11115123, 4:17 PM PBOT begins installing new safety cameras across Portland, a milestone for the city's Vision Zero traffic safety program I Portlan.. _ Home / Transportation / News PBOT begins installing new safety cameras across Portland, a milestone for the city's Vision Zero traffic safety program Press Release The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), in partnership with the Portland Police Bureau, is expanding the city's use of cameras in traffic enforcement as part of the Vision Zero program to end traffic deaths. Published: October 5, 2023 3:09 pm Updated: October 5, 2023 3:14 pm N A PBOT contractor installs a speed safety camera on a high crash corridor. More cameras are coming soon to Portland's most dangerous streets and intersections, Photo by PBOT. (Oct 5, 2023) The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), in partnership with the Portland Police Bureau, is expanding the city's use of cameras in traffic enforcement as part of the Vision Zero program to end traffic deaths. Today there are 20 cameras operating and issuing citations (or warnings) in Portland. By the end of 2023, the city's contractor expects to have at least eight additional cameras operational. Up to 12 more cameras are in design and should be constructed next year. The bureaus' contractors are installing speed safety cameras, which are mounted to a pole and enforce speed limits. They're also installing intersection safety cameras, which provide enforcement of speed limits and red-light compliance. In addition, some longstanding red-light cameras will be upgraded to enforce both infractions. Contact PBOT Speed Safety Cameras 0 fixedspeedsafetycamera@portiandore J 503-221-0415 Related Speed and intersection safety, cameras How we are making streets safe through Vision Zero Vision Zero dashboard Topics Transportation and roads https://www.portland.gov/transportation/newst2023/10/5[pbot-begins-instailing-new-safety-cameras-across-portland-milestone 114 1105123, 4:17 PM PBOT begins installing new safety cameras across Portland, a milestone for the city's Vision Zero traffic safety program I Portlan... Contractors install cameras along high crash corridors and at some of Portland's most dangerous intersections to reduce dangerous driving behaviors and prevent traffic deaths and serious injuries. In total, the city will soon operate 40 safety cameras throughout Portland. "With more traffic enforcement, we can send a strong signal that the reckless driving we've all seen in recent years is unacceptable in Portland," said City Commissioner Mingus Mapps, who oversees PBOT. "These cameras are a tremendous supplement to the essential work of our Portland police officers. With more enforcement, and more investment in rebuilding our streets to make there safer for everyone, we can get people to slow down and drive safer." "With these cameras, we are giving people a strong incentive to slow down and drive more safely," PBOT Director Millicent Williams said. "We have seen a decisive drop in dangerous driving very soon after we added camera enforcement on several high crash corridors, so I am eager to grow this program as quickly as possible. With Vision Zero as our guide, we need a communitywide effort, and we need to use every tool available, if we are to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths in Portland." Camera enforcement and PBOT's budget Camera enforcement does not help address PBOT's current financial crisis, the bureau's $32 million annual budget shortfall, and the likelihood of layoffs July 1. By state law, about 70% of the net revenue from citations goes to the state, and most of it to the Criminal Fine Account, which pays for public safety, criminal injury compensation for victims, and forensic services. Since the speed camera enforcement program started in 2015, it has not generated revenue for transportation, beyond the cost of installing and operating the cameras themselves. Any funds that reach the city are required to be spent on traffic safety programs or improvements. Delivering traffic safety tools to Portland's most dangerous streets and intersections Cameras are operational or coming soon on some of the busiest, most dangerous streets and intersections in Portland, including: 82nd Avenue, SE Foster Road, SE Powell Boulevard, SE stark Street, E Burnside Street, NE 122nd Avenue, NE Broadway, NE Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard, NE Columbia Boulevard, NE Glisan Street, NE Halsey Street, NE Killingworth Street, NE Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, NE Sandy Boulevard, and SW Barbur Boulevard. For the full list and updates, visit VisionZeroPortland.com/SafetyCameras. To give drivers an opportunity to adjust to change, the bureaus at first send warning letters. After the warning period, the Portland Police Bureau and PBOT https://www.portland.gov/transportation/news/2023/10/5/pbot-begins-instal ling-new-safety-cameras-across-porland-milestone 214 11115/23, 4:17 PM PBOT begins installing new safety cameras across Portland, a milestone for the city's Vision Zero traffic safety program I Portlan... issue citations. Speeding citations range in fines from $170 to $440. Red-light running citations result in a $265 fine. New signage ahead of all speed safety cameras will warn drivers about the new cameras. Commonly used travel apps also warn travelers about the presence of cameras. Speeding is deadly and automated enforcement is a proven tool In a 2018 scientific survey of 400 Portlanders conducted by DHM Research, 75% of respondents expressed support for safety cameras to enforce speed limits on streets with high crash rates. Portland's speed safety cameras have demonstrated a significant reduction in speeding. A 2020 speed study showed a 94% decrease in top end speeding (11 mph or more over the speed limit) from 2016 to 2020 on all four corridors where PBOT had speed safety cameras installed. Speeding is a top contributing factor to deadly crashes across the Portland region. Traveling at excessive speeds increases the likelihood that a crash will occur and increases the severity of crashes when they do happen. The faster people drive, the longer it takes them to react to and to bring their vehicle to a stop once they have hit the brakes. For more than 20 years, Portland Police have used cameras in police vans, staffed by officers, to provide speed enforcement, moving them from place to place. PBOT led the effort to change state law in 2015 to allow Portland to also use cameras permanently mounted on posts to provide speed enforcement, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. PBOT leads citywide efforts to achieve Vision Zero, the city's goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries on city streets. With the understanding that all hftps://www.portland.gov/transportationlnewsl2023/10/5/pbot-begins-installing-new-safety-cameras-across-portiand-milestone 314 11115/23, 4:17 PM PBOT begins installing new safety cameras across Portland, a milestone for the city's Vision Zero traffic safety program I Portlan... traffic fatalities are preventable, Vision Zero calls for the use of proven safety methods such as photo radar cameras for speed enforcement to reduce speeding - - one of the leading causes of deaths and serious injuries on our streets. Learn more about Vision Zero at VisionZeroPortland.com. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) is the steward of the city's transportation system, and a community partner in shaping a livable city. We plan, build, manage and maintain an effective and safe transportation system that provides access and mobility. Learn more at Portland.gov/transportation hftps://www.portland.gov/transportation/news/2D23/10/51pbot-begins-installing-new-safety-cameras-across-portland-milestone 4/4 at&Congresskwwi 91 Research Service Cnfarming the legislative debwe since 1914 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras September 28, 2020 Congressional Research Service https:Hcrsreports.congres s.gov R46552 GREREPORT Prepared for Wmbers and Cow millees of Congress — Congressional Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras R46552 September28, 2020 Traffic safety, defined as the rate oftraffic-related deaths and injuries per mile driven, has greatly improved in the United States over the past several decades. Yet, motorvehiclecrashes remain David Randall Peterman one oftheprimary causes of'premature death, and the leading cause of'death for those underage Analyst in Transportation 30, with around 37,000people being killed each year andmillions suffering injuries. These Policy crashes result in estimated overall costs ofhundreds ofbillions ofdollars eachyear. Speeding is a contributing factor in over 9,000 deaths annually. In -person enforcement is the most common formof speed enforcement in the United States. It has several limitations; law enforcement officers are able to stop only as mall proportion of speeders. Road design and traffic conditions can make roadside stops difficult, and stops can be dangerous for both the driver and the law enforcement officer, who are at risk from being struckby passing vehicles as wellas from each other. Similarly, officers are rarely on the scene when a motorist runs a red light. Automated traffic enforcement (ATE), such as cameras that capture images ofvehicles that are traveling above the speed limit orrunnings top lights, addresses several ofthe limitations ofin-person speed and red light enforcement: such systems can monitor thousands ofcars an hour, are consistent and tireless, and do notput drivers or law enforcement officers at risk during the ticketing process. They raise other issues: their use has been challenged on legal grounds; some studies have found that while red light cameras reduce the number ofright-angle crashes, they may increase the number ofrear-end collisions; and ATEsystems often incite complaints thatthey are being usedto raise revenue rather than to promote safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recommended thatATE systems be used to supplement, not replace, in -person speed enforcement. Evidence fromother countries, where ATE systems are widely used, suggests that ATE can bean effective means of reducing the numberofvehicle crashes and deaths and injuries without compromis ing mobility. In the United States, adoption ofATE has been more limited; out oftens ofthousands oflocaljurisdictions, approximately 150 communities are currently using speed cameras and around 340 are using red light camera systems. States and the federal government have acted to limit the use ofATE systems. Eight states prohibit speed cameras and red light cameras, and another two dozen or so haveno specific legislationto support the implementation ofATE. Ofthe states that do have enabling legislation, many strictly limit the locations where such systems can be installed; often they are permitted only in school zones, which are typically not problem spots for speed -related crashes. Congress has prohibited states fromusing any oftheir federal transportation funding to fund ATE systems, except in schoolzones. The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have called for creation ofa grant programto encourage states to address speeding. As Congress considers reauthorization of surface transportation programs, it might address speeding; such a program could encourage the use of automated enforcement. Other options for Congress include altering restrictions on use offederal funds for ATE, providing states with incentives to change the legal status ofATEviolations, and directing NHTSA to update its guidelines on automated speed enforcement, which date to 2008. Congressional Research Service Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Speeding........................................................................................................................ I The Location of Speed -Related Crashes........................................................................2 Links Between Speeding and Other Risky Behaviors...................................................... 3 DeterringSpeeding....................................................................................................4 RedLight Running.......................................................................................................... 6 AutomatedEnforcement.................................................................................................. 7 Automated Speed Enforcement.................................................................................... 8 Use of Speed Cameras in Other Countries................................................................ 9 Speed Camera Usage in the United States................................................................ 9 NHTSA Guidelines for Speed Camera Systems....................................................... 12 Red Light Camera Programs........................................................................................... 12 Use of Red Light Camera Enforcement.................................................................. 13 Automated Traffic Enforcement Issues.................................................................. 14 Issuesfor Congress....................................................................................................... 15 Restrictions on Use of Federal Funds.......................................................................... 15 Speed Management Incentive Grants.......................................................................... 16 State Restrictions on Use of ATE................................................................................ 16 Legal Status of ATE Violations.................................................................................. 17 Direct DOT to Update its Operational Guidelines......................................................... 18 Figures Figure 1. Vehicles in Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit, 2017...................................................... 3 Figure 2. States Where Speed or Red Light Cameras Are in Use, 2020.................................... 7 Figure 3. Trend in Communities Using Automated Speed Enforcement ................................. 10 Contacts AuthorInformation....................................................................................................... 18 Congressional Research Service Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Introduction Traffic safety, when defined as the rate of traffic -related deaths and injuries per mile driven, has greatly improved in the United States over the past several decades. However, it remains the case that motor vehicle crashes are one of the primary causes of death in the United States, with around 37,000 people dying and millions suffering injuries each year;' traffic crashes are the leading cause of death of people under age 30.2 It is estimated that these crashes result in overall costs of hundreds of billions of dollars each year.3 In 1990 the United States had one of the lowest rates of traffic deaths per mile in the world. Since then, many other countries with auto -centric transportation systems have improved their highway safety performance such that they now have lower traffic death rates than the United States.4 Evidence from other countries suggests that automated traffic enforcement (ATE), such as cameras that record vehicles traveling above the speed limit or running stop lights, can be an effective means of reducing vehicle crashes and deaths and injuries without compromising mobility.5 ATE has not been adopted widely in the United States, and both states and Congress have put limitations on its use. This report examines the use of cameras to enforce traffic laws, and presents evidence about their effectiveness. It raises a number of issues as Congress considers highway safety in the context of reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs. Speeding Speeding, whether exceeding the posted speed limit or driving faster than is safe for the current conditions, is one of the leading contributors to traffic crashes and the resulting deaths and injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that speeding is a contributing factor in roughly a quarter of traffic deaths each year; in 2018, 9,378 people died in crashes in which at least one driver was speeding.6 Speeding -related crashes may be 'In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available, 36,560 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, down from 37,473 in 2017. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2018 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, DOT HS 812 826, Washington, DC, October 2019, at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/PublicNiewPublication/812826. 2 Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, Winnable Battles: Motor Vehicle Injuries, at https://www.cdc.gov/ v,innablebattles/report/motor.html. 3 The calculation of the costs of motor vehicle crashes varies according to what types of costs are being counted. One study estimated cost of $242 billion in 2010 from lost productivity, medical costs, legal costs, property damage, and time lost in congestion caused by crashes. When quality -of -life valuations were included, the estimated cost rose to $836 billion. L. J. Blincoe, T. R. Miller, and E. Zaloshnja, et al., The Economic and SocietallmpactofMotor Vehicle Crashes, 2010, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 013, Washington, DC, May 2015, at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/\iewPublication/812013. The numbers of motor vehicle crashes, deaths, and injuries were low in 2010 due to the effects of the 2007-2009 recession; applyingthe authors' methodology to more recent years would lead to higher cost estimates due to larger numbers of crashes and deaths. 4 International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group, Road Safety Annual Report2019, International Transport Forum, OECD, Paris, France, October 7, 2019, Table 3, at https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/irtad-road- sa fet y - annual -rep o rt-2 01 9.p df. 5 Other speed -management efforts have included reducing speed limits in residential areas to 30 kilometers per hour (18 miles per hour), adding traffic -calming features to help reduce speeds, and replacing intersections with roundabouts. 6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2018Data: Speeding, DOT HS812 932, April 2020, p. 1. At https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/PublicNiewPublication/812932. NHT SA refers to these as Congressional Research Service 1 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras underreported: in an analysis of 2014 crash data involving a traffic -related fatality reported to NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found almost a thousand instances7 in which vehicles that had been categorized as "not speeding" or "unknown if speeding" had been traveling at least 10 miles per hour (mph) over the posted speed limit.I Speeding is a doubly risky behavior: it both increases the risk of being involved in a crash and increases the severity of a crash. Speeding limits a driver's ability to steer safely around curves, to avoid a dangerous situation, and to stop the vehicle in a short distance. The relationship between speed and the risk of a crash is affected by many factors, including the age of the driver, whether alcohol is involved, and the characteristics of the roadway (such as width, curvature, and the presence of intersections). On the other hand, the relationship between speed and the severity of injury in a crash is straightforward: the kinetic energy involved in a crash increases exponentially as speed increases, and this is ]inked to greater risk of injury or death. Higher crash speeds reduce the ability of the safety systems in the vehicle (seat belts, airbags, crumple zones) and those around the roadway (guardrails and other barriers) to protect vehicle occupants. The effect of higher speeds on pedestrians and cyclists involved in a motor vehicle crash is especially critical, due to their lack of protection: according to a 1995 European Transport Safety Council study, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle travelling 20 mph has a 95% chance of survival, but a pedestrian struck at 45 mph has only a 15% chance of surviving.9 A periodic survey of speeding suggests that speeding is increasing in the United States: in free - flow traffic conditions the percentage of vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph or more rose from roughly 15% in 2007 to roughly 20% in 2015. io The Location of Speed -Related Crashes Speed -related crashes occur on roads of all types, with almost 10% of fatal speed -related crashes on roads where the speed limit was 30 mph or less (see Figure 1). "speeding -involved" fatalities, as there may have been other factors involved in the crash as well (e.g., alcohol - impairment). 7 Equal to 4% of the reported speeding -related fatalities that year. 8 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speed -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, NTSB/SS- 17/01, July 25, 2017, p. 32, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. 9 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speed -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, NTSB/SS- 17/01, July 25, 2017, p. 27, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. io This was true for interstates and other freeways, major arterial roads, and minor arterial and collector roads. R Huey, D. De Leonardis, andM. Freedman, National Traffic Speeds Survey: 2007, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 811663, Washington, DC, August 2012, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ 811663.pdf, D. De Leonardis, R Huey, andJ. Green, National Traffic Speeds Survey111: 2015, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 485, Washington, DC, March 2018, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812485 national-traffic-speeds-survey-iii-2015.pdf. Congressional Research Service 2 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Figure I .Vehicles in Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit, 2017 Percent of all vehicles involved in fatal crashes 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% • 0% 30 mph or 35 or 40 45 or 50 50 mph 60 mph or No Unknown less mph mph higher Statutory Limit Source: CRS, based on data from NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2017, Table 33. Note: Includes each vehicle in multivehicle crashes. Links Between Speeding and Other Risky Behaviors Not all drivers are equally likely to be involved in speed -related fatal crashes. Young male drivers are much more likely to be involved in such crashes than are female drivers or older drivers." Drivers involved in such crashes are also more likely, in the five years before the fatal crash, to have been involved in other crashes, to have had their driver's licenses suspended or revoked,12 or to have been cited for speeding or driving while intoxicated, compared to drivers involved in fatal crashes who were not speeding.11 Alcohol use is closely linked to involvement in speed -related fatal crashes: 42% of drivers involved in speed -related crashes had some alcohol in their system, while 19% of drivers in fatal crashes not involving speeding had some alcohol in their System.14 Studies indicate that alcohol both impairs driver skill and increases risky driving behaviors, including speeding and following too close.11 11 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2018 Data: Speeding, DOT HS812 932, April 2020, Figure 1, at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Viewpublication/812932. 12 Among speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2018, 25% did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the crash. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, 2018 Data: Speeding, DOT HS 812 932, April 2020, p. 1, at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/VewPublication/812932. " Ibid., Figure 2. 14Ibid., Table 3. 15 Jennifer R. Laude and Mark T. Fillmore, "Simulated Driving Performance Under Alcohol: Effects on Driver -Risk Versus Driver -Skill," Drug Alcohol Dependency, Vol 154 (September 1, 2015), pp 271-277, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536118/. Congressional Research Service 3 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Drivers have a paradoxical view of speeding: most drivers regard speeding as dangerous, but most drivers also admit to speeding.16 Like many other risky driving behaviors, speeding increases the risk of a crash but usually does not result in a crash. While drivers may say speeding is dangerous, in practice they may not perceive speeding as being particularly risky. Thus speeding is formally criticized, but is a socially accepted behavior. 17 Roadway design has improved over time, which may contribute to speeding by making drivers feel safe driving at higher speeds. Aspeeding driver can influence the driving behavior of others; seeing someone speed by one's vehicle can make it more likely that one will adopt that behavior.18 Deterring Speeding Speed enforcement generally aims to deter speeding. Deterrence in this context has multiple components. It involves enacting laws that prohibit speeding, publicizing and enforcing those laws, and punishing offenders. Drivers may assume that law enforcement w ill tolerate speeds slightly over the posted limit. If drivers believe that they are likely to be detected and fined or arrested for exceeding that margin, most will limit their speed accordingly.11 Conceptually, deterrence is typically divided into three components: the swiftness of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the severity of the punishment. Research indicates that the certainty of being caught is vastly more important than is the severity of the punishment in affecting behavior.20 In -person speed enforcement —a police officer pulling over a speeding driver or a driver who has just run a red light —may be swift, but the likelihood of being caught is low: no officer may be nearby, traffic enforcement is typically only one among many responsibilities for an officer, and, given the time required to write the ticket for an offending driver, an officer can deal with only a handful of offenders in the course of an hour. Using roadside stops by law enforcement officers to deter speeding may raise other concerns. Pulling a driver over to issue a citation for speeding may increase congestion and pose a safety hazard, and in some locations a driver may be unable to stop out of the flow of traffic. Roadside stops can be dangerous, due both to the risk that other vehicles will hit law enforcement 16 In a 2019 survey, 87%of drivers considered it unacceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit on a residential street, yet 42% reported having done so in the previous 30 days. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2019 Traffic Safety Culture Index, June 2020, p. 17, https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019-Traffic-Safety- Culture-Index.pdf. 17 This is true not only in the United States (e.g., L.J. Mountain, W.M. Hirst, and M.J. Maher, "Costing Lives Or Saving Lives: A Detailed Evaluation of the Impact of Speed Cameras," Traffic Engineering and Control, vol. 45, no. 8 (2004), pp. 280-287), but also in many other countries (e.g., David Soole, Barry Watson, and Judy Fleiter, "A Review of International Speed Enforcement Policies andPractices: Evidence -based Recommendations for Best Practice," In S. Landry, N. Stanton, A. Vallicelli, and G. Di Bucchianico, Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Part I. - Proceedings of the 5rh International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonom ics, AHFE 2014, pp. 553- 566, https:Heprints.gat.edLi.au/75877/. 18 Judy J. Fleiter, Alexia Lennon, and Barry Watson, "HowDo Other People Influence Your Driving Speed? Exploring the `Who' andthe `How' of Social Influences on Speeding From a Qualitative Perspective," Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 13, issue 1, January 2010, pp. 49-62, at https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trf.2009.10.002. 19 Jeremy D. Davey and James E. Freeman, "Improving Road Safety Through Deterrence -Based Initiatives: A Review of Research," Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal, vol. 11(1), February 2011, pp. 29-37, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074684/. 20 Daniel S. Nagin, "Deterrence in the Twenty -First Century," in Crime and Justice in America, ed. M. Tonry, Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 199-264, citedin "Five Things About Deterrence," National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, June 5, 2016, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence#notel . Congressional Research Service 4 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras officers,21 stopped drivers, passengers, or their vehicles and the potential for the interaction between the law enforcement officer and driver or passenger to lead to violence during traffic stops. Traffic stops can be problematic in other ways. The discretion that law enforcement officers employ in deciding whether or not to stop a vehicle that is speeding, to search a vehicle when stopped, and to issue a citation or even arrest the driver raises constitutional questions about abuse of civil rights and bias in enforcement.22 In the exercise of that discretion, some studies suggest minorities are pulled over and ticketed at higher rates than other groups.23 Enforcement of speed limits can influence driving behavior through two means: specific deterrence (the impact of legal penalties on offenders) and general deterrence (the impact of the threat of detection and penalties on the general driving public). Studies have found that when speed enforcement is focused on a particular location, speeding is reduced at that location. Some studies have found that the reduction in speeding is confined to that location; other studies have found a "halo" effect, with speeds declining in the area around the speed camera location.24 Another approach to general deterrence is the use of mobile speed cameras; when speed enforcement efforts are regularly moved from one location to another, drivers may feel that speed enforcement can happen anywhere at any time and adhere more closely to the speed limit wherever they are driving.25 A third approach to general deterrence is the use of point-to-point (average speed) cameras, which measure a driver's average speed over a distance up to several miles. Studies of average speed camera programs have found large reductions in average speed, speed variability, fatal and serious injury crash rates, and reductions in journey times (due to the reduction in crash -induced congestion and in the accordion effect of braking).26 21 Over the period 2009-2018, an average of a dozen law enforcement officers a year died after being struck by a vehicle: National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Causes of Law Enforcement Deaths Over the Past Decade (2009-2018), at https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/causes-of-law-enforcement-deaths. 22 Illya Licthenberg, "Police Discretion and Traffic Enforcement: A Government of Men," Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 50, issue 3 (2003), p. 425, at https:Hengagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol50/iss3/4/. 23 Tom Abate, "Black Drivers Get Pulled Over by Police Less at Night When Their Race is Obscured by `Veil of Darkness,' Stanford Study Finds," Stanford News, May 5, 2020, at https://news.stanford.edu/2020/05/05/veil-darkness- reduces-racial-bias-traffic-stops/; Wendy C. Regoeczi and Stephanie Kent, "Race, Poverty, andthe Traffic Ticket Cycle: Exploringthe Situational Context of the Application of Police Discretion," Policing, vol. 37, no.1 (2014), pp. 190-205. However, the conclusions of such measures are subject to question, as "there is no clear way to establish the correct population at risk for police attention," Greg Ridgeway and John McDonald, Methods for Assessing Racially Biased Policing, RAND Corporation, 2010, p. 27, at https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2011/ RAND_RP 1427.pdf. 24 This "halo" effect has also been noted with in -person speed enforcement efforts; European Commission, Mobility and Transport: Road Safety, "Time and Distance Halo Effects," at https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/ knowledge/speed _enforcement/additional_considerat ions on speed enforcement /time_and_distance_halo_effects en. 25 David Soole, Barry Watson, and Judy Fleiter, "A Review of International Speed Enforcement Policies and Practices: Evidence -based Recommendations for Best Practice," pp. 7 & 9, Proceedings of the 5ah International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE 2014, edited by T. Abram, W. Karwowski and T. Marek, Krakow, Poland, July 19-23, 2014, pp. 5-6, at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/75877/18/75877.pdf. 26 The accordion effect refers to the impact of decelerations and accelerations by a driver in response to the vehicle ahead, which increase in impact as the number of drivers reacting increases. For example, a driver going 60 mph encounters a vehicle going 55 mph and for some reason cannot immediately pass it, so brakes to slow to 55 mph; if another driver is close behind, that driver will also brake, perhaps slightly harder in reaction to the brake lights o f the vehicle that hadbeen going 60 mph, and so forth, producing "backward traveling wave" that can last for miles. This effect can cause a lane of traffic to come to a complete stop, sometimes referredto as aphantom traffic jam. "Traffic Jam Mystery Solved by Mathematicians," Phys.org, December 19, 2007, at https://phys.org/news/2007-12-traffic- mystery -mathematician s.html. Congressional Research Service 5 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Red Light Running Red light violations involve a driver entering and proceeding through a signalized intersection after the traffic signal has turned red. Drivers turning right on red without coming to a stop before turning or turning right on red where that action is prohibited also are considered red light violations. As with speeding, most instances of running a red light do not result in a crash. However, crashes resulting from red light violations can be particularly severe,27 as they often result in right-angle ("T-bone") collisions in which the force of the vehicle running the red light strikes a crossing vehicle in the side. Modern cars typically have sophisticated engineering features to protect occupants in the event of front- and rear -impact crashes. The length of the vehicle body in front of and behind the passenger compartment allows for crumple zones to absorb the energy of the crash and for seat belts and airbags to protect the occupants from the forces of impact. In side - impact crashes, the initial impact may be directly into the passenger compartment, where there is little space or material to absorb the energy of the striking vehicle before it reaches the vehicle occupant, and at an angle where seat belt and side -impact airbags offer comparatively less protection for occupants. In 2018, 846 people were killed, and an estimated 139,000 people were injured in crashes that involved running of red lights.28 Many of those killed and injured were pedestrians and cyclists. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, drivers involved in fatal red light running crashes that involved multiple vehicles are more likely to be young males, to have prior crashes or convictions for driving while intoxicated, and to be driving without a valid license at the time of the crash.29 They are also more likely to be speeding or intoxicated at the time of the red light running crash. The challenges of preventing red light running are similar to some of the challenges to preventing speeding. Red light running has a degree of social acceptability: most drivers condemn running of red lights, while many drivers also admit to doing so.30 In -person enforcement of red light running has issues similar to those of in -person enforcement of speed limits. Police resources are limited relative even to the number of red lights where red light violations may commonly occur. Chasing down a motorist who has run a red light may be dangerous, road conditions may make a roadside stop dangerous, and a roadside stop may exacerbate traffic congestion, particularly during rush-hour traffic conditions. 27 Making Intersections Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red -Light Running, Institute of Transportation Engineers andFederal Highway Administration, 2003, pp. 6-7, at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ intersect ion/conventional/signalized/rlr/rlr_t oolbox/rlrbo ok.pdf. 28 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Red LightRunning, "By the Numbers," at https://www.iihs.org/topics/red- light-running#by-t he -numbers. 29 Ibid. 30 Eighty-six percent of drivers surveyed reportedrunning a red light to be very or extremely dangerous, yet 31 % reported doing so within the previous 30 days. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2019 Traffic Safety Culture Index, June 2020, TablesA5 & A7, at https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2019-Traffic-Safety-Culture- Index.pdf. Congressional Research Service 6 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Automated Enforcement ATE uses cameras to identify a vehicle that exceeds the posted speed limit (typically by some specified margin) or has violated a red traffic signal and to take a photo of the vehicle (and, in some cases, the driver). Law enforcement and ATE vendor personnel then review the photo to identify whether it has recorded a speeding or red light violation. State motor vehicle records are used to determine where to mail the citation. The photo is used to generate a citation that is mailed to either the owner of the vehicle or, in some states, the driver of the vehicle (identified from the photo). Rather than directly own speed cameras orred light cameras, local or state authorities normally contract with private companies that provide the equipment and help to operate it.31 In some states, speeding and red light running violations are treated like parking tickets; the vehicle owner is fined, but no criminal charges are brought, no "points" are assessed to the driver's license, and the violations are not reported to insurance companies. The penalties are not assessed to the driver of the vehicle, but to the owner. In other states, these violations are treated like moving traffic violations, with the systems required to provide evidence to identify the driver, and penalties including license sanctions may be levied against the driver, rather than the owner, of the vehicle. In one form or another, ATE is employed in approximately half the states (Figure 2). Figure 2. States Where Speed or Red Light Cameras Are in Use, 2020 MT N❑ VT NH �MN JD SD PINYtA t - WY MI NE � RI It NV IT IN F A � 10. V CT K5 � %MKYP:W NJ AZ UE NM HKASC MD M5 ■ DC TX HI Red light and speed Red light M Speed None Source: Insurance Institutefor Highway Safety. 31 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed EnforcementProgram Guidelines, DOT HS 810 915, March 2008, p. 18, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/810915.pdf, R. J. Miller, J. S. Osberg, R. Retting, et al., System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcementlmplementation,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 257, April2016, p. 50, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812257 systemanalysisase.pdf. Congressional Research Service 7 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Automated Speed Enforcement Automated speed enforcement combines a vehicle speed detection system with a camera to identify and photograph speeding vehicles. There are a variety of speed camera systems: cameras can be fixed (i.e., placed in one spot and left there, typically at a location chosen due to a relatively high number of speed -related crashes) or mobile (placed in a vehicle that can be driven to a location and parked for a period of time, then driven to another location; these vehicles can be marked or unmarked). A third type of speed camera system, used in other countries but not in the United States, is the average speed camera system (sometimes called a point-to-point camera system). This type of speed camera addresses a criticism of fixed speed cameras: that drivers who know the location of the cameras slow down at those locations but speed before and after passing the cameras. Average speed cameras are mounted in pairs at a distance (ranging from hundreds of yards to several miles), take a time -stamped photo of each vehicle, use license plate readers to check the time each vehicle took to travel from the first location to the second, and issue tickets when a vehicle's average speed over the distance is above the limit. 32 There have been many studies of speed camera programs; most have concluded that speed cameras reduced speeding and/or crashes in the vicinity of the cameras, and in some cases in the surrounding areas. Several reviews that looked at dozens of studies from around the world found that despite methodological issues in most studies, speed cameras reduce speeding and/or crashes.33 In its evidence -based guide to traffic safety measures, NHTSAgives ATE (including both speed cameras and red light cameras) the highest rating for effectiveness;34 the setting of speed limits themselves is the only other countermeasure rated as demonstrated to be effective in limiting speeding.35 Similarly, automated speed enforcement is the only speeding -related countermeasure included by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its tool to enable states to model cost-effective interventions to reduce traffic deaths and injuries.36 The NTSB also considers automated speed enforcement to be "an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding - related crashes, fatalities, and injuries." 37 32 Jenoptik, Average Speed Cameras, at https://www.jenoptik.us/products/road-safety/average-speed-camera 33 Lawrence E. Decina, Libby Thomas, andRaghavan Srinivasan, et al., Automated Enforcement: A Compendium of Worldwide Evaluations of Results, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS810 763, Washington, DC, September 2007, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/ Associated%20Files/HS810763.pdf, Cecilia Wilson, Charlene Willis, and Joan K. Hendrikz, et al., "Speed Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths," Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/full; DanielJ. Graham, Cian Naik, Emma J. McCoy, "Do Speed Cameras Reduce Road Traffic Collisions?," PLOS One, September 16, 2019, at https://doi.org/l0.1371/journal.pone.0221267. 34 Automated enforcement receives five stars for effectiveness, denoting measures that have been "Demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results." C. M. Richard, K. Magee, and P. Bacon - Abdelmoteleb, et al., Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guidefor State Highway Safety Offices, Ninth Edition, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 478, Washington, DC, April 2018, pp. 3-20-3-26, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa. dot. gov/files/documents/812478—countermeasures-that- work-a-highway-safety-count ermeasures-guide-.p df. 35 The other measures considered are Aggressive Driving and Other Laws; High -Visibility Enforcement; Other Enforcement Methods; Penalty Types andLevels; Diversion and Plea Agreement Restrictions, Traffic Violator School; and Communications and Outreach Supporting Enforcement. Ibid. 36 The Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculatorfor States (MV PICCS), at https://mvpiccs- viz.cdc.gov:8008/. 37 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speed -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, NTSB/SS- Congressional Research Service 8 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Use of Speed Cameras in Other Countries A number of countries have made extensive use of speed cameras in their highway safety programs. 3I In France, use of automated enforcement was a key feature of a highway safety initiative announced in 2002, and was credited with reductions in both average speeds and fatal crashes.39 Australia introduced such cameras in 1985, and as of 2014 mobile speed cameras were "arguably the most common method of enforcing speed limits.1140 The percentage of light vehicles in free -flowing traffic exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 kilometers per hour (roughly 6 mph) dropped from 36% in 2001 to 10% in 2009.41 The United Kingdom introduced speed cameras and other speed -calming measures in 1990. Acomparison of fatal crashes over the ensuing decade in the U.K. and the United States (where speed cameras were introduced in a limited and sporadic fashion) found that U.K. road deaths dropped by 34% from 1990-1999, compared to a 6.5% drop in the United States. The study suggested the greater reduction in fatal crashes in the UX was due largely to small decreases in the speed of drivers due to the introduction of speed cameras and other speed -calming measures 42 Speed Camera Usage in the United States Of the tens of thousands of local governments in the United States, 152 communities had speed camera programs in place as of August 2020.43 Eight states prohibit the use of automated enforcement, 19 states explicitly permit it, and 23 states do not have legislation addressing automated enforcement. Listing the states that permit speed cameras can give a misleading impression of the extent of their usage, since systems typically operate in specific communities rather than statewide. For example, New Mexico has speed cameras in one small community,44 and New York has speed cameras in two communities (one of these is New York City, which includes 45% of the state's population). Both states limit the cameras to school zones.45 In Maryland, where 41 jurisdictions 17/01, July 25, 2017, p. 37, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. 38 David Soole, Barry Watson, andJudy Fleiter, "A Review of International Speed Enforcement Policies and Practices: Evidence -based Recommendations for Best Practice," Proceedings ofthe 5rh International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE 2014, edited by T. Abram, W. Karwowski, and T. Marek, Krakow, Poland, July 19-23, 2014, at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/75877/18/75877.pdf. 39 Laurent Carnis and Etienne Blais, "An Assessment of the Safety Effects of the French Speed Camera Program," Accident Analysis and Prevention, 51 (2013) 301-309. 40 David Soole, Barry Watson, andJudy Fleiter, op cit., p. 2. 41 Transportation Research Board, Achieving Traffic Safety Goals in the United States: Lessons from Other Nations, Special Report 300, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 77, 81. 42 Elihu Richter, Lee S. Friedman, Tamar Berman, Avrahim Rivkind, "Death and Injury from Motor Vehicle Crashes: A Tale of Two Countries," American Journal ofPreventive Medicine, vol. 29, no. 5, 2005, pp. 440-449. 43 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, personal communication, August 26, 2020. 44 New Mexico Department of Transportation, Biennial Survey of StateAutomatedTrafcEnforcementSystems, 2020, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/new mexico_ae2020_survey.pdf. 45 New York State, Autom ated Traffic Enforcem ent System Biennial Survey [FY2020], at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/ nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/new york ae2020 survey.pdf. Congressional Research Service 9 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras use speed cameras,46 state law limits their placement to work zones on roads with speed limits of 45 mph or more and to school zones, with a few other allowances in specific jurisdictions.47 The first sustained automated speed enforcement program in the United States was implemented in Paradise Valley, AZ, in 1987.41 Adoption of speed cameras was relatively slow, with some communities adopting and later canceling automated speed enforcement programs. This pattern changed in the mid-2000s, when the number of communities adopting automated speed enforcement grew from around 20 in 2005 to over 140 in 2013 before plateauing (see Figure 3). Figure 3.Trend in Communities Using Automated Speed Enforcement Source: CRS, based on data from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. Note: The numbers in the chart are net numbers for each year, the total number of communities that have used such systems is somewhat larger, as some communities have adopted and subsequently terminated their systems. Red bars represent years of notable policy changes: the 2004 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials resolution supporting greater use of automated speed enforcement, and the 2012 congressional limitation on use of ATE. Although speed camera programs are typically adopted at the community level, both federal and state actions appear to play a role in the use of automated speed enforcement. Congress gave the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) the discretion to promote the use of ATE in 1991. However, usage of camera systems stayed relatively low until after the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, the association of state departments of transportation and transit agencies) adopted a resolution calling on states to support greater use of 46 Seventeen jurisdictions have both speed and red light cameras, 24 have only speed cameras, and 5 have only red light cameras. University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transportation Technology, Automated Enforcement Survey Report, Table 2, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, Highway Safety Office, February 27, 2020, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/maryland ae2020_survey.pdf. 47 University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transportation Technology, Automated Enforcement Survey Report, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, Highway Safety Office, February 27, 2020, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nht sa.dot.gov/files/document s/maryland_ae2020_survey.pdf. 48 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, p. 5, at https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedtngt/ref mats/fhwasa09028/resources/ Speed%20Camera°/`20 Guidelines. p df. Congressional Research Service 10 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras automated speed enforcement in 2004.49 The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) issued a similar call the following year, asking Congress to create a grant program to encourage the use of automated speed enforcement. In 2007 the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution encouraging the use of speed cameras in locations with high rates of crashes, in conjunction with in -person traffic enforcement. 10 Some surveys of communities where automated speed enforcement programs were implemented have found that support for automated speed enforcement increased after implementation. 5 t However, an ongoing survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety suggests that public support for speed cameras has been waning. In 2008, 68% of respondents "somewhat' or "strongly" supported using automated speed enforcement on neighborhood streets, with 18% "somewhat" or "strongly" opposed; in 2018, 42% of respondents "somewhat' or "strongly" supported using cameras to ticket cars going 10 mph over the speed limit on residential streets, and 53% "somewhat' or "strongly" opposed such a law.52 One possible reason for increased public opposition to speed cameras is that they appear to result in a greater number of citations than in -person stops. In 2015, an estimated 7.9 million U.S. drivers were stopped by police for speeding, not all of whom received speeding tickets. In 2017, more than 2.2 million speed camera tickets were issued in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area alone. 53 While these numbers are not directly comparable, they indicate that automated enforcement may be associated with a much greater number of citations per million licensed drivers. After allowing the Secretary of Transportation to encourage states to adopt speed cameras in 1991, in 2012 Congress prohibited states from using federal transportation funding to purchase, operate, or maintain ATE systems except in certain circumstances.54 The number of communities using speed cameras has grown slightly since 2012. 49 Transportation Research Board, Automated Enforcem entforSpeeding and Red Light Running, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 729, Washington, DC, 2012, p. 3, at https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ ref _mats/fhwasal 3 04/resources2/27%20- %20Automated%2OEnforcement%20for%20 Speeding%2Oand%2ORed%2OLight%2ORunning.pdf. '0 Ibid. 51 E.g., Jessica B. Cicchino, Joann K. Wells, and Anne T. McCartt, "Survey About Pedestrian Safety and Attitudes Toward Automated Traffic Enforcement in Washington, DC," Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 15, no. 4 (2014), pp. 414- 423, and Richard A. Retting, Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, and Anne T. McCartt, 2008. "Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement on Loop 101 Freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona," AccidentAnalysis & Prevention vol. 40, no. 4 (2008), pp. 1506-1512, cited in National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, Safety Study NT SB/SS- 17/0 1, July 25, 2017, p. 39, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/ SS1701.pdf. 52 Since the question had become more specific about the policy in 2018 comparedto 2008, it is possible that the change in wording affectedthe levels of support and opposition expressed. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2008 Traffic Safety Culture Index, Table 20, April 2008, at https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ 2008T SCIndexReport.pdf; 2018 Traffic Safety Culturelndex, Table 6, June 2019, at https:Haaafoundation.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/2018-TSCI-FINAL-061819 updated.pdf. 53 Elizabeth Davis, Anthony Whyde, and Lynn Langton, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2015, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 251145, October 2018, Table 5 (number of drivers in traffic stops) andTable 10 (reasons for traffic stops), at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ cpp 15.pdf; Luz Lazo, "Drivers continue to ignore speedcameras in the District, earning city more than $100 million," Washington Post, September 26, 2018, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2018/09/26/drivers- cont inue- ignore- sp eed- cameras- district -earning-city-more-than-million. 54 In The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21' Century Act (P.L. 112-141), Section 1533 prohibited states from using any of their federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funds, which are distributed by the Federal Highway Congressional Research Service 11 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras NHTSA Guidelines for Speed Camera Systems NHTSA issued operational guidelines in 2008 for states and communities implementing speed camera programs.55 The guidelines cover such topics as planning, site selection, system procurement, public awareness, processing notices of violations, and evaluating the programs. A later survey of communities with speed camera programs found that 63% of program administrators were not aware of the NHT SA operational guidelines, though most programs were consistent with the guidelines in many areas.56 The survey found that among the NHTSA guidelines that communities most frequently failed to follow were the following: • Automated speed enforcement programs should use a combination of fines and license sanctions as penalties and should provide photographic evidence to identify the driver of the vehicle. Some 23% of respondents used both fines and sanctions to penalize violators, and 32% used photos to identify drivers.57 • During the planning process for implementing an automated speed enforcement program, an advisory panel of stakeholder representatives should guide the program development and provide input. Some 27% of respondents reported the existence of such an advisory panel.58 In a 2017 report, the NTSB noted that DOT's 2008 speed camera program guidelines did not reflect more recent changes in technology and operations, such as the use of point-to-point speed enforcement. It recommended that the Federal Highway Administration and NHTSA update the guidelines and promote their use.59 Red Light Camera Programs In numerous studies, red light cameras have been shown to decrease the number of both red light violations and crashes involving injuries and fatalities at signalized intersections.60 There is some Administration, to purchase, operate, or maintain an ATE system, except in school zones, and Section 31102(c) prohibited states from using any of their federal Highway Safety Formula Program funds, which are distributed by NHT SA, to purchase, operate, or maintain an ATE system, with no exceptions. 55 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, at https:Hsafety.Ihwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa09028/resources/ Speed%20Camera%20 Guidelines.p df. 56 R. J. Miller, J. S. Osberg, R. Retting, et al., System Analysis ofAutomated Speed Enforcementlmplementation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS812 257, April2016, p. 99-100, at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ sit es/nhtsa. dot.gov/files/812257_systemanalysisase.pdf. 57 There is evidence that monetary fines assessed against the vehicle owner can be effective in deterring speeding, but "this approach helps feed ASE criticism that these programs are created for the mere purpose of collecting fines and do not serve legitimate traffic safety goals." Ibid, pp. 99-100. Several states provide that penalties shall be assessed against the vehicle and not the driver; in such states there is no need for communities to have automated speed enforcement technology that identifies the driver. 58 The survey notes that given the often contentious nature of automated speed enforcement programs, incorporating stakeholder input from the beginning of the planning process can improve the odds of a successful implementation. 59 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01, July 25, 2017, p. 42, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. 60 A. S. Aeron-Thomas andS. Hess, "Red-light Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Crashes," Cochrane Database of System a tic Reviews 2005, Issue 2, Art. No. CD003862; Charles Goldenbeld, Stijn Daniels, and Govert Schermers, "Red Light Cameras Revisited: Recent Evidence on Red Light Camera Safety Effects," AccidentAnalysis & Prevention, vol. 128, July 2019, pp. 139-147, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Congressional Research Service 12 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras evidence that red light cameras, while reducing right-angle crashes at intersections, can lead to an increase in rear -end collisions as drivers change their behavior to avoid entering intersections when the traffic signal is yellow and are run into from behind by more aggressive drivers. Such collisions are typically less destructive than the right-angle collisions resulting from red light running, thus red light cameras reduce overall crash severity. 61 Not all studies have found increases in rear -end collisions; nor have all studies found statistically significant reductions in overall crash severity.62 Use of Red Light Camera Enforcement Red light cameras are used extensively in other countries.63 The firstred light camera program in the United States was introduced in New York City in 1992. By 2012 there were approximately 556 communities with red light camera programs across 25 states and the District of Columbia. 64 A backlash to the spread of red light cameras began around this time.65 According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the number of communities with red light camera programs has declined to approximately 340.66 The trend of declining support among drivers for automated speed enforcement seen in the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety's series of surveys of traffic safety culture is also seen with regard to red light cameras. In 2008, 70% of respondents somewhat or strongly supported red light cameras, and 18% somewhat or strongly opposed them; in 2019, 43% somewhat or strongly supported red light cameras, and 57% somewhat or strongly opposed them 67 This decline in support may have been due partly to well -publicized charges that some systems were ineffective or abusive. 61 50001457518303610. 61 One study that lookedat redlight camera programs in seven cities (132 intersections) foundthat right -angle crashes decreased by 25%, while rear -end collisions increased by 15%. Since the rear -end collisions were less severe than right-angle crashes, the net benefit was estimatedto be $39,000 (in 2001 dollars) per intersection per year. Forrest M. Council, Bhagwant Persaud, and Kimberly Eccles, et al., Safety Evaluation ofRed-Light Cameras, ITSJoint Program Office and Office of Safety Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HRT-05-048, Washington, DC, April 2005, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf. 62 A fact sheet published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Automated Red Light Enforcement, "Effectiveness," (no date, "page last reviewed December 2, 2015"), at https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/redlight.html) cites several reviews of the literature and several individual studies supportingthe effectiveness of red light camera programs in reducing overall crash severity, but also cites several studies that foundno reduction in overall crash severity. The fact sheet notes that it is difficult t o compare the studies directly, as they used a variety of methodologies, data sources, time periods, comparisons to controls, andmetrics to reach their conclusions, but concludes it seems "premature to conclude that red light cameras have been widely found to be highly effective." 63 Ibid. 64 Data from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, cited in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, p. 5, at https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa09028/resources/Speed%20Camera%20Guidelines.pdf. 65 Daniel C. Vock, "Why Cities Hit the Brakes on Red Light Cameras," Governing, March 2015, at https://www.governing. com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-cities-hit-brakes-red-light-cameras.htrnl. 66 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, personal communication, August 26, 2020. 67 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2008 Traffic Safety Culture Index, Table 20, April 2008, at https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2008TSCIndexReport.pdf, 2019Traffic Safety Culture Index, Table 5, June 2020, at https://aaafoundation org/wp-cont ent/uploads/2020/06/2019- Traffic- Safety- Culture-Index.pdf. 68 Daniel C. Vock, "Why Cities Hit the Brakes on Red Light Cameras," Governing, March 2015, at https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-cities-hit-brakes-red-light-cameras.htm1. See also David Congressional Research Service 13 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Automated Traffic Enforcement Issues Some studies of red light camera programs have found that the number of crashes at intersections increased, at least temporarily, after installation of red light cameras.69 Cameras may contribute to an increase in rear -end crashes as a following vehicle runs into a vehicle that has stopped at a red light. These crashes usually cause only property damage while virtually all studies have found that the cameras reduce the number of right-angle crashes, which are more deadly.70 Nevertheless, some critics object to red light cameras on the basis of the studies showing increases in rear -end collisions. Studies of speed management more broadly have found that infrastructure changes can be effective in reducing speeding and red light running. For example, red light running can be reduced by having a longer yellow interval.71 A study of this approach in Philadelphia, PA, found that increasing the yellow interval by 1 second reduced red light violations by 36%. The study also found that subsequently installing red light cameras at the same intersections decreased red light violations a further 96%.72 Thus, increasing the yellow -signal interval can result in reductions in red light running violations, at least in the short term. Some studies have found that over time drivers appear to adjust to increased yellow intervals, with the result that some drivers resume running the red lights.73 Also, increases in the yellow interval are not without cost, as they reduce the throughput capacity of the intersection.74 Some analysts assert that ATE systems do not work as well as in -person enforcement to remove risky drivers from the road: a speeding driver who is pulled over by an officer and is found to be under the influence of alcohol can be removed from the road immediately and possibly suspended from driving,75 whereas a speed camera would send a ticket to the driver's (or vehicle owner's) address days later without inhibiting the driver's activity for the rest of that trip. The documented effect of speed camera programs in reducing injury crashes and fatalities suggests that the deterrent effect of the increased possibility of a penalty provided by a speed camera program may compensate for the delayed imposition of the penalty compared to the immediate but less certain Kidwell, "How Chicago's Red Light Ticketing Turns Yellow Lights Into Cash," Chicago Tribune, October 12, 2014, at https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-light-1012-20141012-story.html, and David Kidwell, "Redflex to Pay $20 Million to Chicago to Settle Lawsuit Over Red -Light Camera Bribery," Chicago Tribune, February 6, 2017, at https://www.chicagotribime.com/investigations/ct-red-light-cameras-lawsuit-settled-met- 20170206-story.html. 69 For example, a Federal Highway Administration study of red light camera programs in seven jurisdictions found an overall increase in rear -end collisions and a reduction in right-angle crashes. Forrest M. Council, Bhagwant Persaud, Kimberly Eccles, et al., Safety Evaluation ofRed-Light Cameras, FHWA-HRT-05-048, April2005, at https://www. fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf. 70 Ibid. An economic analysis estimatedthat the value of the reduction in right-angle crashes was larger than the increased cost of the rear -end collisions. 71 National Motorists Association, YellowLight Tim ing, at https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/yellow- lights/#:—:t ext =T his%2 0 study%2 0 shows%20that%20an,by%2Oat %20least%2050%20percent. 72 Richard A. Retting, Susan A. Ferguson, and Charles M. Farmer, Reducing Red Light Running Through Longer Yellow Signal T iming and Red Light Camera Enforcement: Results of a Field Investigation, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, January 2007, at https://www.cob.org/wp-content/uploads/iihs-report_.pdf. 73 Ibid., p. 8. 74 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, 115.7.3 Vehicle Timing —Vehicle Clearance," Signalized Intersections: An Informational Guide, at https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/ fhwasa 13 027/ch5. cfm#s5 73 . 75 Since many drivers continue to drive even though their licenses are suspended, the safety impact of license suspension should not be exaggerated Congressional Research Service 14 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras penalty provided by in -person enforcement. Nevertheless, NHTSArecommends ATE as a supplement to, not a replacement for, in -person speed enforcement.76 Some have questioned the constitutionality of ATE. The issues raised in this regard include concerns that an automated enforcement ticket assumes that the offender is guilty until proven innocent, rather than vice versa, and the lack of opportunity for offenders to confront their accuser.77 Some courts have ruled against speed and red light camera programs on various grounds; other courts have consistently rejected challenges based on assertions that the programs violate constitutional protections.71 Ina 2010 House hearing onATE,79 in which NHTSA and other witnesses testified to the effectiveness of ATE in promoting safety, several Members and two witnesses asserted that communities embraced ATE primarily to generate revenue rather than to improve safety, citing instances of apparent bad faith in the operation of ATE programs.80 One study of Chicago's red light camera program, which found that the program resulted in reductions in right-angle crashes and increases in rear -end crashes, reported that even community groups that acknowledged the safety benefits of the program indicated that its value might be diminished by the perception that it was intended to generate revenue.81 To allay such concerns, NHTSArecommends transparency on the part of ATE program administrators, along with a focus on the principle that the goal of the program is to reduce the number of violations, not generate revenue. 82 Issues for Congress Restrictions on Use of Federal Funds The federal government does not regulate the use of automated traffic enforcement. The decision to allow or prohibit the use of ATE is left to the states. But federal law can influence the decisions of states and localities. Congress requires every state to have a highway safety program designed to reduce traffic accidents and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. 83 Such programs are required to address the following issues: speeding, driving while impaired, aggressive and distracted driving, proper use of occupant protection devices (e.g., seat belts), 76 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, at https://safety.thwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa09O28/resources/ Speed%20Camera%20 Guidelines.p df. 77 Joel O. Christensen, "Wrongon Red: The Constitutional Case Against Red -Light Cameras," Washington University Journal ofLaw & Policy, vol. 32, 2010, pp. 443-466, at https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1086&context=law journal law policy. 78 Matthew S. Maisel, "Slave to the Traffic Light: A Road Map to Red Light Camera Legal Issues," Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 4, Spring 2013, pp. 401-434. 79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and T ransit, Utilization and Impacts ofAutomated Traffic Enforcement, I I Ph Cong., 2°a sess., June 30, 2010. 80 See, for example, the written testimony of Dan Danila, representing the National Motorist Association, a group totally opposedto ATE, at ibid. 81 Hani S. Mahmassani, Joseph L. Schofer, Breton L. Johnson, et at., Chicago Red Light Camera Enforcement: Best Practices & Program Road Map, Northwestern University Transportation Center, March 17, 2017, at https://www.transportation.northwestern. edu/docs/research/featured-reports/RLC-Report-W eb.pdf. 82 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, at https:Hsafety.Ihwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa09028/resources/ Speed%20Camera%20 Guidelines.p df. "23U.S.C. §402. Congressional Research Service 15 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras accidents involving motorcycles, school buses, and commercial vehicles, and improvements to law enforcement services in these regards. Congress has also established grant programs to encourage states to take specific steps to address almost all of these issues. But Congress has not created a program to encourage states to take specific steps to discourage speeding. The NTSB, the GHSA, and other traffic safety organizations have urged Congress to add a speed management grant program, since speeding is one of the leading contributors to traffic deaths. In the 2012 surface transportation authorization act, Congress virtually eliminated federal financial support of ATE by limiting states' discretion to spend federal funds for that purpose except in school zones.84 This limitation was reiterated in the 2016 surface transportation authorization act. In a 2019 House hearing on highway safety, the NTSB testified that speed management is one of its most wanted transportation safety improvements. It recommended expanded use of automated speed enforcement. ss H.R. 2, a surface transportation reauthorization bill passed by the House of Representatives on July 1, 2020, would make limited changes to the current federal policy toward ATE systems. It would allow states to spend their NHTSA Highway Traffic Safety formula funds to purchase, operate, or maintain an ATE system in a school or work zone, and would require that any ATE system that received federal funding comply with guidelines established by DOT.86 If Congress wishes to address the issue of speed management as part of its effort to reduce traffic deaths and injuries, one option would be to remove the restrictions on ATE it imposed in 2012, returning to its previous stance of allowing states and local government the discretion to use some of their federal transportation funding to adopt automated enforcement programs without limiting the location of the cameras. Alternatively, Congress could continue its current policy. Speed Management Incentive Grants The GHSA and the NTSB have called upon Congress to create a grant programto encourage states to address speeding. Should Congress decide to create such a program, it might include automated enforcement, NHTSA's highest -rated measure to address speeding, as part of the program. Such a program could address the issues identified here by (a) removing, or waiving for the purposes of this program, the restrictions on federal funding for the implementation of ATE; (b) making eligibility for a grant contingent on use of speed cameras and compliance with a majority of NHTSA's operational guidelines for speed camera programs; (c) making eligibility for a grant dependent on a state treating speed and red light camera violations like moving traffic violations, as NHTSA's guidelines recommend; and (d) making eligibility for a grant contingent on allowing communities to locate speed cameras in locations in addition to school and work zones. State Restrictions on Use of ATE In most states that permit ATE, state legislation limits the locations where ATE can be used. The most common restriction is limiting automated speed enforcement to school zones. The NTSB 84 See footnote 54 for details. 85 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Every Life Counts: Improving the Safety of Our Nation's Roadways, 116"' Cong., 1st Bess., April 9, 2019. 86 H.R. 2 (116''Congress), §3002(2). Congressional Research Service 16 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras noted that school zones are not locations at high risk for speeding -related injuries and death; just seven of the estimated 9,283 U.S. speeding -related fatalities in 2014 occurred in school zones.87 This point was echoed by representatives from agencies with automated speed enforcement programs.88 If it wishes to encourage more effective use of automated enforcement, Congress could make states' eligibility for certain transportation grants contingent on allowing communities to locate speed cameras in locations in addition to school and work zones. Such an approach might lead to some states that are currently eligible for such grants to become not eligible until and unless they change their legal treatment ofATE.89 Legal Status of ATE Violations The treatment of individuals caught speeding and running red lights by automated devices appears to make a difference in the deterrent effects of the programs. One study found that several cities in states that treat the citations like parking violations (no points on a license, minimum fine of $35 to $75) had higher repeat offender rates than did several cities in states where the citations were treated like moving traffic violations (minimum fines of $160 to $280, points assessed against a driver's license).90 The study also found that the speed camera ticket payment rate was lower in the cities in the former category.91 In states that do not have a law addressing ATE, some communities have implemented camera enforcement programs under general traffic laws.92 An NTSB study found that officials of transportation departments in states that lacked automated speed enforcement legislation expected that implementing an automated enforcement program in the absence of an enabling law would subject the program to significant legal challenges.93 Traffic violations are matters of state, not federal, law. However, Congress could encourage states to increase the deterrent effect of speeding and red light violations detected by ATE. One approach would be to make eligibility for certain transportation grants dependent on a state treating speed and red light camera violations like moving traffic violations, as NHTSA recommends. Such an approach might lead to some states that are currently eligible for such grants to become not eligible until and unless they change their legal treatment of ATE. 87 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01, July 25, 2017, p. 40, at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS170I.pdf. 88 Ibid., pp. 40-41. 89 Such an approach could involve creating a new grant program, with such a requirement for eligibility, along the lines of the incentive grant programs in 23 U.S.C. §405, or adding such a requirement to existing grant programs, along the linesof23U.S.C.§164; if the latter, the penalty could involve transferring a portion of the state's grant to its highway safety program, as in 23 U.S.C. §164, or withholding a portion of the funding, as in 23 U.S.C. §161. 90 Scott Calvert, Paul Overberg, and Max Rust, "Speed Cameras: The Cities with the Worst Offenders," Wall Street Journal, December 22, 2019. 91 Ibid. The reason for the higher rate of payment for the citations in the cities where the fines were higher was not clear. 92 For example, nine cities in Iowa (including the four largest cities: Des Moines, Davenport, Cedar Rapids, and Sioux City) and Hannibal, MO. See Missouri and Iowa biennial ATE survey reports submitted to NHT SA at https://www.nhtsa. gov/highway-safety-grant s-program/2018-ant omated-traffic-enforcement-system. 93 National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01, July 25,2017,p.40,athttps://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS170I.pdf. Congressional Research Service 17 Safety Impact of Speed and Red Light Cameras Direct DOT to Update its Operational Guidelines NHTSA's speed camera program operational guidelines94 have not been updated since their publication in 2008. As the NTSB has pointed out, the guidelines do not include information about recent innovations such as point-to-point cameras. 91 Also, the NTSB found that the guidelines were not well known among agencies operating speed camera programs. Congress could direct NHTSA to issue updated guidelines in order to bring more attention to the information and improve the conduct of speed camera programs. Author Information David RandallPeterman Analyst in Transportation Policy Disclaimer This document was preparedby the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staffto congressional committees and Members ofCongress. It operates solely at thebehestofand underthe direction ofCongress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied uponforpurposes other than public understanding ofinformation that has beenprovided byCRS to Members ofCongress in connectionwith CRS's institutional role. CRS Reports, as aworkofthe United States Government, are not subject to copyrightprotection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission fromCRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission ofthe copyright holder ifyou wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 94 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008, at https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref mats/fhwasa09028/resources/ Speed%20Camera%20 Guidelines.p df. 9s National Transportation Safety Board, Reducing Speeding Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles, Safety Study NT SB/SS- 17/0 1, July 25,2017,p.42,athttps://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. Congressional Research Service R46552 • VERSION 1 • NEW 18 Countermeasures That Work. A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices Ninth Edition, 2017 - - - -------- . ......... fa U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration kh . Awl -1 - 1 90 30 100 20 110 10 MPH 120 5 n I q h 7 h W Boom NHTSA Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management Speeding and Speed Management Countermeasures Countermeasures to reduce aggressive driving and speeding are listed in the table below. The table is intended to provide a rough estimate of each countermeasure's effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for implementation. Effectiveness is shown using a five-star rating system: • Countermeasures that receive * * * * or * * * * * have been determined to be effective. • Countermeasures that receive * * * are considered promising, and likely to be effective. • Countermeasures that receive * or * * have NOT been determined to be effective, either because there has been limited or no high quality evidence (*) or because effectiveness is still undetermined based on the evidence that is available (**). States, communities and other organizations are encouraged to use * * *, and especially * * * * or * * * * * , countermeasures. They should use caution in selecting * or i� countermeasures, since conclusive evidence is not available to demonstrate the effectiveness of these countermeasures. If they decide to use a new or emerging countermeasure that has not yet been studied sufficiently to demonstrate that the countermeasure is effective, they are encouraged to have the countermeasure evaluated in connection with its use. Further details about the symbols and terms used are included after the table. Effectiveness, cost, and time to implement can vary substantially from State to State and community to community. Costs for many countermeasures are difficult to measure, so the summary terms are very approximate. Each countermeasure to reduce aggressive driving and speeding is discussed individually in this chapter. Full descriptions are included for * * * , * * * * and * * * * * countermeasures. Brief descriptions are included for * and ** countermeasures. Further details about the * and * * countermeasures are included in Appendix A3 to this report. 1. Laws Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 1.1 Speed Limits * * * 7k *t $ High Short 1.2 Aggressive Driving and Other Laws } $ Low Short t When enforced and obeyed 2. Enforcement Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 2.1 Automated Enforcement * * * * * $$$t Medium Medium 2.2 High -Visibility Enforcement $$$ Lowtt Medium 2.3 Other Enforcement Methods Varies Unknown Varies 3-12 Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management t Can be covered by income from citations tt For aggressive driving, but use of short-term, high -visibility enforcement campaigns for speeding is more widespread 3. Penalties and Adjudication Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 3.1 Penalty Types and Levels I�rtr Varies High Low 3.2 Diversion and Plea Agreement Restrictions, Traffic Violator School Varies Unknown Varies 4. Communications and Outreach Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 4.1 Communications and Outreach Supporting Enforcement * * * Varies Medium Medium Effectiveness: * * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high -quality evaluations or other sources * * - Effectiveness still undetermined; different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results *- Limited or no high -quality evaluation evidence Effectiveness is measured by reductions in crashes or injuries unless noted otherwise. See individual countermeasure descriptions for information on effectiveness size and how effectiveness is measured. Cost to implement: $$$: requires extensive new facilities, staff, or equipment, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$: requires some additional staff time, equipment, and/or facilities $: can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment or facilities These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies. Use: High: more than two-thirds of the States, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: between one-third and two-thirds of States or communities Low: fewer than one-third of the States or communities Unknown: data not available Time to implement: Long: more than 1 year 3-13 Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management Medium: more than 3 months but less than 1 year Short: 3 months or less These estimates do not include the time required to enact legislation or establish policies. 3-14 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices Tenth Edition, 2020 Q U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration pi s❑ 120 90 100 110 120 f11-4A76PI bk' ario NHI SA Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management Speeding and Speed Management Countermeasures Countermeasures to reduce aggressive driving and speeding are listed in the table below. The table is intended to provide a rough estimate of each countermeasure's effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for implementation. Effectiveness is shown using a five-star rating system. • Countermeasures that receive * * * * or * * * have been determined to be effective. • Countermeasures that receive * * are considered promising, and likely to be effective. • Countermeasures that receive or * * have NOT been determined to be effective, either because there has been limited or no high -quality evidence (*) or because effectiveness is still undetermined based on the available evidence (**). States, communities, and other organizations are encouraged to use * * *, and especially * * * * or * * * * *, countermeasures. They should use caution in selecting * or countermeasures, since conclusive evidence is not available to demonstrate the effectiveness of these countermeasures. If they decide to use a new or emerging countermeasure that has not yet been studied sufficiently to demonstrate that the countermeasure is effective, they are encouraged to have the countermeasure evaluated in connection with its use. Further details about the symbols and terms used are included after the table. Effectiveness, cost, and time to implement can vary substantially from State to State and community to community. Costs for many countermeasures are difficult to measure, so the summary terms are very approximate. Each countermeasure to reduce aggressive drivin and speeding is discussed individually in this chapter. Full descriptions are included for * *, * * * * and * * * * * countermeasures. Brief descriptions are included for * and ** countermeasures. Further details about the * and * * countermeasures are included in Appendix A3 to this report. 1. Laws Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 1.1 Speed Limits * * * *t $ High Short 1.2 Aggressive Driving and Other Laws ' $ Low Short t When enforced and obeyed 2. Enforcement Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 2.1 Automated Enforcement * * * * * $$$t Medium Medium 2.2 High -Visibility Enforcement $$$ Lowtt Medium 2.3 Other Enforcement Methods Varies Unknown Varies t Can be covered by violator fines tt For aggressive driving, but use of short-term, HVE campaigns for speeding is more widespread 3-12 Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management 3. Penalties and Adjudication Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 3.1 Penalty Types and Levels Varies High Low 3.2 Diversion and Plea Agreement Restrictions, Traffic Violator School Varies Unknown Varies 4. Communications and Outreach Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 4.1 Communications and Outreach Supporting Enforcement * * * Varies Medium Medium Effectiveness: * * * * * Demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results * * * * Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations yfr * * Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high -quality evaluations or other sources Effectiveness still undetermined; different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results Limited or no high -quality evaluation evidence Effectiveness is measured by reductions in crashes or injuries unless noted otherwise. See individual countermeasure descriptions for information on effectiveness size and how ef- fectiveness is measured. Cost to implement: $$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy de- mands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment or facilities These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies. 3-13 Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management Use: High More than two-thirds of the States, or a substantial majority of communities Medium One-third to two-thirds of States or communities Low Less than one-third of the States or communities Unknown Data not available Time to implement: Long More than 1 year Medium More than 3 months but less than 1 year Short 3 months or less These estimates do not include the time required to enact legislation or establish policies. 3-14 Chapter 3. Aggressive Driving and Speeding Countermeasures That Work Countermeasures to reduce aggressive driving and speeding are listed below and discussed individually in this chapter. The table is intended to give a rough estimate of each countermeasure's effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for implementation. The terms used are described below. Effectiveness, cost, and time to implement can vary substantially from State to State and community to community. Costs for many countermeasures are difficult to measure, so the summary terms are very approximate. See each countermeasure discussion for more information. 1. Laws Countermeasure Effectiveness Use Cost Time 1.1 Speed limits * * * * *t High Low Short 1.2 Aggressive driving laws * Low Low Short t When enforced and obeyed 2. Enforcement Countermeasure Effectiveness Use Cost Time 2.1 Automated enforcement * * * * * Medium Hight Medium 2.2 High -visibility enforcement * * Lowtt High Medium 2.3 Other enforcement methods * * Unknown Varies Varies t Can be covered by income from citations tt For aggressive driving, but use of short-term, high -visibility enforcement campaigns for speeding is more widespread 3. Penalties and Adjudication Countermeasure Effectiveness Use Cost Time 3.1 Penalty types and levels * * High Varies Low 3.2 Diversion and plea agreements * Unknown Varies Varies 4. Communications and Outreach Countermeasure I Effectiveness Use Cost Time 4.1 Public Information supporting enforcement * * * Medium Varies Medium Effectiveness: * * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations 3-6 Chapter 3. Aggressive Driving and Speeding * * * - Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high -quality evaluations or other sources * * - Effectiveness still undetermined; different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results * - Limited or no high -quality evaluation evidence Effectiveness is measured by reductions in crashes or injuries unless noted otherwise. See individual countermeasure descriptions for information on effectiveness size and how effectiveness is measured. Use: High: more than two-thirds of the States, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: between one-third and two-thirds of States or communities Low: fewer than one-third of the States or communities Unknown: data not available Cost to implement: High: requires extensive new facilities, staff, or equipment, or makes heavy demands on current resources Medium: requires some additional staff time, equipment, and/or facilities Low: can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment or facilities These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies. Time to implement: Long: more than one year Medium: more than three months but less than one year Short: three months or less These estimates do not include the time required to enact legislation or establish policies. 3-7 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices Eighth Edition, 2015 .......... . . . . . . . . . rap U.S, Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ;0 km/h 140 " ', A 30-- 160 100 20 180 —110 20 10 MPH 120 5 Jim 1: 0 1 '3 6 7 8 P ,;p NHTSA ,vxv",mhtsa.gov Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management Countermeasures That Work Countermeasures to reduce aggressive driving and speeding are listed below and discussed individually in this chapter. The table is intended to give a rough estimate of each countermeasure's effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for implementation. The terms used are described below. Effectiveness, cost, and time to implement can vary substantially from State to State and community to community. Costs for many countermeasures are difficult to measure, so the summary terms are very approximate. See each countermeasure discussion for more information. 1. Laws Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 1.1 Speed limits * * * * *t $ High Short 1.2 Aggressive driving laws $ Low Short 'When enforced and obeyed 2. Enforcement Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 2.1 Automated enforcement * * * * * $$$' Medium Medium 2.2 High visibility enforcement * * $$$ Low" Medium 2.3 Other enforcement methods * * Varies Unknown Varies ' Can be covered by income from citations "For aggressive driving, but use of short-term, high visibility enforcement campaigns for speeding is more widespread 3. Penalties and Adjudication Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 3.1 Penalty types and levels * * Varies High Low 3.2 Diversion and plea agreements * Varies Unknown Varies 4. Communications and Outreach Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost Use Time 4.1 Public Information supporting enforcement * * * Varies Medium Medium Effectiveness: * * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results * * * * - Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations 3-12 Chapter 3. Speeding and Speed Management * * * - Likely to be effective based on balance of evidence from high -quality evaluations or other sources * * - Effectiveness still undetermined; different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results * - Limited or no high -quality evaluation evidence Effectiveness is measured by reductions in crashes or injuries unless noted otherwise. See individual countermeasure descriptions for information on effectiveness size and how effectiveness is measured. Cost to implement: $$$: requires extensive new facilities, staff, or equipment, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$: requires some additional staff time, equipment, and/or facilities $: can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment or facilities These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies. Use: High: more than two-thirds of the States, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: between one-third and two-thirds of States or communities Low: fewer than one-third of the States or communities Unknown: data not available Time to implement: Long: more than one year Medium: more than three months but less than one year Short: three months or less These estimates do not include the time required to enact legislation or establish policies. 3-13 RESOURC FFIC SAFE E GUIDE` -qmmt,7 s - Cover Images Credits: National Sheriffs' Association and the New York State Police Version: October 2020 Disclaimer: This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE INTRODUCTION Police officers in the United States today know all too well how challenging it has become to ensure the safe movement of traffic on the roadways. Factors such as distracted driving, both alcohol and drug -impaired motorists, an increase in total miles driven, and newly emerging considerations such as autonomous vehicles, promoting traffic safety as a national priority has become even more complex. The Traffic Safety Resource Guide is designed to help law enforcement officers to address the elements of traffic safety from education to enforcement as well as share research and best practices. The Guide provides promising practices to support leaders in responding to traffic safety issues they are encountering in their communities. While the Guide does not seek to address all of the issues, it serves as a source of potential strategies that can be implemented, while also providing the latest research. The Guide can also serve as a starting point for learning more about ongoing research and studies by trusted organizations with a long history of commitment to traffic safety. The Guide is written for police officers. In fact, many of the contributors to the Guide are currently working in the field of traffic safety - police officers, researchers, practitioners and others who best understand what the key issues are. The IACP has learned anecdotally that police officers have been known to carry the Guide in their patrol vehicle trunk, while at the same time, police chiefs use the Guide in planning for meetings with their city manager, elected officials, and community groups. As you review the Guide, please keep in mind that new traffic safety initiatives and research are emerging almost daily. The IACP, working with NHTSA, plans to develop a future electronic version of the Traffic Safety Resource Guide, possibly in either a webpage or app format. This will help facilitate near real-time updates of data and research while also providing a mobile platform for smartphones and tablets. Feel free to contact the IACP and NHTSA with more specific questions related to traffic safety that may not be addressed in this Guide. The mission you have undertaken of ensuring safe motor vehicle travel on the many roads in your communities can be a very challenging task. By working together and harnessing the resources and best practices mentioned in the Traffic Safety Resource Guide, the IACP's goal is to enable law enforcement leaders to meet and exceed their traffic safety initiatives. 2 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 Chapter 1: Reduction of Traffic Crashes 5 Alcohol and Drug -Impaired Driving 10 Current Issues in Drug Impaired Driving 13 Distracted Driving 14 Drowsy Driving 15 Aggressive Driving 16 Young Drivers 17 Older Drivers 19 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety 21 Motorcycle Safety 22 Special Enforcement Initiatives to Reduce Crashes 24 Traffic Safety through High Visibility Enforcement 26 The Importance of Occupant Protection 30 Chapter 2: Officer Safety 30 Research in Brief: Officer -Involved Collisions: Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Prevention 31 Safety for Law Enforcement Officers - Still a Priority 33 Below 100 Initiative: A Reality Check on Officer Safety 34 Destination Zero Program 35 Police Pursuits: Trends and Emerging Technology 36 The Dangers of Vehicle Pursuits: New Emerging Issues 40 Move Over Law 40 Officer Safety, Predictive Policing, and Community Relations 42 Tactical Common Sense: Saving Lives with Seatbelts and Traffic Safety Vests 45 Chapter 3: Allocation, Deployment, and Evaluation of Traffic Personnel 45 Police Allocation Manual (PAM) 45 Using Traffic Safety Data to Drive Resource Allocation 47 The Changing of Culture as a Byproduct of the Delaware State Police's Implementation of the Stratified Model to Address Traffic Safety: The Pilot Study 52 Chapter 4: Crash Investigation 57 Chapter 5: Commercial Vehicles and Hazardous Materials Regulation 57 U.S. Department of Transportation 60 Chapter 6: The Driver Licensing System 60 The Driver Licensing System 64 Chapter 7: Registration, Title, and Inspection Enforcement 64 Registration, Title, and Inspection Enforcement 67 Chapter 8: Uniformity, Reciprocity, and Federal Programs 67 Federal Agencies and Grants 71 NHTSA Regional Offices 71 FHWA Field Services and Resource Centers INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 3 72 Chapter 9: Emerging and Critical Issues in Traffic Safety 72 Traffic Safety's Critical Role in the Law Enforcement Mission 73 Traffic Enforcement: Back to Basics 78 Leading Traffic Safety 81 In Pursuit of Bias -Free Traffic Enforcement 86 Highly Automated and Connected Vehicles 88 Legalization of Marijuana: Issues for Traffic Safety 93 Are Red Light Cameras an Effective Crash -Reduction Solution? 97 Speed Cameras to Reduce Speeding Traffic and Road Traffic Injuries 98 Unmanned Aerial Systems and Traffic Safety 98 5 Ways NG911 Can Improve Your Agency 100 Public Relations and Messaging in the Digital Age 105 Traffic Incident Management (TIM) 107 The Incident Command System (ICS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) 108 Enforcement, Engineering, Education, and Evaluation 110 Chapter 10: Legal Issues in Traffic Safety 110 Legal Issues in Traffic Safety 116 Appendices 116 Appendix A: Bibliography of Resources 128 Appendix B: Associations and Committees 132 Appendix C: Abbreviations and Acronyms 137 Appendix D: Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutors 144 Acknowledgements 4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CHAPTER 1: REDUCTION OF TRAFFIC CRASHES Alcohol- and Drug -Impaired Driving In every state in the United States, it is illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher, yet an average of one person is killed in a drunk -driving crash every 48 minutes. Every day, thirty people in the U.S. die in an alcohol -related vehicle crash. F11 While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) advises that impaired driving fatalities have fallen by a third in the last three decades, the risk of being involved in an alcohol -impaired crash is still one -in -three over the course of an individual's lifetime. Impaired driving fatalities in the U.S. increased by 5.7 percent from 2015 to 2017. Parallel to the overall number of lives lost in traffic crashes in 2015, the number of alcohol -impaired fatalities also rose 5.8 percent from 2015 to 2017. [2] (See Table: Fatalities and Fatality Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled in Alcohol -Impaired Driving Crashes, 2008-2017) Meanwhile, the use of marijuana and prescription drugs has become even more prominent among drivers on U.S. roads, raising more challenges for traffic safety officials. With the legalization of cannabis in several states for medical or recreational purposes, the increased prevalence of drugged driving is likely to result in more deaths on roadways. More studies and research are needed, so law enforcement can prepare effective and efficient strategies related to drug -impaired motorists. A NHTSA report indicated that the prevalence of marijuana in drivers in Washington State has increased significantly since the implementation of legal marijuana retail sales in 2014. During the daytime, when children and the elderly are more likely to be outside, the rate of THC identification in drivers more than doubled from 7.8 percent prior to cannabis legalization to 18.9 percent one year after legalization. [3] A second survey considered whether marijuana use by drivers was associated with a greater risk of crash involvement. Results from the survey found that marijuana users were more likely to be involved in crashes, but that the increased risk was due in part to the potential for marijuana users to be in groups already at a higher risk of crashes, such as young men. [4] More data is needed on the link between marijuana use and the propensity of a higher incidence of crashes. Most law enforcement officers in the U.S. do not test impaired drivers for drugs unless the motorists' blood or breath sample results are below the legal limit for alcohol. This is a standard operating procedure to save time and expenses associated with the testing process. Many times, drivers who have been involved in crashes have the presence of both alcohol and drugs in their system. [5] Without more established practices of testing for drug impaired driving, the true picture of drug -impaired driving will remain unknown. Another complex and emerging issue related to drug - impaired driving is the significant increase in the use of prescription drugs. The abuse of opiate drugs specifically has received national attention as the United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2017 that 70,200 deaths were caused by prescription opioids and heroin - an all-time record. [6] As the instances involving the abuse of these drugs increases, law enforcement must be prepared to combat an Falalilies and Fatality naxe per 1a0 Million VNIT in Alcohol -Impaired -Driving Crashes. 2008-2017 ■ Fatalities Falality Rale per 100 Million VMT 11.711 10,759 10.996 10.874 10.136 9,865 10.335 10,084 9,943 10.28G �wwwwww� 1.oa� T 0.80 = a O.60 0.40 0.20 GAO Sources: Fatialitiea— FARS 2006-26rt6 Final File_ 2917 ARF:2G0l1-2016 VMT— Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Annual Highway Statistics; 2U17 VMT—R WAS Traffic Volume Trends (May 2518) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 5 increasing number of opioid-impaired people in the driving population. Clearly, the data on alcohol and drug -impaired driving is very concerning. There has been a documented increased in the prevalence of drugged driving in the U.S. In fact, the number of drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes who have tested positive for drugs increased from 28 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in 2012. [7] NHTSA has been a leader in working diligently to develop evidence - based and data -driven initiatives. Through research, public awareness campaigns, and the many state safety grant programs, NHTSA's goal is to eliminate alcohol- and drug - impaired driving. NHTSA has been working with various partners, including the IACP, GHSA, NSA, MADD, and law enforcement across the U.S. NHTSA regularly partners with law enforcement on successful campaigns to address impaired driving, such as Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over, Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving, and The Ultimate Party Foul initiatives. More information regarding these campaigns on the NHTSA website at https://www.nhtsa. gov/ or on the IACP website at http://www.theiacpthelACP. org/trafficsafety. The IACP Provides Leadership in Addressing Alcohol and Drug -Impaired Driving Strong leadership in law enforcement is the first key to success in bolstering efforts to eliminate impaired driving. Ensuring that traffic enforcement resources are appropriately focused and agencies' field activities support desired outcomes is crucial to the success of the traffic safety mission. Chief executives who emphasize the link between education and enforcement with their rank and file officers will serve as a catalyst to motivate key partners beyond law enforcement. The Broken Windows Model of policing demonstrated the opportunity to reduce crime and improve quality of life by addressing seemingly insignificant crimes, which thereby allowed law enforcement to deter people from committing larger crimes and drive down the general crime rate. There are concepts exhibited through the implementation of this theory into policing that are easily transferrable to traffic enforcement. [8] One research project conducted by Weiss recommended law enforcement agencies "to consider enhancing or expanding their use of traffic enforcement teams because of their potential value in reducing public order crimes." [9] Jurisdictions that have implemented a "Fixing Broken Windows" strategy can reinforce these concepts to contribute to the reduction of impaired driving. In addition to ensuring aggressive impaired driving enforcement is occurring in their agencies, law enforcement agencies should consider: ■ Developing strong support among government leaders; ■ Sponsoring or participating in meaningful awards and recognition programs to provide positive reinforcement for impaired driving enforcement; and ■ Publicly supporting advancements in automotive and enforcement technology for sensing impairment. Criminal Justice Collaboration Partnering and collaborating with other agencies and organizations in order to combine resources can serve as a "force multiplier," and achieve results that a single agency could not accomplish alone. There are excellent examples of innovative campaigns that approach the challenge of impaired driving from a multi -disciplined standpoint, incorporating education, awareness, and enforcement. One such campaign is the High Visibility Education and Enforcement (HVEE) Pilot Project. While not focused only upon impaired driving, this project assembled partners from NHTSA, the IACP, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the U.S. Department of Transportation to help reduce traffic deaths through HVEE initiatives. Four states - Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Wisconsin - participated in this IACP-led effort with programs addressing specific localized traffic safety concerns. The HVEE concept offers an evidence -based, data -driven, problem -solving approach that combined proactive public education campaigns to raise awareness of the identified safety issue, followed by targeted enforcement involving multiple law enforcement agencies. One of the hallmarks of the program was the opportunity to collaborate with stakeholders from multiple disciplines, including representatives from state transportation organizations, state highway safety associations, and state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies. A summary of each state's HVEE program and checklists for high visibility enforcement are available here: www.theiacp.org/HVEE. Additional examples of projects like the HVEE program are also located in the Bibliography of Resources section in the Appendix. Public and private partnerships can help break traditional boundaries, provide broad -based support, amplify available resources and establish shared ownership. NHTSA, the IACP, and other key partners will continue to provide resources and research to law enforcement leaders to assist them in their development and implementation of impaired driving reduction strategies. These efforts, and the engagement of law enforcement agencies throughout the country, will be needed to overcome the multi -faceted challenge of impaired driving. 6 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Effective Communication Strategies Effective internal and external communication is another key to success in emphasizing law enforcement's efforts to eliminate impaired driving. Law enforcement leaders must take affirmative measures to "sell" impaired driving enforcement to both their officers and the public. Garnering the support and response of officers and the public requires leadership, which begins with awareness and commitment at the highest level of any organization. Motivating line -level officers to not only accept, but also become actively involved with impaired driving enforcement should be one of the focal points of any agency's traffic enforcement program. This motivation begins with the chief, sheriff, or other agency head and must be conveyed from the top -down throughout all levels of the organization. Similarly, external communications are essential to success. Law enforcement executives should not be deterred by the occasional negative public response to impaired driving enforcement. In one example, the Chicago Tribune wrote an article entitled "Sobriety checkpoints yield thousands of minor citations but few DUI arrests." [10] A consensus of the vast body of research on public attitudes continues to show that the public rates impaired driving among the greatest traffic safety threats; additionally, there is broad -based support for enhanced enforcement. Impaired driving enforcement programs are greatly enhanced when an agency is proactive in garnering support for its efforts from key supporters and allies, such as MADD, as well as other traffic safety organizations, community groups, and coalitions. [11] Two key partners are the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) in each state, as well as, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). GHSA is an umbrella organization representing the interests of the SHSOs and serves as the state's voice on highway safety at the national level. Working collaboratively, the SHSOs and the GHSA facilitate innovative education and awareness campaigns and are highly recommended partners for any chief executive. NHTSA, SHSOs, and GHSA all provide template media materials on their websites that can be extremely valuable to law enforcement. [12] Refer here https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/ for more information. Impaired Driving Detection Law enforcement officers utilize various practices and advanced technologies to detect impaired drivers. This section will summarize some of the more common methods and technologies used in the field. Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Developed in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery consists of tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DUI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the IACP. SFST training prepares law enforcement officers to use the standard test battery to enhance the prosecution of impaired driving cases. The three tests comprising the SFST are (1) the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), (2) the walk -and -turn, and (3) the one -leg stand. These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the driver. [13] Consult the IACP and NHTSA for additional information regarding the SFST training curriculum and your local or state training centers for available classes. Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Program A drug recognition expert (DRE) is a law enforcement officer trained to recognize impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. The IACP coordinates the International Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program with support from NHTSA. In addition to certifying law enforcement officers as DREs, the DEC Program educates prosecutors and judges in the prosecution of drugged drivers. [14] For more information on the DEC Program and DREs, visit www.decp.org. Also see "Current Issues in Drug Impaired Driving" by Lieutenant Matt Myers, Peachtree City Police Department, at the end of this chapter. Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) The Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program was developed by NHTSA with input from the IACP Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) and the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police (VACP). ARIDE was created to address the gap in training between the SFST and DRE training. The ARIDE program also stresses the importance of securing the most appropriate biological sample in order to identify substances likely causing impairment. [15] Additional information is available at this website: http://www.decp.org/training/. Another key resource is the article entitled "Current Issues in INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Drug Impaired Driving" by Lieutenant Matt Myers of the Peachtree City, Georgia, Police Department, at the end of this chapter. Roadside and Sobriety Checkpoints Roadside checkpoints provide law enforcement personnel with a ready means to monitor and check driver condition, driver's licenses, insurance, vehicle registrations, and compliance with other laws regarding vehicle operation. Although federal case law supports the use of checkpoints in this manner (subject to certain restrictions), law enforcement executives should educate themselves on the state laws regarding the use of checkpoints before implementing such operations in their jurisdiction. Because some courts and licensing authorities now issue restricted licenses to offenders, roadside checks allow officers to monitor compliance with court -ordered and statutory restrictions. Law enforcement personnel can contact increased numbers of vehicle operators without first having to make traffic stops. Roadside checkpoints also enable officers to conduct vehicle registration inquiries and detect uninspected or unsafe vehicles. A sobriety checkpoint is a highly visible enforcement mechanism. All motorists approaching a designated area of a highway are stopped and briefly investigated for signs of intoxication. Due to legal issues, not all state laws allow law enforcement to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Some states have laws authorizing their use while others forbid them entirely; thus, law enforcement leadership should be cognizant of their state and jurisdictional laws and regulations. The HSC and NHTSA have published operational guidelines that chief executives should be familiar with to ensure their personnel follow them closely, as well as make certain all officers conduct the checkpoints in a safe, legal, and effective manner. These guidelines suggest that checkpoints should be part of an ongoing program to combat impaired driving, have local judicial support, and conform to agency policy. The location should be pre -selected by management based upon statistics and should have special advance warning devices, a visible police presence, chemical testing logistics, contingency planning, effective detection and investigation techniques, operational briefings, comprehensive public information and public education efforts, and post -incident critiques based on data collection and evaluation. [16] Law enforcement leaders should contact the traffic safety resource prosecutor (TSRP) or SHSO in their state for assistance in developing policies and practices consistent with state and federal laws regarding road checks. Refer to the Appendix for a listing of TSRPs in each state. Breath -Testing Instruments The NHTSA Alcohol Countermeasures Program (ACP) provides continued support to further reduce the rate of intoxicated driving through the development and evaluation of measurement techniques for alcohol on the breath, production of performance guidelines for breath measurement devices, testing of instruments intended for police use, and technical support of demonstration and research programs. Under Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Secretary of Transportation is required to carry out a research and demonstration program. In the area of alcohol breath testing, the requirements of the Act are met by NHTSA through the Office of Research and Program Development and the Office of Behavioral Safety Research. Supported by a capable laboratory, they are responsible for the development and evaluation of test procedures and related instrumentation. [17] The Alcohol Countermeasures Laboratory (ACL) evaluates alcohol devices according to NHTSA's Model Specifications for evidential breath testers, alcohol screening devices, and calibrating units. Devices that meet the specifications are added to NHTSA's Conforming Products List (CPL), which is available on the NHTSA website. The ACL also evaluates other alcohol test devices of interest for potential usefulness in alcohol -impaired countermeasures, including ignition interlock devices, disposable or re -useable personal breath testers, passive breath testers, or devices that test other fluids for alcohol (e.g., saliva testers). [18] A comprehensive list may be found at the Alcohol Measuring Device Testing and Technical Information page: https://www.volpe.dot. gov/safety-management-and-human-factors/surface- transportation- h u man-factors/a lcoho I -measu ri Ing-clevice. [19] Law enforcement leaders should be cognizant of state guidelines for testing instruments. Some states only allow preliminary testing to be conducted with a device approved by a specific agency, such as the state's forensic science laboratory. Preliminary (or Portable) Breath Test Devices (PBT) The preliminary (or portable) breath test (PBT) device is an instrument used for the purpose of breath alcohol screening in the field. A law enforcement officer can use the PBT as a preliminary screening tool for impaired driving by having the suspected driver provide a breath sample for an instantaneous determination of breath alcohol content. 8 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Officers are reminded to refer to their applicable state and local laws regarding the use of evidence from a PBT While results are generally not admissible as evidence of impairment, they do provide officers with additional objective information to establish probable cause for arrest and further chemical testing. [20] Non -Invasive or Passive Alcohol Sensors Passive alcohol sensors (PAS) are instruments that detect the presence of alcohol in normally expelled breath, and they require no cooperation from the driver. During a roadside interview of the driver, the officer places the sensor within six inches of the driver's mouth. It contains a small fan which samples the ambient air for examination. An electro-chemical mechanism analyzes the air for the presence of alcohol. [21] From: https://goo.gl/images/QxLBNL Some sensors are concealed within a flashlight or a clipboard, which can be used as a passive or active detector. NHTSA studies indicate these devices are effective during sobriety checkpoints when the decision to further evaluate drivers must be made expeditiously. Vehicle -Based Sensors of Driver Behavior to Detect Impairment Although enforcement and educational approaches have helped to reduce alcohol -impaired driving fatalities, new vehicle -based sensor technologies are being studied by NHTSA and other interested groups. One such approach concerns countermeasures that capitalize on the increasingly sophisticated sensor and computational platform that is available on many production vehicles. Such vehicle -based countermeasures have the potential to address alcohol -impaired driving and save thousands of lives each year. Vehicle -based countermeasures use sensors that describe drivers' control inputs (e.g., steering wheel and brake pedal movement), vehicle state (e.g., accelerometer and lane position), driving context (e.g., speed zone information and proximity of surrounding vehicles), and driver state (e.g., eye movements and posture). Data from these sensors can be transformed, combined, and processed with a variety of algorithms to develop a detailed description of the driver's response to the roadway. These sensors and algorithms hold promise for identifying a range of driver impairments, including distraction, drowsiness, and even age -related cognitive decline. Alcohol represents a particularly important impairment that might be detected by vehicle -based sensors and algorithms. [22] For more information on one vehicle -based sensor study conducted by NHTSA, refer to this website: https://www- esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV-000322.pdf. Alcohol Ignition Interlock One effective strategy in addressing the problem of impaired driving, which has application to both first- time and repeat offenders, is the use of ignition interlock devices. An ignition interlock device is an after -market technology device installed in a motor vehicle to prevent a driver from operating the vehicle if the driver has been drinking. A driver must submit a breath sample using the device before it will operate. If the driver's blood -alcohol content (BAC) is over a pre-set limit, the ignition interlock will not allow the vehicle to start. Studies have shown that these devices are effective in reducing subsequent arrests for driving under the influence among both first-time and repeat offenders, with reported reductions ranging from 50-90 percent while the interlock device is installed on the vehicle. From a law enforcement perspective, it is important for officers to be able to determine offenders who were sentenced to an ignition interlock program while in the field. One suggestion is to have a special designation or endorsement on an offender's license that is easily identifiable by a law enforcement officer. [24] Notes: 1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Drunk Driving," https://crashstats. nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812630. 2. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, "Alcohol -Impaired Driving: 2017 Data," Traffic Safety Facts (NHTSA, November 2018), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Api/Public/ViewPublication/812630. 3. A. Ramirez et al., "Technology Transfer Series: Drivers' Use of Marijuana in Washington State," Traffic Tech (NHTSA, August 2016), https://www.nhtsa.gov/ sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812307-tt-marijuana_use_in_wa.pdf. (accessed February 3, 2017). 4. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Drugged Driving;' https://www. nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drugged-driving (accessed February 3, 2017). 5. John Flannigan, Stephen K. Talpins, and Christina Moore, "Oral Fluid Testing for Impaired Driving Enforcement," The Po/ice Chief 84, no. 1 (January 2017): 58-63, http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/oral-fluid-testing-for-impaired-driving-enforc ement/?ref=f5l308af5da285f2ld878208alle3ff5 (accessed February 3, 2017). 6. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Injury Prevention & Control: Opioid Overdose," https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/. 7. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, "Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers," Traffic Safety Facts (NHTSA, November 2010), (accessed February 3, 2017). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 8. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811415. (accessed February 3, 2017). 9. Impaired Driving Subcommittee, "Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three Keys to Renewed Focus and Success," International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2006, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/O/pdfs/impairedDrivingGuidebook.pdf. (accessed February 3, 2017). 10. Marc Weiss, "Traffic Enforcement, Policing and Crime Rates," Walden University ScholarWorks, 2016, http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=3731&context=dissertations. (accessed February 3, 2017). 11. Angela Caputo, "Sobriety Checkpoints Yield Thousands of Minor Citations but Few DUI Arrests," Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2015, http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/watchdog/ct-dui-checkpoints-suburbs-met-20150507-story.html (accessed February 14, 2017). 12. Impaired Driving Subcommittee, "Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three Keys to Renewed Focus and Success," International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2006, http://www.theiacp.org/portals/O/pdfs/ImpairedDrivingGuidebook.pdf. 13. Ibid. 14. Highway Safety Desk Book (n.p., 2004), 5-7 - 5-9, https://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ deskbk.html. 15. International Association of Chiefs of Police, "IACP DEC Program: International Drug Evaluation and Classification Program," http://www.decp.org/ (accessed February 3, 2017). 16. ---, "Training." http://www.decp.org/training/ (accessed February 3, 2017). 17. Highway Safety Desk Book (n.p., 2004), 5-11 - 5-14, https://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ deskbk.html. 18. Volpe, "Alcohol Countermeasures Help Reduce Intoxicated Driving," National Transportation Systems Center, October 31, 2013, https://www.volpe.dot.gov/ safety-management-and-hu man-factors/surface-transportation-hu man -factors/ alcohol -countermeasures (accessed February 3, 2017). 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Highway Safety Desk Book (n.p., 2004), 5-24, https://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/deskbk. html. 22. Highway Safety Desk Book (n.p., 2004), 5-25, https://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/deskbk. html. 23. John D. Lee et al., "Assessing the Feasibility of Vehicle -Based Sensors to Detect Alcohol Impairment," (NHTSA, August 2010), https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa. dot.gov/files/811886-assess_veh-based_sensors_4_drowsy-driving detection. pdf. (accessed February 3, 2017). 24. Karen Sprattler, "Ignition Interlocks - What You Need to Know," (NHTSA, November 2009), https://www.bing.com/cr?IG=E9C62525CC25419E896A2FO 8F9677C6A&CID=03271507FF6461EEOD4E1F26FE556023&rd=1&h=aPeO3BuT Zk17q-R3zUaJ PN i rg RPm_KI mtE1_FxfU VsU&v=1&r=https%3a % 2f % 2fwww. nhtsa. gov % 2fstaticfi les % 2fnti %2fi m pa ired_d rivi ng%2fpdf % 2f811246.pdf&p=DevEx,5060.1 (accessed February 6, 2017). Current Issues in Drug Impaired Driving By: Lieutenant Matt Myers, Peachtree City Police Department, Peachtree City, Georgia The 2013-2014 National Roadside -IWAflMFP— Study of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers revealed an encouraging trend of declining alcohol use by drivers. [1] The data collected by this study, along with declining alcohol -related fatalities documented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System, demonstrate promising evidence that "drunk" driving education and enforcement initiatives are creating positive change. While it may be encouraging that the Roadside Survey found only 8.3 percent of drivers were positive for alcohol, law enforcement should take note that researchers found over 20 percent of drivers tested positive for at least one drug - an increase from the 16.3 percent in 2007. These drugs included, among others, cannabis, sedatives, narcotics, stimulants and anti -depressant medications. As can be expected from recent legislative changes, the drug with the sharpest increase in use was cannabis. Drivers who tested positive for the drug leapt from 8.6 percent in 2007 to 12.6 percent in the 2013-2014 study. The number of drug -impaired driver evaluations reported by Drug Recognition Experts also reflects this concerning trend. From 2009 to 2015, the number of formal drug influence evaluations reported by Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program state coordinators rose from 24,059 to 28,542, nearly a 20% increase. The number of DREs rose by only 6 percent during that time. Cannabis was the most frequently identified drug category in 2015, being identified in 10,880 DIRE evaluations nationally - a 25 percent increase from 2012. This data demonstrates an enormous and increasing need for law enforcement to expand their efforts to combat drug -impaired driving. Recent trends in cannabis legislation, and attempted cannabis legislation, suggest that the need for vigilance in this area will continue to increase in coming years. Law Enforcement Countermeasures: Officer Training Law enforcement managers should consider officer education the most fundamental step in effectively combating drug -impaired driving. NHTSA, in cooperation with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), maintains a series of progressive curriculum packages to build officer expertise in the area of alcohol 10 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE and drug impairment. The pinnacle of these programs is Drug Recognition Expert training. Use of Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) is a vital component of any law enforcement response to the drug impaired driving issue. Simply put, a DRE is trained to make a three-point determination about suspected impaired drivers: Is the driver impaired? 2. If the driver is impaired, is the impairment due to drugs or a medical condition? 3. If the impairment is drug -induced, what category or categories of drugs are causing the impairment? The training to become a DRE is a rigorous process, but attainable for dedicated officers. It includes a two-day "DRE Preschool" that is designed to assess the candidate's ability to move forward in the program and prepare them for the next phase. Candidates who successfully complete the preschool then transition to a 7-day classroom phase where they learn the 12-step drug influence evaluation process, details of drug influence symptomatology, and how to execute the three-point determination described above. Upon passing the classroom phase, candidates then move onto a field certification phase in which they must conduct hands-on evaluations of actual drug impaired subjects and correctly render decisions about them. The final step in the certification process is then successful completion of the Final Knowledge Exam, which includes a detailed exploration of the knowledge they gained through the entire process up to that point. More details about the process and how it is supported in each state can be obtained from the state's DRE State Coordinator. Law enforcement managers must understand that the value of DREs extends well beyond arrests they personally make. DREs supplement and bolster the arrests of other officers, provide expert testimony on cases made by other officers, and can serve as a community resource in a variety of contexts. Despite their great value, DREs only compose a small percentage of the law enforcement officers nationally. According to the IACP, which manages the credentialing process for DREs, there were approximately 8,000 DREs, spread across 3,681 agencies, in the United States on December 31, 2016. The program is also represented in Canada, the United Kingdom, China, and Germany. To aid in bridging the gap between the basic training received by most police officers in DUI Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety Testing and DRE training, NHTSA and IACP developed Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). ARIDE solidifies the student's proficiency in Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, trains them to administer two additional examinations, introduces the concepts of pupil size change as an indicator of drug influence, and familiarizes candidates with foundational concepts in identifying drivers under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. The standard ARIDE course is a 16-hour class available in all 50 states. According to statistics from NHTSA's national tracking system for DRE Drug Influence Evaluations, ARIDE has proven to be a successful tool for screening impaired drivers into DRE evaluations for many states. For example, the tracking system indicates that 50.6 percent of the DRE enforcement evaluations conducted in Washington State during 2015 resulted from an impaired driving arrest made by an ARIDE-trained officer. For more information about ARIDE and DRE training, as well as assistance contacting a DRE State Coordinator, visit www.decp.org Law Enforcement Countermeasures: Refusal of Chemical Testing Even when well -trained officers develop a strong body of evidence against an impaired driver using standardized sobriety testing, the lack of chemical testing can be a serious challenge to obtaining convictions in court. While there does not seem to be a credible estimate of blood draw refusals in recent years, research indicates that the average refusal rate for breath tests in 2011 was 24 percent (median 18 percent) across 34 states for which data was available. [21 Several states in the United States have statutes allowing police officers to obtain search warrants for blood in the case of an impaired driver that refuses the state chemical test. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS) was one of the first law enforcement agencies to implement large-scale use of search warrants and "no refusal" programs on impaired driving cases, and they can be considered a model for other agencies interested in aggressively combating this issue. AZDPS troopers apply for search warrants electronically when a driver refuses chemical testing and are able to execute the blood collection with little delay. With the frequent use of search warrants for blood in their agency, AZDPS has also implemented a law enforcement phlebotomy (blood drawing) program to reduce complications and delays involved with using a third -party for sample collection. Troopers attend a 40-hour course for initial phlebotomy certification, then maintain the certification through meeting certain ongoing requirements. The ability to eliminate wait times at hospitals or other medical facilities is of particular INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 11 importance with drivers under the influence of cannabis, as research shows that THC blood concentration decreases an average of 73.5 percent in the first half-hour and 90.3 percent in the first 1.4 hours after smoking. [3] The ability of officers to draw samples themselves improves their collection time, as compared to the generally accepted 1.5 - 4-hour average range to obtain a blood sample using third -party personnel. For more information on other considerations in law enforcement phlebotomy programs and how to go about establishing a similar program in your state, contact the Arizona Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Program Coordinator via the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety. Challenges and Recommendations: Chemical Testing Policy and Practice The observations and clearly articulated opinions of a well -trained officer should serve as the foundation for any impaired driving case, but chemical testing provides a useful, and sometimes crucial, means to support the officer's findings of impairment. Even when a biological sample is collected by law enforcement for analysis, the content and scope of testing may still vary significantly between states. For example, some state statutes only allow law enforcement to collect urine for chemical testing purposes. This restricts the usefulness of the test in proving impairment, since urine shows historical (not necessarily recent) use of a drug and cannot be easily correlated to a level in the blood (where it can affect driving). In the case of such statutes, law enforcement managers should work with their state officials to move towards legislation more supportive of convicting impaired driving cases. A more common point of variance between states is the scope of drugs tested for and the minimum levels at which their lab can confirm and quantify the presence of a drug. Even with the longstanding record of cannabis as the most abused illicit drug in the United States, [4] some labs still do not test and confirm the presence of THC in blood - only an inactive metabolite. Others may confirm THC, but only at levels notably higher than where some people may be impaired. Similar issues extend to other drugs, both licit and illicit. Not only is this a challenge to convicting impaired drivers, but it may create the false impression of officers making unjustified arrests. In 2016, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) joined the National Safety Council's Alcohol, Drugs, and Impairment Division (NSC ADID) in supporting recommendations set forth in "Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug -Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities," [5] which provides recommendations for confirmation levels and scope of testing for forensic toxicology laboratories. The IACP's resolution encourages law enforcement to work in partnership with their toxicology labs to support implementation of the recommended standards. This resolution, and others, can be reviewed at http://www. theiacp.org/Resolutions. With the expansion of medical and recreational cannabis laws across the country, several states have current or pending legislation that sets a per se threshold (other than zero) for THC in the blood. While the intent of such laws is typically to create a presumption of impairment over a certain level, the practical implication of such laws is often that attorneys and jurors erroneously presume drivers under that limit are not impaired. A recent position paper from the NSC ADID cautions that "It is further concluded that due to rapid changes in blood THC concentrations over time, there is no minimum safe threshold blood concentration below which a driver can be considered to have been unaffected while driving following recent cannabis use. Consequently there is no scientific basis for the adoption of THC per se laws for driving." Law enforcement managers should consider the challenges described in this position paper, and bring them to the attention of lawmakers when matters related to cannabis legalization or per se laws are at issue. [6] The proliferation of drug -impaired driving has cued development of additional roadside testing technology that may assist officers with confirming the presence of certain drugs in a biological specimen, similar to portable breath testing devices used in alcohol cases. The most promising developments in this area are related to oral fluid testing. A small number of states are currently running pilot programs to test the practicality and reliability of roadside oral fluid testing. If this technology proves to have valid applications in roadside impaired driving enforcement, many states will still face hurdles due to state laws that prohibit such testing or require that a state agency endorse any device to be used for chemical testing. Current research correlating levels of a drug in oral fluid to levels in blood is also critically lacking, so early adoption of this technology will likely only be useful for establishing presence of the drug. Public Education NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) indicates a reduction of over 50 percent in the number of traffic deaths attributable to alcohol -impaired driving between 1982 and 2014. While law enforcement efforts to deter impaired driving and apprehend violators have been important contributors to this decline, so too have public education campaigns implemented by state and federal government agencies, as well as private entities such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Similar efforts on the topic of drug -impaired driving, particularly cannabis- 12 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE impaired driving, may be warranted as legislative and social trends continue to facilitate increasing numbers of people likely to operate a vehicle while impaired by drugs. Jurisdictions newly facing the issue of increased cannabis - impaired driving can look to states like Colorado that have spent years developing programs specifically targeting that problem. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has launched campaigns like "Drive High, Get a DUI", staged clever public demonstrations to draw the attention of the general public and recreational marijuana users, installed video games with sober driving messages at dispensaries to engage marijuana users at point of sale, and even partnered with ride -sharing services to increase awareness of safe ride alternatives. Countermeasures like these hold great promise in minimizing traffic fatalities related to drug impaired driving. Notes: 1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Study of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. By A. Berning, R. Compton, and K. Wochinger. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015. 2. Jones, R. K., and James L. Nichols. Breath test refusals & their effect on DWI prosecutions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012. 3. Hartman, R. L., T. L. Brown, G. Milavetz, A. Spurgin, D. A. Gorelick, G. R. Gaffney, and M. A. Huestis. "Effect of Blood Collection Time on Measured 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Concentrations: Implications for Driving Interpretation and Drug Policy." Clinical Chemistry 62, no. 2 (2016): 367-77. doi:10.1373/c I i nchem.2015.248492. 4. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015). Behavioral health trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 15-4927, NSDUH Series H-50). Retreived from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH- FRR1-2014.pdf 5. Logan, B. K., K. J. Lowrie, J. L. Turn, J. K. Yeakel, J. F. Limoges, A. K. Miles, C. E. Scarneo, S. Kerrigan, and L. J. Farrell. "Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug -Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities." Journal of Analytical Toxicology 37, no. 8 (2013): 552-58. doi:10.1093/jat/bktO59. 6. Position on the Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) and Driving. February 12, 2017. Position Paper of the National Safety Council's Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment Division Contributor Acknowledgements Chuck Hayes, DECP Project Manager, International Association of Chiefs of Police Capt. Tim Mason, Arizona Department of Public Safety Lt. Ron Kessler and Lt Rob Sharpe, Washington State Patrol Glen Beck, Highway Safety Program Manager, Colorado Department of Transportation Amy Miles, Forensic toxicology Section Director, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene Distracted Driving Distracted driving has emerged as a significant problem that requires the resources of law enforcement agencies. In some jurisdictions, distracted driving now exceeds alcohol as a contributing factor in crashes. Law enforcement agencies face the reality that nearly 68 percent of U.S. adults now own a smartphone. At any given moment during the daytime, more than 800,000 vehicles are being driven by an individual who is using a hand-held cellphone. [1] Lawmakers have responded with primary laws banning texting while driving and youth under the age of 18 from using a cell phone while driving. There has also been legislation passed that requires distracted driving issues to be included in the state driver's license examination. As of April 2019, 48 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have banned text messaging for all drivers, while all but 3 states have primary enforcement laws. [2] NHTSA's "Road to Zero Fatalities" campaign and Strategic Plan address human factors as the primary causes of crashes, including impaired, drugged, distracted, and drowsy driving. NHTSA has emphasized the importance of these issues in a concerted education and awareness campaign. Law enforcement leaders are encouraged to review NHTSA's Distraction.gov website (https://www. distraction.gov/index.html) for links to best practices and campaigns conducted by law enforcement agencies to address the issue of distracted driving. [3] The New York State Police (NYSP) and the Dalton, Georgia, Police Department (DPD) offer two innovative approaches to distracted driving. The NYSP model consists of a multi -pronged strategy emphasizing executive leadership starting with the governor of New York; data analysis; problem identification; public information and education, particularly with programs focused on youths; and enforcement. For their efforts in 201S, the NYSP was selected as the winner of the Distracted Driving Special Award winner in the 2016 National Law Enforcement Challenge (NLEC). Several important lessons learned by the NYSP in addressing this traffic safety issue could assist other agencies in replicating their success: ■ Lead with leadership: Moving the needle on distracted driving requires strategic support at the highest levels, both internally and externally. One example of this was New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's creation of 91 "Texting Zones," where motorists can safely pull over on a roadway to use their mobile phones. The priorities of the command staff resonate agency -wide. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 13 Stories sway: Victim -impact stories can help change driver behavior by highlighting the human cost of distracted driving crashes. Stealth drives success: Covert SUVs have a significant tactical advantage over marked patrol cars during distracted driving enforcement due in part to their higher stance relative to other cars. [4] The winner of the Distracted Driving Special Award in the 2015 NLEC, the DPD zeroed in on the issue in 2014 by focusing on specialized training, targeted education, and concentrated enforcement. With a population of 33,000 citizens and 61 sworn officers, community surveys revealed distracted driving as a top citizen concern. During a roadside visual survey, the DPD found that over half of observed motorists were engaged in some type of distracted behavior while operating their vehicles. Leadership in the DPD selected the month of October to be dubbed "Distractober," with correlating "Operation Thumbs Up/Distractober" campaign initiatives that included problem identification using community surveys, education of officers and citizens, and selective traffic enforcement details. The DPD reported a 23.7 percent reduction in distraction -related crashes following these efforts. Other lessons learned included: ■ Community input is important: Citizen surveys can help agencies identify critical traffic safety issues. ■ Limited campaigns can produce lasting results: Organized, short-term education and enforcement campaigns can help agencies target specific traffic problems in a meaningful way. Enforcement yields education: Traffic stops are an excellent opportunity to educate drivers on the hazards of distracted driving as well as enforce the law. [5] To learn more about distracted driving initiatives, refer to the IACID website: https://www.theiacp.org/topics/traffic-safety Notes: 1. National Conference of State Legislatures, "Distracted Driving," March 3, 2016, accessed February 3, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/spotlight- d istracted-d rivi ng.aspx. 2. "Distracted Driving," Governors Highway Safety Association, accessed June 7, 2019, https://www.ghsa.org/index.php/state-laws/issues/distracted%20driving. 3. "Distracted Driving," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accessed February 3, 2017, https://www.distraction.gov/index.html. 4. "Dialing Against Distractions," Traffic Safety Innovations 2076 (IACP, 2017), accessed February 22, 2017, http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/O/documents/NLEC/ Distracted % 20Driving_vl.pdf. 5. "A Serious Distraction," Traffic Safety Innovations 2075 (IACP, 2016), accessed February 3, 2017, http://www.iacp.org/Portals/O/documents/NLEC/Distracted%20 Driving.pdf. Drowsy Driving Drowsy driving is not simply falling asleep at the wheel; it is a profound impairment that mimics alcohol -impaired driving in many ways. Drowsiness leads to slower reaction times and impaired attention, mental processing, judgment, and decision -making. Drowsiness can occur from accumulating sleep debt, typically less than six hours per night across multiple nights, or from only one night of not sleeping. Precise statistics of crashes caused by drowsy driving are not yet possible. Crash investigators can look for certain clues that indicate drowsiness was a likely contributor to driver error, but these clues are not always identifiable or conclusive. In lieu of consistent and conclusive evidence, researchers have used various methods to estimate the overall number of crashes or crash fatalities caused by driver drowsiness. [1] NHTSA developed the "Drowsy Driving Research and Program Plan" in order to address the problem of drowsy driving in the United States. This plan has six broad focus areas, including measurement and problem identification, public awareness and education, policy development, high - risk populations, vehicle technology, and infrastructure. There will be a total of ten projects initiated with emphasis on these focus areas to enhance the science and program initiatives around drowsy driving. [2] GHSA's "Wake Up Call! Understanding Drowsy Driving and What States Can Do" campaign is an important initiative that provides law enforcement agencies with excellent resources on this issue, such as a recorded webinar and a unique report examining the causes and effects of drowsy driving. The report contains adaptable best practices from agencies in Iowa, Utah, Texas, and New York to address drowsy driving. More information and resources can be found on the campaign's website: http://www.ghsa.org/ resources/wake-call-understanding-drowsy-driving-and- what-states-can-do. [3] Addressing the problem of drowsy driving is essential and the task is even more complex due to the following: The true extent of the problem is hampered by incomplete data; ■ There is limited objective data to determine if a motorist is too tired to drive; and ■ The general public does not fully understand the importance and dynamics of sleep and its impact upon safe driving. [4] An important point has been established based upon research studying the similarities between drowsy driving and impaired driving. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an article which discussed INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE studies demonstrating how the lack of sleep mimics impairment and the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. The CDC reported that being awake for at least 18 hours is the same as someone having BAC of 0.05 while being awake for at least 24 hours is the equivalent to have a BAC of 0.10. [5] Working together with NHTSA, SHSOs, and other key partners, law enforcement can make drowsy driving a year-round priority. Potential specific strategies include: Participating in the National Sleep Foundation's (NSF) Drowsy Driving Prevention Week each November. Law enforcement can work collaboratively with community partners to raise awareness and conduct enforcement efforts. 2. Educating themselves about the dangers of drowsy driving and being alert to the signs of drivers who may be under the influence of medications in order to help them stay awake on the roads. This may involve a partnership with their state's commercial vehicle enforcement units and DRE-trained officers who may have more advanced training and techniques to detect drowsy driving. 3. Leading or forming key partnerships during campaigns to educate shift workers, commercial vehicle operators, and adolescents on the dangers of drowsy driving. Educational materials are available from organizations like NSF, NHTSA, GHSA, and FMCSA. 4. Analyzing crash data with an emphasis on known drowsing driving high -risk corridors. Law enforcement officers can then conduct patrols where they are alert to the cues and behavioral signs of drowsy driving. Advertising these data -driven efforts, coupled with high -visibility enforcement, to address drowsy driving may have a deterrent effect. S. Encouraging law enforcement leaders to contact their SHSO to learn more about best practices, funding for drowsy driving initiatives, and the latest research. Notes: 1. Namni Goel et al., "Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation," Seminars in Neurology 29, no. 04 (2009): 320-39, accessed February 3, 2017, doi:10.1055/s-0029-1237117, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/ d rowsyd rivi ng_strategicpla n_030316.pdf. 2. Ibid. 3. "Wake up Call! Understanding Drowsy Driving and What States Can Do," Governors Highway Safety Association, 2016, accessed February 3, 2017, http:// www.ghsa.org/resources/wake-ca I I-understanding-drowsy-d rivi ng-and-what- states-can-do. 4. "WAKE UP CALL! Understanding Drowsy Driving and What States Can Do," Governors Highway Safety Association, 2017, http://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/Drowsy % 202016-U.pdf. S. "Drowsy Driving," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 18, 2016, accessed February 16, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/about sleep/drowsy_ driving.html. Aggressive Driving Aggressive driving, according to NHTSA, is when individuals commit a combination of moving traffic offenses, and in doing so, endanger other persons or property. Driving behaviors that commonly constitute aggressive driving include speeding, racing, frequently changing lanes, cutting off other drivers, failing to signal, running red lights, failing to yield, tailgating, slowing rapidly to discourage a tailgater, boxing in other vehicles, and using other intimidation maneuvers. [1] The problem of aggressive driving can be further compounded by overt acts of intimidation such as gesturing or shouting at other operators. In some extreme cases, aggressive drivers have even reportedly engaged in assaultive and menacing behaviors towards other motorists, sometimes even using a firearm. Factors that lead to aggressive driving include road construction, extreme traffic congestion, perceived bad driving, and a general lack of patience in society today. [2] States have addressed aggressive driving legislatively in different ways. Some have defined aggressive driving as a separate offense, while others may group it under the reckless driving statute. Generally, aggressive driving includes the behaviors often covered under the reckless driving law. However, other states have added language that defines a pattern of behaviors occurring over a short period with or without intention. States with a statute that require intention often find this difficult to prove, and thus use their reckless driving statute to cite offenders. The definition of aggressive driving often includes that these driving behaviors could result from aggression, selfishness, or competition. Many of the behaviors that constitute aggressive driving could also occur in the absence of aggression; for example, if a driver is inattentive. Several state legislatures use a threshold of three or more potentially aggressive behaviors committed in a sequence or over a short period of time in their statutory definitions of aggressive driving. Aggressive driving may lead to more extreme actions on the part of the offender known as "road rage." This may involve criminal intimidation, sometimes coupled with violence, precipitated by driving activities. Road rage involves an intent to harm and can involve the use of the vehicle as a weapon take place outside the vehicle(s) involved. [3] Response Strategies A multi -disciplined approach to aggressive driving involving enforcement, legislation, environmental and situational factors, public education, and judicial responses are viewed as most effective. Law enforcement agencies INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE is that use a blend of comprehensive strategies may see the most success in impacting aggressive driving behaviors. By using data to identify and then target known aggressive driving high -risk corridors, law enforcement can be most effective in addressing this issue. Other effective strategies include enforcement and sanctions to target individual aggressive drivers. Additionally, a focus on the driving environments, public education and awareness, and situational stressors that lead to aggressive driving, such as road construction during peak commuting hours, are suggested. [4] Traffic enforcement to address aggressive driving has three primary goals: ■ Deter cited drivers from driving aggressively in the future; ■ Deter other drivers who learn about police enforcement from driving aggressively; and Remove aggressive drivers from the roads while they are angry and most dangerous. Deterrence is advanced through significant fines or other consequences such as jail time, and through high -visibility enforcement. Effective enforcement campaigns typically include an emphasis on public information and education strategies, including roadside warnings. [5] Best Practices in Targeting Aggressive Driving A NIHTSA-sponsored study entitled "Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Evaluation of Two Demonstration Programs" assessed the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving. The programs were conducted by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership a consortium of agencies in the vicinity of Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Tucson, Arizona, Police Department. Study results suggested that limited resources might be best spent on officer enforcement efforts, as opposed to public awareness campaigns. The study also found assigning full-time enforcement responsibility to a small team of officers to conduct special enforcement patrols may be more effective than tasking a larger number officers with an occasional overtime duty. The study also showed that crashes caused by aggressive driving can be effectively deterred by a combination of enforcement and public information and education. Notes: 4. Ibid. Laing. S. Ibid. Laing. Young Drivers The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports that teenage drivers have the highest crash risk per mile traveled, compared with drivers in other age groups. The challenge for youths operating a motor vehicle is their over -confidence in their driving skills and a failure to perceive the many hazards that exist on the road. [1] A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that one of the riskiest driving behaviors is the performance of secondary tasks requiring drivers to look away from the road, and that novice drivers appear to be especially prone to this type of activity while dialing or texting on a smartphone. [2] This kind of risky driving behavior is often compounded by the likelihood that other factors, such as inexperience, lack of awareness of risks, and speeding, are more common factors with novice drivers. All 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia have a three -stage Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) system. GDL licensing has reduced teen crashes between 10-30 percent on average. Generally, these stages are: 1. The Learner Stage, which allows novice drivers the opportunity to drive under supervised conditions (typically with an adult). 2. The Intermediate Stage, which provides driving practice under restricted conditions prior to obtaining a full license. Restrictions may include number of passengers, minimum age, etc. 3. The Unrestricted Stage, which outlines when nighttime and passenger restrictions may be rescinded. [3] GDL laws can be complex, but it is imperative that law enforcement officers are intimately familiar with their provisions. Law enforcement executives are encouraged to ensure their officers are aware of the importance of the GDL laws in their jurisdiction. GHSA is one organization that has encouraged law enforcement leaders to be aware of the risks for teen drivers and to understand the way GDL laws can help reduce these risks. Some effective strategies that law enforcement can lead include special awareness and education campaigns, targeted enforcement, and partnerships with community organizations and schools. 1. Colleen Laing, "Aggressive Driving," Center for Problem -Oriented Policing, Guide No.16 (2010), http://www.popcenter.org/problems/aggressive_driving/. GHSA has found the following key take-aways are 2. Ibid. Laing. important for law enforcement to ensure success with 3. "Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes: Online Sunshine," Florida Legislature, their efforts: 1995, accessed February 16, 2017, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index. cfm?App_mode=D i sp lay_Statute&Sea rch_String=&U R L=0300-0399/O316/Sec- tions/O316.1923.html. MENIF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 1. Use peer -to -peer training initiatives to educate teen engagement, using traffic stops as an educational command staff about the risks for teens and how GDL opportunity, as well as targeted media coverage to help works to address those risks. 2. Establish formal standard operating procedures (SOPS) for managing teens cited for passenger and nighttime driving violations. 3. Ensure that teen drivers fully understand the seriousness of GDL violations and ensure this information is shared with their parents. 4. Recognize that initial enforcement of GDL laws can present challenges. GDL laws can be complex and difficult for officers to fully understand. Training on GDL laws is essential for law enforcement. 5. A public awareness campaign, such as a voluntary GDL decal program to designate a GDL holder, is one way to raise awareness and garner the support of parents and the public. One example is a voluntary "Novice Driver" magnet that is provided to all GDL holders in the State of Delaware. [4] NHTSA convened a Teen Driver Focus Group which studied teen driving behaviors. The focus group provided feedback on a variety of key topics and these are summarized as follows: ■ Enforcement: Some teens reported an ability to avoid getting a ticket for GDL or traffic violations. Teens reported a deterrent effect when the certainty of being cited was high, as this could impact their ability to have full driving privileges. ■ Occupant protection: Teens are well -aware of campaigns such as Click It Or Ticket and the importance of seatbelts. ■ Speeding and aggressive driving: Focus group participants did not think driving five or ten miles over the posted speed limit was dangerous. ■ Distracted and drowsy driving: Participants failed to see the link between these dangerous behaviors and the high rate of crashes. The prevalence of smartphones in this demographic group compounds the issue of distracted driving. This study highlights general trends on key areas, and more information is needed to determine the relationship between teen unsafe driving and the rate of crashes. [5] The combination of GDL programs and proactive enforcement of existing GDL laws will help address the risks of teen driving. Law enforcement leaders are encouraged to combine this approach with parent and raise greater awareness and promote safe teen driving in their communities. Notes: 1. "Licensing Systems for Young Drivers," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1612, accessed February 6, 2017, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/ graduatedlicenseintro?topicName=teenagers. 2. Sheila G. Klauer et al., "Distracted Driving and Risk of Road Crashes Among Novice and Experienced Drivers;' New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 1 (January 2, 2014), doi:10.1056/nejmsa1204142. 3. "Licensing Systems for Young Drivers;' Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1612, accessed February 6, 2017, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/ graduatedlicenseintro?topicName=teenagers. 4. "Curbing Teen Driver Crashes;' Governors Highway Safety Association, 2012. http:// ghsa.madwolf.com/html/files/pubs/Sfteensl2.pdf. 5. "Teen Unsafe Driving Behaviors: Focus Group;' Traffic Safety Facts (NHTSA 2006), https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lpsl02414/tt3l8.pdf. Older Drivers NHTSA and the IIHS have studied important trends regarding older drivers. While some recent data points to a reduction in the total number of fatal collisions, almost 5,000 people over the age of 70 died in car crashes in the United States in 2017. This total is 15 percent less than the total in 1997, but a 32 percent increase since 1975. While this data reflects an improvement, there is still much work to be accomplished, especially since seniors represent the fastest -growing segment of drivers. [1] Motor vehicle crash deaths and deaths per 100,000 people 70 and older, 1475-2017 i% ,onu 30 6.000 2s �5.000 r 20 - — ...--- 4.000 0 4 Iti 3,Ofl[I v In t Dceth, per I o0,000 pcuple to and olds. 2.aw -0- Tn[al deaths of proplr 70 and oWr S 1.000 1975 1980 1.9as 1990 1995 2600 2005 2010 2015 [2] The IIHS reports that the number of drivers over the age of 70 is growing, and, with baby boomers maturing, seniors now make up a higher proportion of the population in the U.S. Older drivers are more active and have a tendency to keep their driver's licenses longer, as well as drive more miles than previous senior generations. Per miles traveled, fatal crash rates increase significantly between the ages of 70-74 and climb to their highest rates for drivers 85 and older. These increases are attributed to elevated INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 17 injury susceptibility, particularly chest injuries and medical complications, rather than an increased tendency be involved in crashes. [3] The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is another organization that can provide excellent resources and maintains the website "SeniorDriving.AAA.com" (http:// seniordriving.aaa.com/). This website is an exceptional informational tool for law enforcement leaders to consult when considering new initiatives to address the complexities of senior drivers. There are free downloads and assessments that officers can share with seniors in their communities. [4] The AAA Foundation also shared research on senior drivers and causation factors related to these motorists and crashes. There are three key functions that law enforcement should be aware of when interacting with the older driver: 1. Vision: Adequate visual acuity and field of vision are critical for safe driving, but tend to decline with age. Cognition: Driving requires a variety of high-level cognitive skill, including memory, visual processing, attention, and decision -making skills. Certain medical conditions, such as dementia, as well as prescription medication can have an impact on cognition in seniors. Motor function: Motor abilities are necessary to enter a vehicle safely, fasten a seatbelt, turn to view approaching traffic, and operate vehicle controls. These motor abilities tend to decline as individuals age, and they can decrease an individual's ability to drive safely. [5] Law enforcement officers have an important role in ensuring senior drivers are operating in a safe manner and not creating an unnecessary risk to other motorists. According to NHTSA, there are several effective strategies that law enforcement can implement in their communities to improve the safety of older drivers. Similar to other effective campaigns to address a special traffic safety problem or special population, there must be a combination of efforts that include enforcement, education, and outreach. A law enforcement agency should consider partnering with one of many other nonprofit or community organizations to share data and educational materials with seniors on the primary causation factors of crashes involving this driving population. An excellent program entitled "Older Driver Law Enforcement Instructor Training" is sponsored by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) and is held through a partnership with NHTSA. In this course, law enforcement officers learn effective strategies for addressing senior drivers, develop effective enforcement initiatives, and create new opportunities to improve community relations related to the senior driving population. [6] Other effective proactive steps that law enforcement officers can take include the following: Analyze and study location data and the incidence of crashes that involve elderly drivers, and work closely with state highway engineers to evaluate the need for changes in traffic control devices, warning signs, and traffic patterns. This can be especially important in known areas of high concentrations of senior citizens. ■ Identify drivers with potential driving impairments and refer them to the state Division of Motor Vehicles for follow-up testing. ■ Ensure that older drivers who are stopped for motor vehicle violations are not allowed to proceed with only verbal warnings, when younger drivers would receive citations. This negates the lifesaving benefits of the point system to detect individuals who commit particularly serious violations or violate traffic laws on multiple occasions. Be alert to drivers who appear to be lost or confused; stop them and inquire as to their welfare. If a driver appears to be suffering from some form of dementia, the motorist should not be allowed to proceed farther; instead, the individual should be referred to the motor vehicle licensing authority for reexamination and should have relatives or next -of -kin contacted to advise them of the situation. Make sure that officers receive periodic training in elderly issues, including the ability to recognize dementia and interact properly and sensitively with drivers who may be suffering from debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's. Local chapters of the Alzheimer's Foundation are always willing to participate in such training and provide police with tools and resources to raise their awareness. [7] For more information, refer to the NHTSA website: https:// www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/older-drivers Law enforcement agencies can also play an important educational role in preventing crashes involving elderly drivers. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has a driver -training program developed especially for older drivers. This program can be presented by law enforcement officers, in partnership with senior citizen volunteer instructors, at senior citizen centers and senior social events. It teaches mature drivers how to recognize and overcome their infirmities, as well 18 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE as self -assess their own driving skills. Such programs can build rapport with an ever-increasing segment of the population while also providing a life-saving service. Notes: 1. "Fatality Facts," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, accessed February 7, 2017, http://www. i i hs.org/i i hs/topics/t/older-d rivers/fata I ityfacts/older-people#Trends. 2. Anne McCartt, "Q&As Fatality Facts State Laws News Releases and Articles Public Presentations Regulatory and Legislative Policy HLDI Research Selected IIHS Bibliography The Older Driver Crash Picture: Trends and Factors" (presentation, Lifesavers National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities, Chicago, Illinois, 2015). 3. Ibid. "Fatality Facts." 4. "Seniordriving.AAA.com," AAA Senior Driving, 2017, accessed February 7, 2017, http://senlordriving.aaa.com/. 5. "Mature Drivers," Governors Highway Safety Association, September 27, 2011, accessed February 7, 2017, http://www.ghsa.org/issues/mature-drivers. 6. "Older Driver Law Enforcement Instructor Training," International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, 2017, accessed February 7, 2017, https://www.iadlest.org/Projects/OlderDriverLawEnforcementTraining.aspx. 7. Highway Safety Desk Book (n.p., 2004), 18-5 - 18-6, https://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ deskbk.html. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Throughout the United States, there has been a pronounced increase in the number of citizens who are walking or cycling as their primary means of commuting to work. Whether it is to save on commuting and parking costs, for their own health and fitness or to have a reliable means of accessing public transportation, people want to take advantage of economical transportation options. Cycling and walking are not only lifestyle choices, they are a reality as communities take steps to promote safe and connected communities. The over -reliance upon the motor vehicle as the sole option for commuting has been undergoing a positive shift. Several states and cities are actively promoting alternatives through proactive education and awareness initiatives. As the number of pedestrians and cyclists on the roads increase, law enforcement officials will need to play an important role in ensuring that commuting options are safe. The increase in fatality percentages are show in the graph below. On average, pedestrians make up 15 percent of all traffic fatalities, while bicyclists make up approximately 2 percent. These rates have unfortunately been trending higher in recent years, despite a slight decrease of 1.7 percent from 2016 to 2017. [11 According to GHSA, the rate of increase for those biking or walking has been significant as more citizens realize the many health, economic, environmental, and societal benefits of these options. Preliminary studies by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA point to the following contributing factors for the increase in pedestrian fatalities: ■ Increased motor vehicle travel on all roads, perhaps due to the stabilization of fuel prices; ■ Improved economic conditions; ■ Increased opportunities for walking and biking; ■ Increased interest in the health and fitness benefits attributed to walking and biking. [21 Additional studies are being conducted; however, the following significant trends are seen when studying crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists: Table 1 Gen pants and Hasoccupards KIIled M Traffic Crashes, 2016-2017 Increased use of cellphones and electronic devices are a source of distraction for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians; Relationship between driver speed and severity of injury to cyclists and pedestrians; Deo nn 211718 2617 Change % Change Tolai' 37,8% 37,133 -573 I -1.9% lkctapelift Passenger Vehides 23,877 23,551 -326 -1.4% Passenger Cars 13,508 13,%3 -145 -1.1% Ltght Trucks 10,369 10,186 •181 -1.7% Large Trucks 725 841 *116 *16.0% Wtarcycles 151337 15,172 1-165 1-3.1°I NorincupaMs Pedestrians 6. 5-97 r -103 -1.7% Pedal Cyclists 552 783 -69 -8.1 ° o Qtheril-Inknown 281 228 -M — Sourms: FaAaMes-4ARS 2016 FKW File. 2017 ARF `To13l includes occupants of bumsmW o4miunknown occupants not shmn in table_ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 19 ■ Use of roads between 6:00 p.m. and midnight leads to a pronounced risk of death; and ■ Alcohol and drug impairment on the part of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians increases the risk of crashes. More data is needed, but the role of alcohol in pedestrian crashes is evident. NHTSA has estimated that alcohol use by either the driver or pedestrian is a contributing factor in 48 percent of pedestrian fatalities. [3] The law enforcement response to fatalities involving pedestrians and cyclists needs to incorporate multi - pronged strategies. According to GHSA, several countermeasures seem to hold promise in efforts to reduce fatalities and injuries. The most effective strategies may require collaboration between law enforcement, SHSOs, transportation officials, and community leaders. The following approaches can be considered by law enforcement leaders for implementation in their communities: ■ Increased separation between pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles using refuge islands, sidewalks, bike paths, and overpasses, as well as new traffic signalization; ■ Increased pedestrian and cyclist visibility by enhancing lighting; ■ Addition of high -visibility crosswalks and rapid - flashing beacons mounted to pedestrian and cyclist crossing signs; ■ Targeted traffic enforcement, including the use of automated enforcement technology; ■ Public information and awareness campaigns; ■ Educational outreach in high -risk areas; and ■ Data analysis and mapping to identify high -risk zones. [4] The July 2016 issue of The Police Chief magazine highlighted an effective program conducted in the State of Delaware, where fatalities accounted for approximately 25 percent of all crash -related deaths in the state. The Delaware Office of Highway Safety, Delaware State Police, Delaware Department of Transportation, and Christiana Care Emergency Services held a collaborative press event in November 2015 to draw attention to the issue of pedestrian fatalities. [5] Part of this campaign was a two -week educational initiative that included the distribution of posters, postcards, and reflective flashlights at strategic locations, such as schools and community centers. Additionally, pedestrian safety messages and posters were disseminated using social media and placed in libraries, schools, and other public locations. The initiative also used data analysis to identify the location for the highest concentration of fatalities in the state. A week-long enforcement effort followed the education and awareness component. The Delaware State Police used a combination of on -duty and overtime resources with funds made available by the SHSO, following the High -Visibility Education and Enforcement (HVEE) approach. HVEE offers an evidence -based, data -driven, problem solving strategy using proactive public education campaigns followed by targeted enforcement. Following this campaign, representatives of the various agencies that participated in HVEE program met at IACP headquarters and discussed their individual HVEE strategies. Lessons learned in Delaware and the other participating states included: ■ Start with data: Data is seen as critical to any successful HVEE campaign. NHTSA's FARS, combined with local agency data, can form the foundation for data analysis. ■ Starting small can be the best approach: Participating agencies in Delaware focused on a three-mile stretch to address pedestrian fatalities. This was seen as a good way to start the campaign, which could be easily expanded into other high -risk corridors. ■ Identify partners: Any initiative that is targeting traffic safety issues, including one that targets pedestrians or cyclists, should have both traditional and non- traditional partners and stakeholders supporting it. ■ Communicate: As traffic safety campaigns progress, it is important to communicate both internally and externally to ensure that all participating partners understand the goals and objectives of the campaign. ■ Enhance enforcement with education: Agencies can help build trust and understanding within their communities by focusing on the importance of safe practices, while simultaneously articulating the need for enforcement. ■ Keep the message fresh: Continuous updates to the over -arching message are essential. Updates to social media, print media, and electronic communications are all important. The use of both traditional media and social media is also highly recommended. ■ Assess the campaign: Continued assessment and evaluation of program goals and results will help determine where and when to allocate resources. [6] The GHSA report "Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2077 Preliminary Data" details state -specific examples of 20 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE safety initiatives and best practices. The Safe Routes to School program, administered by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, is another excellent source of information on a host of pedestrian and cycling safety resources. NHTSA, FHWA, the IACP, and the CDC all offer helpful resources on their websites, which can be helpful to law enforcement leaders. Recent trends show a likely increased use of non - motorized transportation options in the future. It makes good health and economic sense for individuals to take advantage of these options and for communities to expand these opportunities. It is important for law enforcement leaders to be aware of emerging trends, address problems, and respond with strategies that increase safety for all pedestrians and cyclists. Notes: 1. "Research Note: 2017 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview," Traffic Safety Facts (NHTSA, August 2016), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ ViewPublication/812603. 2. Richard Ratting, Heather Rothenberg, and Sam Schwartz Consulting, "2015 PRELIMINARY DATA Prepared for Governors Highway Safety Association" (GHSA, 2016), https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/pedestrians_18.pdf. 3. "Pedestrians,' Traffic Safety Facts, (NHTSA, March 2018), https://crashstats.nhtsa. dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812493. 4. Ibid. Ratting. S. Brad Wentlandt, "High -Visibility Education and Enforcement (HVEE) Pilot Project," The Po/ice Chief 83 (July 2016): 26-31, http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/high- visi bi I ity-ed ucation-a nd-enforcement-hvee-pi lot -project/. 6. Ibid. Wentlandt. Motorcycle Safety The number of fatalities involving motorcyclists in the United States has recently decreased from a peak in 2008 of 5,112 deaths. A total of 5,172 motorcyclists died in crashes in 2017, a 10.2 percent increase from 2015. The data still show that fatalities have doubled since 1997 and continue to be an area of significant concern for NHTSA and law enforcement executives. [1] According to data from NHTSA, motorcyclists are 27 times as likely as passenger car occupants to die in a motor vehicle crash and 6 times as likely to be injured. [2] As motorcycling has become more popular, especially over the course of the last 10 years, there has been a corresponding increase in crashes and fatalities involving motorcyclists. Motorcyclists accounted for a significant portion of the total number of motor vehicle fatalities. Despite the fact that motorcycles comprise only three percent of registered vehicles and less than one percent of vehicle miles traveled, they still account for nearly 15 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. [3] There are a number of contributing factors in many motorcycle crashes to include alcohol impairment, a significant increase in the number of registered motorcycles, lack of helmet use or use of novelty helmets (sometimes referred to as "brain buckets") that do not meet federal standards for crash protection, uneducated and unlicensed operators, and speeding. [4] Using this data and additional ongoing research, NHTSA, GHSA, FHWA, and law enforcement executives have identified strategies to improve motorcycle safety. The most important findings include the need to ensure motorcycle riders are properly trained and licensed, the removal of alcohol -impaired operators from the roads, the need for all motorcyclists to wear Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 helmets and clothing that provides both protection and visibility, the need to increase other motorists' awareness of motorcyclists by increasing visibility, and educating other drivers on the importance of sharing the road with motorcycles. [5] IIHS reports that motorcycle helmet laws vary widely among states and there has been a considerable degree of change in the past fifty years. By the 1970's, almost all states had universal motorcycle helmet laws. However, in 1976, states lobbied Congress and new laws were adopted by states. This year marked the time when several states would no longer be assessed financial penalties for not having helmet laws. In 2019,19 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet, known as universal helmet laws. Laws requiring only some motorcyclists to wear a helmet exist in 28 states, while there are no helmet use laws in Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire. [6] Best Practices in Addressing Motorcycle Fatalities The New York State Police (NYSP) has been recognized by NHTSA and the IACP for a problem -based, comprehensive response to address fatal motorcycle crashes in the state. The NYSP approach to reducing motorcycle collisions and fatalities earned it the Motorcycle Safety Special Award in the 2016 National Law Enforcement Challenge (NLEC). The NYSP found that motorcycles represented just over 3 percent of vehicle registrations on average in New York, however, they accounted for almost 15 percent of fatal crashes every year. Similar to national trends, the NYSP attributed the problem to helmets that did not meet federal standards, uneducated and unlicensed riders, and motorcycles that were in disrepair or lacked mandated safety equipment. The state police codified motorcycle safety and enforcement as a priority for the overall mission of the NYSP and enforcement details were increased, especially during the warmer months when ridership is at its highest levels. [7] One of the key elements of the NYSP initiative was to begin focusing upon motorcycles the same way they approached commercial motor vehicles (CMV). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 21 Motorcyclists were held accountable to a high standard of equipment and training compliance. A motor safety checkpoint program became a key component of the NYSP enforcement strategy. Troopers at the checkpoints check riders' licenses, helmets, and equipment, and the motorcycle is inspected for safety and noise compliance. The parallel approach to CMVs did not end with enforcement as officer education and experience was also addressed and improved upon. Troopers were offered additional training and familiarization with specialized laws related to motorcycles was also improved and eventually extended to local agencies and sheriff's departments. Additionally, motorcyclists were also offered additional educational materials while troopers also educated residents at public events across the state. [8] The NYSP approach to motorcycle safety has had a significant impact, and fewer people are dying while operating a motorcycle. Following this initiative, the State of New York had a 6.7 percent decline in fatal motorcycle crashes, down from 164 fatalities in 2012 to 153 in 2015. [9] Through innovation, practical education, information, and enforcement, the NYSP has demonstrated how law enforcement officers can have a clear impact upon a challenging traffic safety problem. Notes: 1. "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety," accessed February 19, 2017, http://www. i i hs.org/i i hs/topics/t/motorcycles/fatal ityfacts/motorcycles#cite-text-O-0. 2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2016. Traffic safety facts, 2014: motorcycles. Report no. DOT HS-812-292. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. 3. "Motorcyclist Traffic Fatalities by State: 2015 Preliminary Data;' 2016, accessed February 19, 2017, http://www.ghsa.org/resources/motorcyclist-traffic-fatalities- state-2O15-preliminary-data. 4. Ibid. "Motorcyclist Traffic Fatalities by State: 2015 Preliminary Data:' 5. Traffic Tech: Countermeasures That Work, 8th Edition, (n.p., 2016), https://www. nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812239_countermeasures Sthed tt.pdf. 6. Ibid. "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety." 7. Traffic Safety Innovations 2016 Motorcycle Safety Shifting Safety Gears Treating Motorcycles Like Commercial Motor Vehicles Has Helped the New York State Police Reduce Reckless Driving, (n.p., 2016), http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/ documents/N LEC/Motorcycle%20Safety_vl. pdf. 8. Ibid. Traffic Safety Innovations 2076 Motorcycle Safety Shifting Safety Gears Treating Motorcycles Like Commercial Motor Vehicles Has Helped the New York State Police Reduce Reckless Driving. 9. Ibid. Traffic Safety Innovations 2076 Motorcycle Safety Shifting Safety Gears Treating Motorcycles Like Commercial Motor Vehicles Has Helped the New York State Police Reduce Reckless Driving. Special Enforcement Initiatives to Reduce Crashes By: Sergeant Scott Taylor, California Highway Patrol, Research and F" Planning Section Irl-t- Adapted with permission from `Swarming Against Speeding," Traffic Safety Innovations 2076, The International Association of Chiefs of Police, (2076). Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22374 USA. Swarming Against Speeding Federal grants helped the California Highway Patrol reduce speed -related collisions with extra training, education, and enforcement. California is well known for its pleasant weather, its diverse population, and its thriving industries, including entertainment, technology, and agriculture. From San Francisco to Los Angeles to San Diego, however, it is also well-known for its traffic jams, which are consistently ranked as among the nation's worst. In fact, Californians are so averse to congestion that they perpetually rush from point A to point B in a desperate attempt to circumvent it. The result, unfortunately, is a preponderance of speeding and aggressive driving that has come to characterize California roadways. To loosen speeding's grip on Golden State motorists, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) leveraged federal grant funding that allowed it to increase its investment in strategic anti -speeding solutions in 2015. How the CHP utilized these grants earned the agency the Speed Awareness Special Award in the 2016 National Law Enforcement Challenge (NLEC). Problem Identification A 2013 survey, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), found that nearly half of American drivers think speeding is a problem on U.S. roadways, and that an overwhelming majority of drivers (91 percent) think everyone should obey speed limits. However, one in five drivers admits, "I try to get where I am going as fast as I can," and more than a quarter say, "speeding is something I do without thinking" and "I enjoy the feeling of driving fast." According to the CHP, these contradictions are lethal in California. In 2015, it reported 288 fatal traffic collisions and 30,747 injury traffic collisions in which speed was the 22 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE primary collision factor, making "unsafe speed for roadway conditions" the leading cause of California car crashes. "Speeding is the number one contributor to collisions in California," says Sergeant Scott Taylor. "That makes it our prime target." Planning Although speeding is the CHP's prime target at any time of day, the agency's resources pale in comparison to the problem's size. To build more muscle with which to match speeding's strength, the CHP sought and received several federal traffic safety grants that allowed it to successfully scale its efforts in 2016. The most significant of these grants, according to Taylor, was the statewide Reduce Aggressive Driving Incidents and Tactically Enforce Speed IV (RADIATES IV) grant. Awarded by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) with funding through NHTSA, RADIATES IV provided resources that CHP divided amongst three strategic objectives: targeted statewide enforcement on state and federal roadway segments within the CHP's jurisdiction, division -selected roadway enforcement on state highways and county roads, and traffic safety presentations. Beyond the grant, the CHP facilitated officer training and technology procurement. Specifically, the agency is continually training officers in radar and lidar-based enforcement, while constantly evaluating, repairing, and replacing its radar and lidar inventory. "That's training our officers don't get at the police academy," explains Taylor, who says radar and lidar training give officers an opportunity to mature and refine their speed enforcement skills by learning how to use the latest speed enforcement technology and techniques. The CHP also applied for and received two Area -wide regional traffic safety grants, again awarded by OTS with funding through NHTSA. Targeting two Areas with higher - than -average fatality and injury rates from speed -related traffic collisions, Ukiah and Central Los Angeles, the grants helped the CHP direct extra resources towards education and enforcement in communities statistically shown to need them. Education Public education and information was a key component of both the RADIATES IV and Area -wide regional traffic safety grants. For the former, efforts included press releases to local and statewide media outlets, a freeway billboard, and educational materials and banners distributed at various community events statewide, all of which contained anti -speeding messages. Additionally, the CHP conducted 706 traffic safety presentations highlighting the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving. Delivered at high schools, state fairs, and even baseball games, these presentations reached more than 156,000 people across California. The CHP utilized the same public education strategies in its Ukiah and Central Los Angeles Area offices as part of its Area -wide regional traffic safety grants, but tailored them for local populations with the help of multijurisdictional task forces consisting of diverse community stakeholders, including the CHP, California Department of Transportation, legislature, courts, probation departments, health departments, public interest associations, and other organizations and individuals interested in improving traffic safety. The Ukiah Area office, for instance, installed traffic safety signs on a major state highway at four high - collision locations, gave traffic safety presentations, and distributed grant -funded educational materials at public events including, local fairs, Indian casinos, high school and college career fairs, health and safety fairs, child safety seat classes, and teen driver training classes. At the same types of venues, the Central Los Angeles Area office distributed brochures and posters in both English and Spanish in order to reach its community's sizable Hispanic population at public events, school bus safety classes, teen driver training classes, safety fairs, cultural festivals, local businesses, town hall meetings, and municipal advisory council meetings. "The nice thing about the regional approach is the task forces we assemble, which typically stay together and continue to meet [about traffic safety] after the grant term is over," Taylor says. "It gets all the important players in a community together and gets them thinking about what they can do to fix the speeding problem in their community." Enforcement Enforcement was a cornerstone of the CHP's grant - funded activities in 2016. In addition to devoting more than 2,249,598 hours of regular patrol hours, during which officers issued 719,471 citations to speeding drivers, the RADIATES IV grant allowed officers to dedicate nearly 15,485 grant -funded overtime hours to speed enforcement. During the aforementioned overtime, officers cited 91333 drivers, 6,433 of which were for maximum speed violations and 517 for unsafe speed violations. "Like all law enforcement agencies, we are short on people," notes Taylor, who says the CHP maximized the grants' effectiveness by deploying officers to locations at times that were determined to be statistically more vulnerable to speed -related collisions. "With overtime hours, the grant gave us the ability to augment our regular road people with officers specifically focused on stopping speeding drivers." INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 23 Additionally, officers gave 2,335 verbal warnings to speeding motorists. "Warnings are designed to let the officer interact with the violator and educate them," Taylor continues. "It opens up a dialogue where the officer can explain why their speeding is an issue, and through that, hopefully change their behavior." Enforcement was also part of its Area -wide regional traffic safety grants, according to the CHP. The Ukiah and Central Los Angeles Area offices conducted 42 and 127 roving patrols, respectively, during which officers issued 363 and 859 unsafe speed citations. Outcomes The extra attention that the CHIP gave to speeding through its grant -funded activities yielded positive results According to the CHID, 2016 data is not yet available, but there were 249 speed -related fatal collisions and 25,853 speed -related injury collisions in FY 2015, a decrease from 267 and 27,556, respectively, in FY 2014. "As we await certification of the 2015 collision data, we've reduced the number of [speed -related] crashes, which is a positive in and of itself," Taylor concludes. "More importantly, though, I think we've broadened the level of understanding for the motoring public about the dangers of speeding." Lessons Learned ■ Large problems demand extra resource: Traffic safety grants can help law enforcement agencies scale up in order to confront their communities' biggest challenges. ■ State and regional approaches can work in concert: Broad statewide approaches have advantages; so do narrow regional approaches. Using them in concert allows agencies to exploit the best of both. ■ Every interaction is an opportunity: Whether officers issue a citation or merely a warning, every interaction with a speeding motorist is a chance to educate them about the consequences of speeding. A citation can impact their wallet; education can impact their behavior Traffic Safety through High Visibility Enforcement By: Commander Chris Olson, Patrol Bureau Commander, Oro Valley, Arizona Police Department. Police departments across the country are continually looking for innovative ways to improve traffic safety within their communities in an effort to reduce crashes. In 2013, the Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) created a "High Visibility Enforcement" program known as "HiVE", in an attempt to raise traffic safety awareness and reduce crashes in two of the Town's most dangerous and closely located intersections. The "HiVE" concept included several key factors: ■ Bring as much attention to the problem as possible, ■ Be transparent by publishing all of the dates and times of the deployments in advance through traditional and social media sites. ■ Be highly visible to the motoring public, and ■ Demonstrate that the intent of the program is to raise awareness through education and not through ticket writing. In order to bring attention to the traffic safety issues within the intersections, OVPD partnered with local television, radio, and print media. OVPD shared crash data demonstrating the need to reduce crashes within the intersections and committed to release all "HiVE" enforcement activity after each "HiVE" deployment. Moreover, OVPD asked the media sources to assist the department in providing the dates and times of each "HiVE" deployment in advanced to forewarn the public about the increased police activity. OVPD found the media outlets to be extremely receptive, reporting on the program numerous times throughout the year. Early morning TV news stations, as well as, radio stations constantly broadcasted "HiVE" dates and times. Some journalists even ensured that their social media sites regularly posted "HiVE" deployment and activity information. Marketing and branding was considered key to increasing awareness. The OVPD Traffic Unit was tasked with designing a logo that could be used on publications, social media sites, television, and as decals for both the officer's motorcycles and motorcycle helmets. Once a design was drafted, OVPD hired a graphic's company put the professional touches on the design. Today, the "HiVE" logo continues to be significantly and readily associated with 24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE our traffic safety program. The program's motto is "Be Aware, Be Safe." Source: Oro Valley Police Department Five times each month, OVPD placed 5-6 motorcycle officers within and around the intersections during morning or afternoon peak travel hours, essentially saturating the area with highly visible police officers to gain the attention of the traveling motorists. Officers were instructed to make all traffic stops in locations that were visible to other motorist's without compromising their safety. Upon each traffic stop, officers let the motorist know the reason for the stop first, and that the officer was participating in a "HiVE" deployment in an effort to educate drivers about the importance of traffic safety. At the end of each traffic stop, the motorist was provided with a "HiVE" pamphlet illustrating the program goals. On occasion, the officer would also provide the driver and any young children with a "HiVE" keychain and decal. The most crucial element of the program involved protecting the trust between the police and the public. It was critical to demonstrate to the public that the program was not designed to be a "ticket writing" campaign. OVPD's goal was to increase awareness and education. To accomplish this, OVPD asked motorcycle officers to keep moving violation enforcement activity at around 30 percent. In other words, approximately 3 out of every 10 drivers would receive a citation for the moving violation they committed. By publishing the enforcement activity after each "HiVE" deployment, the public was able to see the department's focus remained on education and not enforcement. Source: National Sheriffs Association The OVPD "HIVE" program was deployed in two of the Town's most dangerous intersections for three years (2013, 2014, and 2015). A comprehensive analysis showed a significant reduction in crashes when compared to the three years before the "HIVE" program: Intersection Pre-HiVE Crashes • • • • •Reduction Collision Oracle at 124 72 41.9% Suffolk Oracle at 144 123 14.5% Magee Intersections 268 195 27.2% Combined To help further understand the significance of the program's affect, especially at Oracle and Suffolk, OVPD partnered with a Ph.D. statistician during the analysis. Dr. Stephen Powers of Creative Research Associates concluded, "statistical testing would indicate that something other than chance contributed to the reduction of crashes at Oracle and Suffolk." In addition to the crash reductions, OVPD's analysis showed that police officers wrote citations for moving violations only 19.6 percent of the time. Demonstrating that our police department could improve traffic safety through education and limited enforcement. Special note: In 2016, OVPD began to move HiVE deployments from intersection to intersection in an attempt to further promote the programs education and crash reduction success. Unfortunately, within a very short time, traffic crashes began to rise at the intersections of Oracle/Magee and Oracle/Suffolk, indicating no lasting residual effects from the previous three-year enforcement program. Moreover, OVPD did not see any tangible crash reductions at the other intersections. Police chiefs need to be aware that OVPD's HiVE success was directly related to a long-term focus on one or two specific intersections. Moving the HiVE from intersection to intersection seemed to dilute the high -visibility approach as motorist were no longer concerned about seeing heightened traffic enforcement activity at a specific intersection and resorted to previous poor driving behaviors. If you would like to learn more about the OVPD "HiVE" program please contact, Commander Chris Olson at 520- 229-4902 or at colson@orovalleyaz.gov. About the author: Commander Olson is the Patrol Bureau commander for the Oro Valley Police Department. He has a M.Ed. in Human Relations from Northern Arizona University and is a graduate of the 2441h Session of the FBI National Academy. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 25 The Importance of Occupant Protection According to NHTSA, in 2015 in the United States, seatbelt use in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 13,941 lives. Over the last two decades, great strides have been made to increase belt usage through bolstered laws, targeted education, and selective enforcement programs. As a result, the seatbelt usage rate in the U.S. has now risen to 89.7 percent; however, nearly 27.5 million people still don't buckle up. Data from NHTSA show that nearly half of the 22,441 occupants killed in crashes during 2016 were unbuckled. Additionally, more than 50 percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed at night were not wearing their seatbelts, compared to 40 percent killed during the daytime. In fatality collisions, men continue to outnumber women in not wearing seatbelts. Pickup truck occupants tend to be the lowest among any vehicle type in wearing. [1] A Look at Seatbelt Laws Every state has some form of seatbelt law on the books, however, the laws vary greatly from state to state. Most variability between states is regarding applicability of the law to occupants based upon age of the rider and which seat they are occupying. Seatbelt laws are also divided into two enforcement categories: primary and secondary. Primary seatbelt laws allow law enforcement officers to stop and ticket a driver or passenger for not wearing a seatbelt, without any other traffic offense taking place. In secondary seatbelt law states, the officer may issue a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt only when there is another citable traffic infraction. According to the Governor's Highway Safety Association, as of 2019: ■ 34 states have primary seatbelt laws for adult front seat occupants. ■ 15 states have secondary laws for adult front seat occupants. ■ 1 state has no primary or secondary seatbelt law for adults. ■ 18 states include rear seats as primary enforcement. ■ 10 states include rear seats as secondary enforcement ■ 21 states do not have seatbelt laws applicable to adult rear seat occupants. [2] New Hampshire is the only state that has not enacted a primary nor a secondary seatbelt law for adults, although the state does have a primary child passenger safety law that covers all drivers and passengers under 18. [3] According to NHTSA seatbelt usage statistics from 2017, jurisdictions with stronger seatbelt enforcement laws continue to exhibit generally higher use rates than those states and territories with weaker laws. [4] If your state does not have a primary seatbelt law, it is highly recommended that you contact to your state special interest groups, legislators, and chief/sheriff's associations to express support in proposing stricter occupant protection legislation. Occupant Protection Model Program Overview Traffic safety is one of many priorities for any law enforcement agency. Traffic safety is a critical component of protecting communities and ensuring a high quality of life for residents. While each jurisdiction may have unique traffic concerns, occupant protection is widely accepted as one of the key areas for law enforcement to focus education and enforcement efforts in order to enhance traffic safety. Below is a basic overview of how agencies should approach occupant protection in their jurisdictions. Policies Each department should make enforcement of occupant protection laws a priority that is clearly stated in their policies, procedures, or general orders. The officers should be clear that this is a violation that will be strictly enforced to the extent allowed by law, and that this violation is a leading contributor to highway fatalities. Some law enforcement cultures still consider this law as a victimless offense, and the agency administrators should take steps to help change that attitude by clearly identifying this as a priority of the agency. Agency policy should also require all officers, ride-alongs, and transported prisoners to wear seatbelts while in departmental vehicles. Exceptions to this should be very narrow in scope, or nonexistent. Managers should reinforce that the majority of line -of -duty officer deaths each year are typically traffic related. Further, the FBI's annual report of fatalities indicates that the majority of officers killed in traffic crashes are not wearing seatbelts. [5] Officer buy -in can also be improved by providing training such as Below 100, which emphasizes several key areas of officer safety. Officer safety is only one reason for law enforcement managers to establish and enforce such policies. Officers who are not wearing their belts are less inclined to take enforcement action for occupant protection violations, and they also will not be modeling the correct behavior to the citizens of their community. These policies should be reviewed with officers annually. 26 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Training While most adult seatbelt statutes are relatively straightforward, the details of child passenger laws can be quite complex. Furthermore, the retrospective determination of seatbelt use by occupants involved in a collision is notably more technical than most officers realize. It is recommended that on an annual basis the officers receive some form of training covering the occupant protection laws of their state. Officers assigned to work traffic crashes should also receive training on identifying belt use during examination of the vehicles. Roll call is an excellent time to train on such topics, but document management systems, such as PowerDMS, allow uniform presentation of training materials and a subsequent test to ensure that the material is understood. Child Passenger Safety Technician training is also highly recommended. This certification is usually a three to five- day course and requires ongoing education to maintain a certification. This training is not only beneficial for enforcement but is also very useful for public relations events. Safe Kids Worldwide is an example of an organization that offers a National Child Passenger Safety Certification. Agencies should strive to always have a Child Passenger Safety Technician available to the public during daytime hours. Personnel resources for this effort can be multiplied by partnering with the local fire/EMS agency, as many of them will offer members of their staff for certification as well. Source: California Highway Patrol Public Information and Education The key to public education effectiveness is finding the best avenue for your department to reach the largest number people in your at -risk population. Social media has become a key tool for many departments in reaching their community members with their educational messages. It is highly recommended that each agency develop a strong presence on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. One key to increasing "likes" or shares" is to post often, vary what kinds of topics are being posted, and to always include a photo or video with each post. There are several resources available online that provide quality content that can be shared regarding occupant protection. An example of one of these sites is www. trafficsafetymarketing.gov, which provides free tool kits for many traffic safety topics and each national enforcement campaign. Use of these free, professionally produced materials provides agencies with limited resources, an opportunity to present highly effective and appealing messaging materials through whatever media outlets they choose. Occupant protection public education should also be incorporated in other public information outlets the department has access to, such as public speaking events, city/department email updates to residents, news releases, and the department's website. Variable Message Trailers are also a good tool to target roadside education in problem areas. Occupant protection messages should correspond with national campaign movements such as Click or Ticket, but not be limited to these times of year. Many states and areas have access to additional tools, such as rollover simulators, and these are great tools to use during events such as high school football games, National Night Out, fairs, or other jurisdiction specific events. As previously mentioned, each agency should strive to have certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians. The availability of these should be advertised to the community with instructions on how to set up appointments or when residents can get their seats checked. In addition, it is recommended that agencies facilitate car seat check events in their community on a regular basis. Agencies should consider partnering with local special interest groups to help raise awareness and attendance of these events. Safe Kids is an example of one of these agencies that has numerous chapters across the U.S. and can usually supply materials and additional technicians for events. For best results, events should be advertised, be on good weather days, and be done in locations that receive a high volume of citizens from your target audience. Day care centers, preschools, elementary schools, and local parks are good locations to reach the target audience. Ensure the checkpoint is well signed so those driving by know what and where the event is. When doing an event at schools or daycares, it is preferred that the event be done when parents are picking their children up from these locations. It is also recommended that the agency conduct Child Seat Checkpoints during the National Child Passenger Safety Week. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 27 Seatbelt usage surveys should be conducted routinely; preferably monthly, but quarterly if monthly is not practical. Locations should vary around the jurisdiction to get a broad survey of usage, but follow-up surveys should also be conducted at some point to check progress against previous data from the same location. This data will help the department gauge the effectiveness of their efforts and provide intelligence on where to direct more education and enforcement. Results should be published to the community. Many jurisdictions have found success installing seatbelt use percentage signs along the major thoroughfares of their cities. The signs typically show the prior month's usage results along with the jurisdiction's record rate. This type of public information can serve as a social norming tool, wherein citizens that are not complying with seatbelt laws can clearly see the abnormality of their decision - hopefully beginning a rehabilitation of the thought patterns that contribute to lack of belt use. Those complying can also be reaffirmed in their decision to continue taking the widely accepted safest course of action, and those who forgot to buckle up may be reminded. Another program to consider is a "Saved by the Belt Award." In some states, there is an organization that will actually issue the award for the agency once they receive a nomination. It is highly recommended that each agency participates in this program or start their own program if no others are available in the state. The basic premise is that an officer submits a person(s) for this award if they are involved in a collision where the use of the seatbelt by the occupant(s) is deemed by the collision investigator to have saved the person(s) from serious injury or death. The award should be issued in a public setting, such as a city council meeting. The media should be encouraged to publish a story on the event. At a minimum, the agency should post a photo and story about the presentation on their social media events. This is an excellent opportunity to earn some free media coverage and further spread the idea that seatbelts save lives. Enforcement A robust occupant protection program requires placing a priority on enforcing occupant protection violations. While these violations should be enforced anywhere state law allows, it is beneficial to prioritize enforcement in areas with a demonstrated compliance problem whenever practical. As mentioned earlier, seatbelt surveys aid in determining where and when problem areas are located. It is recommended that surveys be conducted in locations that receive 500-1,000 vehicles per hour. Most surveys analyze driver belt use, but occasionally the department should survey passenger belt use as well. Another area that should be analyzed is seatbelt use during collisions. Most, if not all, state collision reports have a field denoting what form of restraint each vehicle occupant was utilizing at the time of the collision. Officers completing the reports should be encouraged to thoroughly investigate belt usage during collision investigations to improve the quality of data available from these reports. With current technology, most agencies should have access to electronic collision reporting software and the ability to conduct statistical analyses from the data contained in the reports. Unfortunately, many agencies fail to use collision data to its full potential and simply look at high -collision locations and times. Statistical reports and/or maps can often be generated to highlight the highest locations/ times for collisions with unbelted occupants. Enforcement should be directed towards areas where collision trends show that belt use needs improvement. If the times of highest risk are at night, as indicated by national statistics, officers should use night time seatbelt enforcement details to enhance compliance and send the message that officers are on watch for such violations 24 hours per day. Enforcement efforts should be increased during the national Click It Or Ticket campaigns, as well as any similar state campaign. It may be helpful for the agency to offer some type of non -monetary incentive for officers who perform in an exemplary manner during these mobilizations through their enforcement and/or public education efforts. Some departments also offer incentives such as free lunch with the chief, or even time off for exceptional performance. Posting enforcement results by officers periodically, particularly during campaign periods, may inspire increased participation from officers that are not prioritizing efforts in this area as much as others. An end of the year award for occupant protection efforts is also highly recommended and does not have to be limited to just enforcement outputs as the measure of success. Many other factors, such as the number of car seats checked or implementation of innovative education efforts, can deserve recognition as well. Enforcement details should be conducted on a regular basis for occupant restraint violations. These details should include a spotter and at least one vehicle assigned to pull or wave the violators over after the spotter calls them out. The spotter should be in a good position to observe violations, and this usually means out of their car near an intersection. Being out of the car also puts the officers in a much better position to observe child seat violations. Many agencies have found great success with putting an officer/spotter in plain clothes at an intersection or having them dress like a road crew worker while looking for violations. Since seatbelt compliance percentages are often lower at night, details should be conducted after dark in well -lit areas that provide the correct lighting to observe infractions. Night time details also frequently lead 28 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE to the discovery of other crimes, such as impaired driving or drug violations, which can be an additional incentive for officers to participate in these details and further increase the safety of the roadways in your jurisdiction. Evaluation of Efforts The overall effectiveness of a department's occupant protection program should be routinely (monthly or quarterly) evaluated to determine the effectiveness of efforts over the last evaluation period. Strategies (enforcement, education, incentives, etc.) should be updated following each evaluation. Each agency is also strongly encouraged to compete in state or national traffic safety challenges. While the highest scoring applications do receive recognition, and in some states actual financial or equipment incentives, the main benefit to such competitions is a chance to thoroughly review efforts from the last year, evaluate their effectiveness, and then compare strategies and outcomes against industry best standards and other agencies. Participants should not be discouraged if their agency does not place or win, but rather, review the winning agency applications and look for strategies and ideas to improve their own program. Conclusion Law enforcement managers can make a significant impact on traffic -related deaths and injuries in their jurisdiction by prioritizing enforcement and education efforts related to occupant protection laws. By integrating the recommendations above, law enforcement agencies can build an occupant protection program that is supported by officers, highly visible to the public, data -driven, and based upon widely accepted best practices. Notes: 1. "Seatbelts," NHTSA. Accessed July 5, 2017, https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/ seat -belts. 2. "Seatbelts," Governors Highway Safety Association. http://www.ghsa.org/state- laws/issues/Seat- Belts. 3. Ibid. 4. "Traffic Safety Facts, Seatbelt Use in 2017 - Overall Results," NHTSA. https:// crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812465. S. "FBI Releases 2016 Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the line of Duty,' FBI. Accessed July 5, 2017, https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/ press-releases/fbi-releases-2016-preliminary-statistics-for-law-enforcement- officers-ki I led-i n-the-I i ne-of-d uty. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 29 CHAPTER 2: OFFICER SAFETY Research in Brief: Officer -Involved Collisions: Magnitude, Risk Factors, and Prevention By: Hope Tiesman, Research Epidemiologist, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Jeff Rojek, Associate Director, Center for Law & Human Behavior, University of Texas at El Paso; Geoffrey P. Alpert, Professor, University of South Carolina; and Scott Wolfe, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina In 2016, law enforcement officer deaths rose to their highest level in five years, driven by firearm -related deaths. [1] However, the law enforcement community should not lose sight that motor vehicle events, including collisions and being struck by moving vehicles, have been a leading cause of death for many years. [2] In addition, there are even more collisions that do not result in fatalities, but can cause injuries and property damage. In California, for example, it is estimated that there are more than 100 non- fatal collisions for every fatal collision. [3] Vehicle collisions can have a tremendous emotional, physical, and financial impact on officers, their families, and their departments; yet, few formal research studies on these effects exist. Fortunately, several recent efforts have started to fill this knowledge gap. In 2007, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (CA POST) brought together law enforcement professionals and researchers to develop knowledge on officer -involved collisions, which led to the SAFE Driving campaign. [4] In 2011, the National Officer Safety and Wellness Working Group highlighted the need for better knowledge on collisions and effective reduction programs. [5] Subsequently, studies have been funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on this officer safety issue. The Magnitude of Officer -Involved Collisions One study, funded by the NIJ, examined over 35,000 officer -involved collisions in California from January 2000 to December 2009. [6] In that 10-year period, there were 39 officer fatalities, and 21 percent of the collisions (7,684) resulted in an injury to an officer. The collision data also revealed that seatbelt use was inversely associated with injury severity. Seatbelts were less likely to have been used in collisions resulting in severe injuries and death. Nearly 77 percent of the collisions (26,875) involved both a law enforcement vehicle and civilian vehicle. In these collisions, civilians were more likely to be killed than officers. Civilians represented 73 percent of the total fatalities, and officers represented 27 percent. What Increases an Officer's Risk for a Collision? A second study, funded by the BJA, examined collisions across eight California law enforcement agencies. The researchers examined collisions, training records, and driving policies, as well as conducted surveys and focus groups with officers. The primary predictor of an on - duty collision for officers was having a collision off duty. Family responsibilities such as having children and being in a committed relationship reduced the likelihood of an officer -involved collision. The survey also revealed 42 percent of officers reported wearing seatbelts "all of the time" on duty, and 34 percent reported wearing them only "some of the time" or "rarely." Factors associated with seatbelt use included feeling treated fairly by supervisors in organizational measures such as promotions and discipline, as well as having supervisors enforce departmental seatbelt policy. Officers with a risky driving attitude, as measured by a questionnaire, and those with prior on -duty collisions were less likely to report wearing seatbelts. [7] Preventing Officer -Involved Collisions During a six-month period in 2009, the Las Vegas (Nevada) Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) lost three officers in vehicle collisions. In response, the LVMPD developed a comprehensive collision prevention program that included a campaign to increase awareness of driving hazards, stringent driving policies, and an expansion of driver training. The campaign, titled 365 Alive, included visual cues such as decals in patrol cars and posters in hallways and parking garages. It also included daily driving safety messages distributed at roll calls. Policy changes included the introduction of or re -emphasis on seatbelts, intersection crossings, speed caps, and texting policies. Driver training was expanded to eight hours of in-service training annually for officers in their first three years of service and four hours of training every other year for officers with more than three years of service. NIOSH and NIJ funded a scientific evaluation of this program, which showed significant reductions in motor vehicle collision and injury rates after the program's implementation. There were also reductions in restricted and lost workdays, as well as in workers' compensation costs. [8] Collectively, these studies have increased the knowledge of on -duty vehicle collisions. Moreover, the LVMPD has demonstrated that simple safety messaging and changes to training and policy can change culture. Prince George's 30 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE County (Maryland) Police Department (PGPD) is another example of an agency that uses incentives, education, and safety messages through its Arrive Alive campaign to develop and sustain a safe driving culture. [9] The next step for addressing officer -involved collisions is to identify initiatives like the LVMPD and PGPD efforts and determine how the programs work in agencies of different sizes and with different demands and resources. Notes: 1. National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund, 135 Law Enforcement Fatalities Nationwide in 2016," news release, December 29, 2016. 2. Byron Gustafson and Paul Cappitelli, "SAFE Driving —The Role of the Chief," The Police Chief77, no. 3 (March 2010): 38-41. 3. Ibid. 4. Janna Munk and David Kinaan, "SAFE Driving Campaign: Building a Culture of Courage to Save Law Enforcement Lives," Officer Safety Corner, The Police Chief 83, no. 7 (July 2016): 12-13. 5. Darrel Stephens, Steven Edwards, and Mora Fiedler, OSW Group Annual Summary: Issues and Recommendations Discussed for Improving the Wellbeing of Police Officer (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing, 2012); Darrel Stephens, Mora Fiedler, and Steven Edwards, OSW Group Meeting Summary.• Vehicle Operation, Risk Management, and Problem -Based Learning, April 25, 2012 (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2013). 6. Scott E. Wolfe et al., Evidence -Based Solutions to Reduce Law Enforcement Officer Vehicle Crashes (forthcoming); Scott E. Wolfe et al., "Characteristics of Officer -Involved Vehicle Collisions in California," Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 38, no. 3 (2015): 458-477. 7. Andrew Hansen, "The Influence of Department Policy and Accountability on Officer -Involved Collisions," Policing: An international Journal of Police Strategies and Management 38, no. 3 (2015): 578-594. B. Hope Tiesman et al., "Evaluation of a Motor -vehicle Crash Prevention Program in Law Enforcement," Traffic and Vehicle Safety for Law Enforcement: Keeping Officers Safe on the Road (presentation, International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, San Diego, CA, October 2016). 9. Kirk McLean, "Taking Care of Your Own: Sustaining a Culture of Crash Prevention Efforts in Law Enforcement," Officer Safety Corner, The Police Chief 84, no. 3 (March 2017): 12- 13. Safety for Law Enforcement Officers - Still a Priority By: Hope M. Tiesman, PhD, Research Epidemiologist, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia; Rebecca Heick, PhD, Assistant Professor of Public Health, MCPHS University, Boston, Massachusetts Between 2013 and 2014, the number of officers who died in the line of duty increased by 24 percent. In 2014, 50 officers were killed in firearm incidents, and 49 died due to motor vehicle events. [1] In the last decade, one officer a week, on average, has been killed on U.S. roads (2005- 2014 = 61.9 deaths annually). [2] Even though motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of job -related deaths among law enforcement officers, data on motor vehicle injury and crash trends are scant. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) embarked on a comprehensive statewide study of motor vehicle safety among law enforcement officers to better understand these issues. The study was conducted in one state (Iowa); however, the results and recommendations are useful to law enforcement leaders across the United States. A State -Based Study In 2011, 136 agencies were randomly selected for the study from a list of all Iowa law enforcement agencies, stratified by type (municipal, state patrol, sheriff) and size. Of those 136 agencies, 60 agencies (44 percent) participated, representing 1,466 officers. Surveys were distributed by agency leadership and returned to researchers using a self-addressed stamped envelope; individual officer response rate was 79 percent (1,157 responses). The survey included questions on occupational characteristics, motor vehicle training, safety practices and perceptions, and motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) and "struck -by" events in the last three years. Key Findings Most officers believed driver training was critical to their safety (96 percent); however, only half of the respondents believed that academy -provided driver training adequately prepared young officers to safely function in the field, and only 12 percent believed the average academy recruit had driving skills sufficient to safely operate a law enforcement vehicle. Additionally, only 29 percent of the officers received annual motor vehicle training. Hands-on training, such as pursuit driving, was reported about one-third of the time. While most officers reported having a motor vehicle policy, such as general operations or standard operating procedures, only 66 percent had received any training on the actual policy. The least common elements of written motor vehicle policies were speed restriction when using lights or sirens (27 percent of policies) and cellphone use restrictions (39 percent). MVCs and struck -by events were reported as common. In the prior three years, 20 percent of the officers had at least one MVC, and 16 percent reported being struck by or nearly struck by a passing motorist. Most of the reported MVCs occurred during daylight (49 percent), in clear weather (70 percent), during non -emergency responses (64 percent), and at speeds lower than 50 mph (79 percent). Additionally, nonfatal roadside incidents mostly occurred during daylight (60 percent) and in clear weather conditions (60 percent). Nearly half of the non- fatal roadside incidents occurred during traffic stops (47 percent). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 31 Finally, 81 percent of officers reported wearing a seatbelt "all of the time," but only 8 percent of officers reported wearing reflective gear while outside their patrol cars on highways. Recommendations Motor Vehicle Training Agencies could consider providing more opportunities for motor vehicle training and provide officers with more hands-on experience. A study by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (Cal POST) found that behind -the -wheel training resulted in the fewest collisions when conducted every two years. [3] Also, since many officers felt that academy -provided driver training was insufficient, states and agencies could conduct analyses of their current training programs to assess the consistency and effectiveness of their motor vehicle training efforts. Expanding hours of motor vehicle training and providing more hands-on training may be warranted. Use of Personal Protective Equipment In this study, reported seatbelt usage was high. Agencies should strive for 100 percent seatbelt use by implementing strong policies and supporting officers in the wearing of seatbelts. Recently, the United States' largest police unions and a coalition of major city police chiefs called all agencies to implement mandatory seatbelt use. [4] The use of reflective gear was very low; wearing high -visibility vests can significantly reduce an officer's chances of being struck on the roadway. [5] Agencies should encourage officers to wear high -visibility apparel whenever they work in the vicinity of moving vehicles. Motor Vehicle Policy An uncommon component of motor vehicle policies was cellphone restrictions. Research among commercial drivers shows that cellphone use is associated with an increased crash risk. [6] Agencies should consider implementing policies that reduce distractions in patrol cars by restricting the use of cellphones while officers are driving. Another uncommon component was speed restriction. Both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Cal POST found that "driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed" was a leading factor in many officer -involved crashes. [7] Agencies could implement and enforce policies that restrict excessive speed. Motor Vehicle Safety Culture Experienced officers were less likely to have had an MVC and more likely to use safe driving techniques than those with less law enforcement experience. Mentoring programs may help to change driving culture, and formal mentoring programs in law enforcement have led to higher job satisfaction and a stronger work ethic in those mentored. [8] Agencies should also consider adding personal testimonies of officers who have been involved in MVCs into their motor vehicle training like those used in such programs as Below 100, since personal stories have been shown to have a large impact. [9] Motor vehicle -related events have prompted some agencies to make significant changes to their motor vehicle policies and training in an attempt to change their driving culture. One such agency is the Las Vegas Municipal Police Department, whose crash prevention program's impact on MVCs and related injuries and costs is currently being evaluated through a jointly funded effort by the National Institute of Justice and NIOSH. Action Items ■ Encourage or require seatbelt use. ■ Provide periodic motor vehicle training. ■ Include personal testimonies of officers who have been involved in MVCs into motor vehicle training. ■ Add cellphone restrictions and speed restrictions into current written motor vehicle policies. ■ Encourage or require officers to use reflective gear while working in the vicinity of moving vehicles. Notes: 1. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), Preliminary2014 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities Report, http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/ reports/Preliminary-2014-Officer-Fatalities-Report.pdf (accessed January 5, 2015). 2. NLEOMF, "Causes of Law Enforcement Deaths," http://www.nleomf.org/facts/ officer-fatalities-data/causes.html (accessed January 5, 2015). 3. California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training (CaIPOST), POST Driver Training Study (Sacramento, CA: CaIPOST, 2009). 4. Kevin Johnson, "Police Union, Chiefs Call for Mandatory Armor, Seatbelts," USA Today, November 20, 2014, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation/2014/11/20/mandatory-armor-seat-belts/19326349 (accessed March 4, 2015). 5. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Synthesis of Literature Relating to Cellular Telephone/Personal Digital Assistant Use in Commercial Truck and Bus Operations (April 2011), http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51200/51275/Cell- PDA-Use-in-Commercial-Truck-and-Bus-Operations.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015). 6. Ibid. 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Characteristics of Law Enforcement Officers' Fatalities in Motor Vehicle Crashes (January 2011), http:// www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811411.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015); CaIPOST, POST Driver Training Study. 8. Harvey Sprafka and April H. Kranda, Best Practices Guide: Institutionalizing Mentoring into Police Departments (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police), http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/O/pdfs/Publications/BP- Mentoring.pdf (accessed March 4, 2015.) 9. Mitch Ricketts et al., "Using Stories to Battle Unintentional Injuries: Narratives in Safety and Health Communication," Social Science & Medicine 70 (2010): 1441-1449. 32 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Below 100 Initiative: A Reality Check on II Officer Safety By: Dale Stockton, Founder, Below 100 There's a different conversation that's taking place around the country regarding officer safety, and it is being driven by Below 100, a commonsense training program that focuses on areas under an officer's control. Consider those last few words for a moment: areas under an officer's control, It is this perspective that has made Below 100's approach so different from others. Until recently, most discussions about officer safety centered on suspect actions and tactics designed to thwart the attack of an assailant. It is not that these are without merit. They're actually very important and should continue to be part of officer safety training. However, we have been so focused on the bad guy that we have often ignored the elephant in the room: culpability on the part of the officers who have lost their lives. Admittedly, this makes some uncomfortable. After all, officers who die in the line of duty have made the ultimate sacrifice. Reflect on this: what would those fallen officers want to share about how they died? Would they want their mistakes repeated, resulting in further loss? We all know the answer, and it's important that we make sure those who have died are never forgotten, including the lessons that can be learned. "Honor the fallen by training the living," has become a mantra for Below 100 trainers, and it should be the guiding principle for every trainer who stands in front of a group of officers, regardless of the subject. When the concept of Below 100 was first coming together, the evidence and magnitude of preventable losses were so compelling that I assumed there must be an existing effort underway to address issues like seatbelt use, wearing body armor, speed, situational awareness, and complacency. Although there were initiatives or training courses that addressed parts of the problem, there really wasn't an overarching, comprehensive approach to tackle the thorny issue of addressing officer responsibility. In other words, no one had effectively said, "Look what we are doing to ourselves. We have to change this." The human tendency to blame others (the bad guys) for our losses rather than look at our own shortcomings had caused a degree of deadly ignorance. Don't hear the wrong thing. I know full well that bad guys kill good cops. I also know, after reading more than 5,000 line -of -duty death summaries going back to 1980 that we, as a profession, have long failed to address areas that are squarely under our control, areas that have little to do with an armed assailant. In terms of making a difference, which of these do you have more control over? ■ A determined assailant who is willing to set up an ambush and die trying to kill an officer; ■ Actions and decisions that you make in regard to use of safety equipment, the way you drive and how you handle a call? The need to place increased emphasis on areas under an officer's control becomes readily apparent with a simple examination of how a large portion of our losses are occurring. Over the last twenty years, losses due to vehicle -related incidents have accounted for approximately 25 percent more deaths than gunfire. Data from an extensive NHTSA review shows that half of fatal police crashes are single -vehicle crashes. The primary collision factor is overwhelmingly speed too fast for conditions. Just as troubling is the fact that approximately half of all police officers choose to operate their vehicles while not wearing their seatbelts. This has cost hundreds of lives and destroyed thousands of careers due to incapacitating and career -ending injuries. When it comes to speed, single - vehicle crashes and failing to wear a seatbelt, it is very, very difficult to lay the blame at the feet of the bad guy. As the saying goes, "This one is on us." And it's definitely up to us to change it. A Quick Review Below 100 is comprised of five very straightforward tenets: 1. Wear your seatbelt. 2. Wear your vest. 3. Watch your speed. 4. WIN: What's Important Now? 5. Remember: Complacency Kills! Pretty simple, right? Yes, but they're definitely not easy. Simple to understand does not equate to being easy to make happen. Law enforcement culture has a long and storied history of resisting change, and tragically, many officers have died as a direct result of falling into a pattern of behavior that was facilitated by department culture. How to Make a Difference: Vehicle Operations, Ambush Attacks, and Officer Health Vehicle operations and roadway practices are areas where we can definitely improve, and it's time for everyone who wears a badge to take substantive steps to increase officer safety through improved vehicle safety. Seatbelts should be a given; speed awareness is critical, and officers need to wear reflective gear when investigating roadway incidents or directing traffic. We lose far too many officers to single - vehicle crashes where speed is the primary collision factor, and many officers are struck and seriously injured because INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 33 they are not seen while standing on or near the roadway. These events do not make the headlines like an ambush slaying, but they are just as deadly, far more prevalent, and an area that we can absolutely change. There is little doubt that the level of hostility to law enforcement remains high, and it's definitely a time for vigilance. Body armor should always be worn when you're in a recognizable law enforcement role. This includes training days and administrative or office assignments. If you're in a plainclothes assignment, consider your armor as a highly -recommended option and a mandate when working the field or making suspect contacts. A suit coat or polo shirt offers zero ballistic protection. Body armor has already saved many thousands of lives, but it only works when you wear it. Improved tactics are paying off, but complacency can turn any situation deadly in an instant. The ability to self- or buddy -treat gunfire wounds is making a huge difference in saving lives. Every officer should carry a tourniquet (on his/her person) and know how to use it. Check premise history when available, especially on domestic violence calls. When situationally appropriate, consider having the reporting party come to the curb for a meet instead of going to the door. Officers should consider using a passenger -side approach during traffic stops and continually use contact and cover techniques when working with another officer. If you're not familiar with contact and cover, check Google. You'll find it is super simple, and it works. After vehicles and gunfire, heart attacks have consistently been the third leading cause of death for police officers. During the period of 2014 through 2016, 43 officers succumbed to duty -related heart attacks. This is not an "old guy" problem. The youngest was only 23, another was only 26 and many of the officers were in their 30's and 40's. It's time to acknowledge this deadly killer and to become proactive. No one has more control over their health than the individual officer. At a minimum, officers should know their blood pressure, cholesterol level, body mass index, and family history —then do something about it! Courageous Conversations Below 100 takes the position that it is the responsibility of every person wearing a badge, regardless of rank or assignment, to take individual and collective responsibility for officer safety. This includes having the courage to talk to another officer about the five tenets outlined above. Going into dangerous situations without adequate cover or engaging too quickly has been the story behind many police losses. If you know an officer who tends to push the envelope or take unnecessary chances, have the courage to talk to them. Tell them that you care and that their family and department need them. Point out that they're actually endangering others who may have to come to their rescue. Confronting a fellow officer is never easy, but it's far better than going to their funeral. Don't wait because you may not get a second chance. Every leader and trainer should remember that ignored behavior is condoned behavior. Honor the Fallen None of the officers whose names are on the National Law Enforcement Memorial thought their final tour of duty would take their life. For many, their deaths could easily have been prevented. It is clear that we can dramatically improve officer safety by simply exercising common sense. That's the operational principle of Below 100. Every line -of - duty loss should be reviewed by trainers, especially FTOs, and information gleaned should be shared with others and at briefing. We must honor the fallen by training the living. They would want nothing less from us. Remember, the life you save may be your own. For more information on Below 100, check www.Below100.org. Destination Zero Program The Destination Zero Program is coordinated by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the VALOR Initiative. Destination Zero has a goal of helping law enforcement agencies improve the health and safety of law enforcement officers. The program also fosters a platform that provides all law enforcement agencies with the ability to research successful and/or promising officer safety and wellness programs and to identify the resources necessary to begin their own risk management initiatives. [1] Each year, the program recognizes officer safety and officer wellness programs that proactively engage employees in initiatives that increase overall officer wellness or reduce line -of -duty injuries or deaths. Awards are presented in four categories: general officer safety, officer traffic safety, officer wellness, and comprehensive safety. The award winners are selected and acknowledged during Police Week ceremonies in Washington, D.C. [2] The Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff's Office (SCSO) was selected in 2017 as the winner in the Officer Traffic Safety category. At the end of 2015, after sustaining 11 on -duty collisions that resulted in major injury to either an employee or a county resident, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) introduced a new mindset to their officers: "Get there safe and get there alive." This was a change from the older philosophy of "Get there first get there fast." 34 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE The SCSO began working to incorporate the Below-100 training and its tenets into in-service training and into departmental messaging. All the agency supervisors attended a presentation by Kim Schlau, the mother of two teenage girls killed in a collision with an Illinois state trooper speeding to a call. The presentation was recorded and has been included in mandatory roll call training. The Snohomish County Sheriff's Office has distributed Below-100 posters to all their precincts, offices, and contract city locations. SCSO updated their pursuit policy to be more restrictive and created a Driving Review Board (DRB), which meets monthly to review all agency pursuits and on -duty collisions. The Sheriff's Office is also installing telematics into all patrol cars. This new technology will allow the department to identify unsafe driving behaviors that can be addressed by supervisors and in training. [3] Police departments can quickly learn about best practices and model programs by visiting the Destination Zero website at: http://www.nleomf.org/programs/destination- zero/. At this site, one can find hundreds of resources ranging from policies and procedures, officer wellness programs, traffic safety information, equipment, and presentations that will be helpful to law enforcement leaders. Notes: 1. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, "About Us," http://www. nleomf.org/programs/destination-zero/dz-about.html (accessed May 21, 2017) 2. Ibid. 3. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, "Destination Zero," http:// www.nleomf.org/programs/destination-zero/dz-about.html (accessed May 21, 2017) Police Pursuits: Trends and Emerging Technology The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines police pursuits, pursuit terminations, and pursuit fatalities as follows: A police pursuit is defined as an event initiated by a law enforcement officer operating an authorized motor vehicle giving notice to stop (either through the use of visual or audible emergency signals or a combination of emergency devices) to a motorist who the officer is attempting to apprehend, and that motorist fails to comply with the signal by either maintaining his/her speed or taking evasive action to elude the officer's attempt to stop the motorist. A pursuit is terminated when the motorist stops, the attempt to apprehend is discontinued by the officer, or at the direction of a competent authority. A police pursuit related death is defined as all fatalities recorded in a pursuit - related crash. [1] In Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths Related to Police Pursuits in the United States, Dr. Fred Rivera found that "approximately 300 lives are lost each year in the United States from police pursuit related crashes, and one third of these are among innocent people, not being pursued by the police." Using the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System, "there were 260-365 police pursuits ending in a fatality annually in the U.S. for a total of 2654 crashes involving 3965 vehicles and 3146 fatalities during a nine year study period." [2] Law enforcement leaders, researchers, and the general public have been working on training, policies and procedures, and emerging technologies in an effort to mitigate high -risk and unnecessary police pursuits. The Highway Safety Committee of the IACP has proactively initiated steps to adopt innovative pursuit training and model polices. For more information see: "P.U.R.S.U.E.: The Training Video" article in the Police Chief magazine which provides additional details for law enforcement leaders on this topic to include information about the P.U.R.S.U.E. training DVD. Emerging technologies offer some potential alternatives to police pursuit, however, need further study. Some of the technologies being considered to mitigate the risk of pursuits include spike strips, OnStar Stolen Vehicle (SVS), aerial vehicles, nets and barricades, and StarChase. Of course, these technologies must be considered with many other factors including the type and size of the police department, fiscal resources, and training. [3] The StarChase technology is particularly interesting and has been deployed by several law enforcement agencies in the United States. StarChase consists of a compressed air -launcher system mounted behind the grille of a police vehicle. The launcher has a laser target which discharges an adhesive projectile/tag containing a global positioning system (GPS) module that will transmit GPS coordinates to law enforcement via a digital roadmap. [4] StarChase System. Source: Pursuit Technology Impact Assessment, Version 7.7 report This tagging and tracking technology has been studied by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory supported by a grant awarded by the National Institute of Justice. According to the Pursuit Technology Impact Assessment, Version 7.7 report, published in January 2017, the "end INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 35 users' opinion of StarChase is that it is a helpful pursuit management tool, but that it is not a comprehensive solution for avoiding or successfully resolving all possible pursuit scenarios." Potential complicating factors include Fourth Amendment considerations of deploying a GPS device on vehicle. Police departments will need to consult the latest court decisions in the consideration of using any GPS tracking system. [51 Notes: 1. Definitions of Pursuits (In House Definitions) 2004. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, Fatality Analysis Reporting System. 2. Rivara, Fred and C.D. Mack, "Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths Related to Police Pursuits in the United States," Injury Prevention (2004); 10; 93-95 3. Gaither, Morgan et al, "Pursuit Technology Impact Assessment, Version 1.1" (2017), https://www.ncirs.gov/pdffilesl/nii/grants/250549.pdf, (accessed May 31, 2017). 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. The Dangers of Vehicle Pursuits: New Emerging Issues By: Richard Johnson, PhD, University of Toledo, Ohio and Harry Dolan, Chief (ret.), Raleigh, North Carolina, Police Department Adapted with permission. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, (2076). Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA. As long as crime has existed, criminals have been attempting to elude justice. The invention of the automobile gave criminals one more way to attempt to escape the grasp of law enforcement. While the use of motor vehicles by criminals is widespread, one could assume that vehicle pursuits have become safer for officers over time. Improvements in vehicle safety technology have made cars more maneuverable and safer, increasing the likelihood of surviving a high-speed crash. Advances in emergency trauma medicine have also increased the survival rate of traffic crash victims. Today, most law enforcement agencies have policies limiting the circumstances under which a vehicle pursuit may occur, how it will be monitored by management, and when it will be called off to avoid undue risks to the officers and the public. Police pursuit training has become more extensive and realistic, involving intense computer simulations and hands-on practice with real vehicles. Finally, anti -pursuit technologies have become common, such as devices used to deflate the tires of suspects' vehicles. But have pursuits really become safer? Both authors have encountered high-speed vehicle pursuits that ended in the fleeing suspect surrendering to the police, without injury to officers, citizens, or suspects. On the surface, these incidents appear to be textbook successes. Many of these same pursuits, however, have also involved numerous assisting officers racing across the city at extremely high speeds, traveling through stop signs and red lights at rush hour, to assist in the pursuit by trying to get ahead of it to lay tire -deflation devices in the path of the pursuit. The authors have witnessed officers, miles from the pursuit, racing through intersections at breakneck speeds, just narrowly missing the cars of innocent people on their way home from work or school —even witnessed assisting officers, pumped with adrenaline, loudly cursing innocent citizens who did not move aside fast enough. While officers in direct pursuit are often governed by strict department policies limiting the pursuit to reasonable speeds, additional officers who are not in direct pursuit are often traveling at unsafe speeds all across the area to assist in the pursuit. These observations led to a broader examination of the risks vehicle pursuits pose to officers. This broader study examined not only officers in direct pursuit, but also the danger and risks to officers assisting in these pursuits. This analysis of officer deaths associated with vehicle pursuits revealed that police vehicle pursuits have not become safer over time. In fact, some types of officer deaths associated with pursuits have been on the increase for the last few decades. The study reveals trends in officer deaths related to pursuits and provides a backdrop for an exploration of suggestions to mitigate the trends and understand the potential effects on police pursuit policies and practices. Study Methodology The study began with an investigation of law enforcement officers killed while involved in vehicle pursuits from 1960 through 2011. Data were gathered on all police officers killed in a motor vehicle -related death from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) reports published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), death descriptions offered on the Officer Down Memorial Page website, and archived newspaper articles surrounding each officer's death. These information sources were reviewed to identify officers whose deaths were associated with a vehicle pursuit in some way. This review identified 455 officer deaths related to vehicle pursuits during the 52-year study period. Data were gathered on the role each of these officers played in the pursuits, revealing that 75 percent were directly involved in pursuing a fleeing suspect vehicle at the time of their deaths. Another 19 percent were involved in some sort of blocking activity (such as creating a roadblock or deploying tire deflation devices), and the remaining 6 percent were traveling to catch up to the pursuit or get ahead of it to establish a blocking position. 36 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE It was originally anticipated that the data would reveal a gradual decline in officer pursuit -related deaths for several reasons. First, advances in trauma medicine and EMS services at the scene of accidents have significantly reduced citizen deaths in automobile accidents over the last four decades. Second, improvements in automobile engineering have made vehicles significantly safer. Third, officer pursuit training has increased in quantity and quality, now including video -based simulations, as well as actual vehicle operations on a closed track. Fourth, most law enforcement agencies have developed detailed written policies governing when and how vehicle pursuits will be conducted, with some agencies limiting pursuits to cases of violent felony offenses. A few agencies have even banned pursuits entirely. Finally, the last four decades have witnessed the development and proliferation of tire - deflation devices used by police departments. These facts, taken together, would lead one to anticipate that, over time, the number of police pursuits has decreased, and when pursuits occur, they would be less likely to result in the death of an officer. The results of the analysis, however, only partially meet these expectations. Study Results Figure 1. Officers killed while persuing a fleeing vehicle 1960-2011 Figure 1 is a line graph of law enforcement officers who were directly involved in a pursuit by chasing the fleeing suspect vehicle at the time of their deaths. These officers died by losing control of their vehicles, colliding with the suspects' vehicles, colliding with another police vehicle, or colliding with an innocent third party. This figure demonstrates that, as anticipated, this role in pursuits decreased in lethality over time. The number of officers who died while involved in direct pursuit gradually declined over the last five decades, from 50 officers killed between 1960 and 1964, to 17 killed between 2005 and 2010. It appears that the advances in pursuit policies, medical resources, and vehicle technology have paid off in officers' lives saved during direct pursuits. Blocking Activities Deaths b.. -%.-a h-h N-IY 45-1. A.Y *b 9.-11 55-& 5l-di I-.. Figure 2. Officers killed while engaged in blocking activities 1960-2011 Approximately 19 percent of the pursuit -related officer deaths occurred to officers attempting to establish some sort of block to the fleeing suspect's path. This included establishing a roadblock with a patrol car or other obstruction, directing lights in the eyes of the approaching suspect, or deploying tire deflation devices. Figure 2 displays the trend in officer deaths related to this pursuit activity. As this figure reveals, there has not been a gradual decline in officer deaths of this nature. These types of officer deaths declined in the 1960s, dramatically rose again in the 1970s, and declined rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, these deaths were on a steep rise again and, after a brief dip, are continuing to rise today. This unusual pattern may be explained by changes in the case law surrounding police pursuits, and the development of anti -pursuit technologies. Three landmark cases in the 1980s dramatically changed how roadblocks could be utilized during vehicle pursuits. First, in Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court took the first major step in defining the limits of police use of lethal force. One of many things that resulted from this case was the abolishment of the "fleeing felon rule" that had previously allowed the use of lethal force to prevent felons from escaping, regardless of the lack of imminent danger posed by the felon. This abolition, therefore, eliminated the practice of shooting at fleeing suspect vehicles (from a moving patrol car or a roadblock) in most cases. [11 The second case, Jamieson v. Shaw (1985), decided by the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, extended the decision in Garner to include other roadblock tactics that had a high likelihood of severely injuring or killing the fleeing suspect. In particular, this case suggested that placing a patrol car across the road on a blind curve and shining bright lights in the driver's eyes to prevent him or her from seeing the roadblock constituted an unreasonable seizure. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 37 [2] In the third case, Brower v lnyo County (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that roadblock tactics that create a likelihood of death or injury to the fleeing suspect constituted an unreasonable use of force. In this case, officers had placed a semitruck completely across the highway around a curve, with patrol cars' headlights aimed to blind the fleeing driver on approach. [3] These three court decisions and the influence they undoubtedly had on law enforcement agencies' pursuit practices may explain the tremendous decline in officer blocking deaths that began around 1985 and continued through the early 1990s. After 1985, roadblocks, if used at all, had to be constructed in a manner so that they would not cause injury to the fleeing suspect. Some of the pre-1985 officer deaths at roadblocks involved officers shooting at the fleeing driver from the roadblock, causing the driver to lose control and hit an officer or intentionally try to run down the firing officers. Others involved fleeing suspects being blinded by police lights, causing them to swerve and hit an officer. Still others involved officers off of the roadway who were hit when the suspect left the roadway in an attempt to go around a vehicle parked across the road. All three of these common scenarios were reduced dramatically by the restrictions placed on roadblocks by the U.S. federal courts. Fewer occurrences of these situations resulted in fewer officer deaths at roadblocks. The steady resurgence of officer blocking activity deaths since the mid-1990s may be linked to the proliferation of tire deflation anti -pursuit devices. According to the U.S. Patents Office website, in the 1960s, no patents were filed for tire deflation devices. In the 1970s, two such patents were filed, and in the 1980s, seven patents were filed. In the 1990s, however, 19 new patents were filed, with another 24 filed in the first decade of the 2000s. [4] As the number and variety of these devices have increased, so have the number of officers killed attempting to deploy these devices. Almost all of the officers killed after 1995 while attempting some sort of blocking activity were killed while attempting to deploy tire deflation devices. Some were retrieving the devices from their trunks when rear -ended on the side of the road. Others were hit by the suspect vehicle or another citizen while deploying the devices, while still others were killed by patrol cars or other passing motorists as they attempted to retrieve the used devices from the road. Traveling to Assist in the Pursuit The last type of activity in which officers were engaged when killed during pursuits involved officers who were in fatal motor vehicle crashes while rushing in an attempt to either catch up to the pursuit or get ahead of the pursuit in order to establish a roadblock or deploy tire deflation devices. Between 1960 and 2011, 86 law enforcement officers died in this manner. Figure 3 reveals the pattern of these officer deaths since 1960. Figure 3. Officers killed while traveling to assist in the pursuit 1960-2011 As Figure 3 demonstrates, the number of officers killed in fatal auto crashes while traveling to assist in pursuits has been steadily increasing for several decades. In the 1960s, 13 officers died in this manner, but in the first decade of the 2000s, the number was 23, almost double the number of the first decade of the study. The exact reason for this steady increase is not completely clear. It may be a result of extensive media attention to vehicle pursuits today on news broadcasts and reality television shows, which glorify vehicle pursuits, possibly attracting officers to the excitement of a pursuit. It could also be an unintended consequence of the implementation of anti - pursuit technologies. More officers may be trying to get involved in the pursuit by establishing a blocking position with tire deflation devices. Finally, the expansion of radio communication capabilities and global positioning maps may have made more officers aware of the pursuit than was the case several decades ago. As more officers are aware of the pursuit, more officers try to get involved. The authors have observed an increase in traffic collisions involving secondary officers responding to assist those in direct pursuit. When reviewing these collisions, it appeared that paralleling the pursuit had become commonplace. In some of the incidents reviewed, 20 or more police units paralleled a pursuit. The obvious safety issue with paralleling is the inherent danger associated with numerous emergency vehicles in close proximity traveling at high rates of speed while unaware of the others' locations. The results of the present study raise the concern that the presence of the tire deflation devices in patrol cars may be resulting in an increase in the frequency and speeds associated with paralleling units. In fact, so great was the concern of one of the authors that, after reviewing the findings of this study, he directed all tire deflation devices 38 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE be removed from his agency's patrol cars. This decision was based upon the inability to support officers standing in roadways in close proximity to fleeing motorists traveling at high rates of speed, and the number of officers traveling at high rates of speed to get into position to deploy the devices was too great a risk to all concerned. The risks involved with the implementation of tire deflation devices demonstrate the need for the law enforcement profession to conduct evaluative research prior to implementing new technologies. Implications for Policy and Practice The results of this analysis of officer pursuit -related deaths may suggest the need for changes in police policies and practices. First, consideration should be given to expanding written departmental pursuit policies to include restrictions on the behaviors of officers assisting in pursuits. Just as many pursuit policies limit the number of officers or units that can participate in the pursuit, police executives should also consider restricting the number of officers who can engage in assisting with the pursuit. Limitations should be placed on how fast these assisting officers are allowed to travel, and, just like officers directly involved in the pursuit, they should be called off if traffic conditions make their travel unnecessarily dangerous. Second, law enforcement agencies, in cooperation with tire deflation device manufacturers, should identify the safest and most effective tactics for establishing roadblocks and deploying these devices. By comparing tire -deflation device deployment incidents that resulted in deaths and injuries with deployments that were done safely, key differences may be identified that can lead to the development of best practices in the deployment of these devices. These evidence -based best practices can then be written into pursuit policies and incorporated into both academy and in-service training. It would also be beneficial to expedite the current research and experimentation into electronic vehicle kill switch technology that can remotely turn off the fleeing vehicle's engine, thus safely terminating the vehicle portion of the pursuit. Such technology is currently under development by several companies, but public pressure should be placed on these private companies to move more quickly to develop a model for practical field use. Finally, to ensure officer buy -in with changes in tactics and written policies, street -level officers should be educated about the rising officer death rate from the deployment of tire deflation devices and traveling to assist in pursuits. Officers may exercise more caution when they realize that these activities are posing a greater risk to officer safety. Agencies can conduct after -action reviews to educate officers of the dangers they are posing to themselves and innocent motorists and pedestrians. Dash camera video footage from the assisting units, traffic camera footage, and in -car global positioning data can all be used in these after -action reviews to demonstrate to officers the dangers being posed by these activities. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to examine if they are being conducted in the safest manner. The natural tendency for police officers to over -respond during vehicle pursuits has long been an area of great concern for police administrators. Managing the fundamental desire of good cops everywhere to come to the aid of their peers remains an inherent challenge. Over the past several decades, considerable improvement in decision making has been demonstrated by officers and supervisors in direct pursuits. The information provided by this study reveals that the overriding concern today rests with the uncoordinated response of those coming to the aid of the officers in direct pursuit. In spite of changes in technology, training, tactics, and policies designed to reduce the dangers vehicle pursuits pose for police officers, the annual number of officers killed assisting in pursuits has steadily been on the rise. Each decade, the number of officers killed while deploying tire -deflation devices or traveling to assist the pursuing officers increases. Street -level officers need to be informed of this growing danger, and better tactics and training need to be developed for the use of anti - pursuit technologies. Pursuit policies need to be expanded to include governing the behavior of officers assisting in pursuits. New anti -pursuit technologies need to be developed that would be safer for officers to deploy. Law enforcement is a dangerous profession, and every effort that can be made to improve safety should be made. Notes: 1. Tennessee v Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). 2. Jamieson v. Shaw, 776 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1985). 3. Brower v. Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593 (1989). 4. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Process —Search, http://www.uspto.gov/ Patents/Process/search (accessed June 2, 2014). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 39 Move Over Law Law enforcement officers face various dangers in the performance of their duties. As highways become more congested and crashes become more complex to investigate, officers are facing even more dangerous circumstances. One of the most dangerous calls for service for officers is the various kinds of traffic -related incidents. Disabled and abandoned vehicles, traffic crashes, DUI, speed enforcement, and many other traffic duties place officers in harm's way, often on high speed interstates. There were 50 traffic -related officer deaths reported in 2018. This was a 9 percent increase from 2017. Traffic - related incidents one of the leading causes of death for on -duty law enforcement officers, fire, EMS, maintenance works, and tow/recovery professionals. [1] Move Over Laws have now been enacted in all 50 States. While laws vary state to state, most require motorists traveling on controlled access highways with multiple lanes of traffic to move from the lane adjacent to stopped emergency or maintenance vehicles with lights activated. In addition, motorists must demonstrate due care to avoid colliding with such vehicles on all roadways. As an example, the State of Colorado enacted a Move Over Law in 2005. The law states: "On a highway with at least two adjacent lanes proceeding in the same direction on the same side of the highway where a stationary authorized emergency vehicle or stationary towing carrier vehicle is located, the driver of an approaching or passing vehicle shall proceed with due care and caution and yield the right-of-way by moving into a lane at least one moving lane apart from the stationary authorized emergency vehicle or stationary towing carrier vehicle..." [2] Source: University of Massachusetts Police Department NHTSA, the IACP, State Highway Safety Offices, and other advocacy groups are aligned with law enforcement in an effort to better educate the public about Move Over Laws. Additionally, NHTSA, FHWA, and State Transportation Departments collaborate on Traffic Incident Management (TIM) training courses. The courses highlight the importance of Move Over concepts and raise the awareness of effective highway safety management and methods available to help improve the safety of motorists, crash victims, and emergency responders. Notes: 1. National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), Preliminary2077 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities Report, http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer- fatalities-data/. 2. Move Over Laws.com, Colorado Move Over Law, http://www.moveoverlaws.com/ colorado-move-over-law.htm (accessed May 31, 2017). Officer Safety, Predictive Policing, and Community Relations By: Captain Arthur Combest, Ohio State Highway Patrol, Columbus, Ohio As an executive law enforcement leader, I think about officer safety every day. Hundreds of cadets enter through our academy doors each year to begin a career of public service, and I don't take my responsibility to them lightly. We train them to wear body armor to protect themselves from weapons. We teach them to wear safety belts in case of a crash. We also advise them that smart policing is safe policing. "Smart policing" often translates to predictive or intelligence -led techniques that emphasize proactive efforts. Law enforcement agencies are sitting on treasure troves of data about the crime they address every day and tapping into that has revolutionized our ability to address the needs of our communities. Police line of duty deaths in 2016 have spiked by 15 percent when compared to 20151 With this in mind, law enforcement professionals are struggling to balance the need for officers to be out on the roads with the legitimate safety concerns that accompany visibility. The gut reaction is to pull back our proactive efforts. Though that protective instinct is understandable, we know our profession's future is not in reactive enforcement. To recover our officers' confidence in proactive enforcement, our agencies need to rethink the traditional approach to officer safety. There is no one -size -fits - all solution. But we can start by expanding "smart" approaches to explicitly include community -police relations. We should also focus on transparency regarding proactive enforcement strategies, which we know httr)://www.usatoday.com/storv/news/nation/2Ol6/ll/02/am bush-style-kil I i ngs-r)ol ice-u p-300/93155124/ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ultimately make everyone safer. Our ability to do this will define officer safety in the 21st century environment. We saw what's possible in July 2016, when hundreds of police officers and thousands of protesters descended upon Cleveland for the Republican National Convention. Law enforcement needed to reach civic and clergy leaders for assistance. Fortunately, networks of communication between the community and police were already in place. That community buy -in ahead of time was key to keeping the city and its people safe. The story of that week could have been a dangerous clash with lasting damage as months of nationwide tension culminated in Cleveland. Instead, people who attended called it a block party. Studies show the future of policing will emphasize these contacts more and more. When 200 police agencies were asked for their perspectives on the future of policing in 2012, 94 percent reported a current investment in community policing. It was the top response the surveyors received.2 Most police agencies understand that community safety is inextricably tied to officer safety. Officers can never completely control their environment. But they can contribute to a safer place with non -enforcement outreach efforts and by remembering every single interaction is an opportunity for a positive, lasting impression that improves officer safety. This approach echoes the sentiment of the broken windows model, which suggests disorder in communities caused by less -severe crime leads residents to withdraw out of fear. That decrease in informal social control leaves a vacuum for serious crime to happen.3 When police officers can encourage people to get outside and interact - through neighborhood walks, programs that reach children in friendly environments like schools, or participation in councils and groups that give people a space to gather and talk about their city's issues - we are investing in their safety as well as ours. It's about trust, and there isn't a part of it that isn't linked. Another part of this effort to increase officer safety through community outreach is transparency. Transparency isn't about revealing confidential or personal information. It's about telling the public what we do and why we do it. This is increasingly important as our agencies invest in the kind of advanced technologies that make predictive policing possible. Several news stories in 2016 highlighted public concerns related to new technology in policing. Use of start-ups like Geofeedia and Dataminr to monitor social media in targeted areas resulted in public backlash.' Seventeen civil rights and technology groups put out a joint statement that various predictive policing tools "supercharge" discrimination in minority communities.5 Whether or not civil liberties were violated is another discussion. The fact is community members are naturally suspicious of being treated like numbers, and too much reliance on technology without the human element of face-to-face conversation will breed distrust. That erodes any success we've had with community -police relations and officer safety, even though we know that intelligence - led policing will ultimately help everyone. It's taking two steps forward and one step back. We have to start a dialogue with our communities, and we have to translate that concern into visible and purposeful action. Are we hosting or participating in face-to-face discussions with the community to explain the purpose of new initiatives and listening to their perspectives? While there, are we also explaining our officer safety concerns and how we all can work together? Are we facilitating relationships with members of the media and pitching stories that dive into new technology and success stories? Are we sharing those stories on social media, where 6 out of 10 Americans now get their news?6 Are we viewing every single enforcement as an opportunity to make a good impression and prove that officers are there to help? Are we explaining to every law enforcement officer we employ how outreach is connected to officer safety, and are we giving them resources to prioritize those efforts? These are worthwhile investments that have the potential to transform our interaction with the public and renew confidence in proactive policing. It'll lead to more trust, safer communities, and safer policing. We are fortunate to work in a profession with colleagues who value the community and evidence -based approaches. More likely than not, your agency is already engaged with the community. Our end goal should be that a call to 911 feels like a call for help from a neighbor. Outreach efforts, transparency, and follow-up are essential to building these relationships. 2 httr)://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free Online Documents/Leadership/future%20trends%20in%20policing%202014.pdf 3 http://cebcp.org evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/ 4 httr)s://www.nvtimes.com/2016/10/12/technology/aclu-facebook-twitter-instagram-geofeedia.html? r=0 5 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/coalition-predictive-policing-supercharges-discrimination 6 httr)://www.iournalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 41 This is a difficult, ongoing effort, but it is well worth it. The closer the bonds between police and the communities they serve, the safer we all are. That's what I want for law enforcement officers leaving our training academies and serving our communities. Tactical Common Sense: Saving Lives with Seatbelts and Traffic Safety Vests By: Sergeant Joel Kuszynski, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Police Department Adapted with permission from `Tactical Common Sense: Saving Lives with Seatbelts and Traffic Safety Vests". The International Association of Chiefs of Police, (2016). Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA. What would most police administrators or supervisors do if they learned of a simple, inexpensive piece of equipment that is proven to save lives? Would they hesitate to equip and train their personnel? What would many of them do if someone refused this piece of equipment? There are two pieces of equipment that have been proven to save the lives of law enforcement officers, both of which are inexpensive and common. Most police leaders have likely already equipped their officers with them. Both of these items are constructed from simple nylon and, if used properly, will save lives: seatbelts and Class 2 or 3 ANSI/ ISEA-approved vests. [1] Unfortunately, many officers are resistant to seatbelt and traffic vest use, claiming that they interfere with "good tactics." Let's take a moment to talk about tactics. Merriam - Webster defines tactics as "the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat" and "the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end." [2] Police officers view tactics as team movements, angles, the use of firearms, and special training —all with the end goal of survival. No one would argue that good tactics and protective equipment aren't important to officer safety, and no police officer would intentionally go without body armor during a situation involving gunfire. However, many of those same officers choose not to wear seatbelts when driving a cruiser or an ANSI vest when standing in traffic. Why? Police officers, especially those tactically minded, like gear. Ballistic vests, military -style carriers, rifle plates so light they float in water, communication systems, helmets, weapon lights... the list goes on and on. Most of this gear is black or camouflage, is expensive, and — most attractive of all —cool. Tactical terms are also cool: high/low, quick peek, hall boss, forward assault point, last cover, and concealment. The average seatbelt and traffic vest have little in common with other tactical gear with the exception of nylon webbing and hook and loop fasteners. They also don't share the cool factor; most of the time, they elicit the opposite reaction. Nonetheless, the lifesaving benefits of seatbelts and traffic vests are indisputable. A study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that an ANSI Class 2 or 3 vest increases the visibility of an officer in a simulated work zone from 125 feet to 891 feet. The average stopping distance of motor vehicles travelling between 35 MPH and 65 MPH is 159 to 425 feet. [3] Increasing officers' visibility along the roadway can literally save their lives. Traffic -related deaths in the United States are the second leading cause of death for people ages 21-54. [4] Seatbelts are proven to save more lives in motor vehicle crashes than any other safety mechanism. [5] A head-on collision between vehicles traveling at 25 MPH is equivalent to driving a squad car into a brick wall at 50 MPH. Would anyone really be willing to do that without a seatbelt? Officers have no control over other vehicles on the roadway, and most officers are in a vehicle for the majority of their shifts. However, it appears that some do not realize the dangers of their most common function at work. The arguments from officers who oppose the use of seatbelts or traffic vests tend to boil down to two primary concerns: "It takes too long to get a seatbelt off if I have to run after someone" and "My traffic vest makes me a target." Both sound like valid points, but, with some thought, they don't make sense. Of course, an officer shouldn't wear an ANSI traffic vest to an active shooting scene —the primary purpose of the vest, increased visibility, would be a significant drawback in this case. However, the vast majority of police officers drive a vehicle that is recognizable based on the model and markings. How can officers argue that, during routine activities, they wouldn't want the same visibility when out of their patrol vehicles? Most states have a law similar to Wisconsin Statute 347.48 (2m) (dm), which exempts police officers from wearing seatbelts when "the operation of an authorized emergency vehicle by a law enforcement officer or other authorized operator under circumstances in which compliance could endanger the safety of the operator or another." [6] This is the excuse most often used by officers for not wearing seatbelts, but how often do most officers really encounter these situations? Do the risks of compliance outweigh the risks of not wearing seatbelts? 42 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE As part of the continued focus on enhancing traffic safety and reducing fatal crashes across the United States, the IACP, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), and other partners have created a High Visibility Education and Enforcement (HVEE) pilot program to enhance the Drive to Save Lives Campaign. Four states are currently participating in the program: Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. The pilot project focuses on using federal and state crash data and leveraging partnerships to respond to a particular traffic challenge in each area. Representatives from state and local law enforcement, state highway safety offices, and other public and private stakeholders partnered with IACP to look at NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data and state crash data to determine each state's focus for the pilot. Promising practices and lessons learned, including officer safety techniques, will be collected from each group. IACP will be producing and disseminating officer safety resources that will be useful for any officer engaged in motor vehicle enforcement. This type of traffic enforcement campaign is an opportunity for all departments to refresh officers' training and reinforce proper procedures and policies to ensure that officer safety remains a top priority. Statistics may help officers understand why these two pieces of equipment are so important to their safety. According to the 2014 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics, 96 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2014. Breaking the numbers down, 46 officers were killed with firearms; the other 45 were killed accidentally. Of the 45 officers killed accidentally, 28 were involved in automobile crashes and 6 were struck by vehicles. "Seatbelt usage was reported for 25 of the 28 officers killed in automobile collisions. Of these 25 officers, 15 were wearing seatbelts at the times of the accidents." No information was available on the use of ANSI traffic vests by those struck outside their cruisers. [7] Taking a moment to analyze the numbers allows one to realize that accidental deaths are as common for police officers as are deaths by firearms. Between 1980 and 2008, 42 percent of the police officers killed in motor vehicle crashes were not wearing seatbelts. [8] Furthermore, a recent study by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training showed that nearly half of the police officers polled in California did not wear seatbelts. In contrast, the general U.S. public has a seatbelt usage that approaches 90 percent. [9] There is an ethical aspect to this discussion, as well. Every state has either primary or secondary seatbelt laws that require citizens to wear them. Law enforcement officers are trusted with enforcing all laws. If an officer does not wear his or her seatbelt, can they ethically enforce the law? In addition, not wearing a seatbelt is often a policy violation. Policies are in place as a means of risk management. Are agencies effectively communicating these policies and their intent to their officers? Are police leaders willing to look beyond policy violations? Law enforcement administrators should recognize that they have some control over these numbers. There are a number of different ways to increase seatbelt and safety vest use among officers. Possible approaches range from education to discipline, but the most effective method is creating cultural change. Implementing anticipatory change in an organization is certainly preferable to implementing reactive change resulting from the death of an officer. Roll call or shift briefing time is the perfect opportunity to reinforce the importance of safety gear, and those dialogues can be the gateway to cultural change in organizations. All lost officers are mourned, including those killed by violence and those killed in crashes, but people hesitate to ask whether or not an officer was wearing a seatbelt when killed in a crash. Most people don't wish to speak in accusatory terms when an officer loses his or her life, but can leaders and peers live with the possibility that an officer died as a result of not using proper safety gear because the importance of safety gear was not stressed or reinforced enough? There is no question that every agency and leader make officer safety a priority. Likewise, the majority of officers also place a high priority on officer safety. The real question is whether the profession is dismissing the obvious when it comes to officer safety. If officers are as likely to die in a traffic incident as they are from a violent encounter, have agencies adequately focused their training efforts to reflect the reality of the risks? Do they spend as much time training officers in proper seatbelt usage and roadside work safety requirements as on the firing range? Agencies need to be willing to dedicate time to reinforcing seatbelt and safety vest use as part of tactical training. And, beyond training, police leaders must change their own traffic safety -related perspectives if they hope to change those of their officers. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 43 David Kinaan, a former motorcycle sergeant in the California Highway Patrol, wrote a thought -provoking article titled "Courageous Conversations." He highlighted the need for police leaders to notice when officers are "taking shortcuts, or taking chances unnecessarily." He also noted that courage is needed by the person initiating the conversation, as well as the person listening to the conversation. In the article he asks, "If you don't say anything, who will?" [10] Leaders and peers must have the courage to start this conversation in their own agencies and with their own officers. Ultimately, an agency is responsible for the actions of its officers. If the importance of seatbelts and traffic vests is not emphasized, officers may not take the issues seriously. If it is known that someone is not using proper safety equipment, steps need to be taken to correct the behavior, including discipline and remedial training as needed. The bottom line is that seatbelt and ANSI vest use is common sense. Officers know the dangers of their job, but they tend to focus all of their training on tactics. Law enforcement administrators need to dedicate more time and effort on the risks officers most commonly face on the job. Notes: 1. Federal Highway Administration, "Pedestrian and Worker Safety," in Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (2009), 564, 566, http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part6/part6d.htm#section6DO3 (accessed January 21, 2016). 2. Merriam -Webster, sm "tactics." 3. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), "Illustration of Seeing Distances and Required Stopping Distances;' 2 slides, https://www.usfa. fema.gov/downloads/pdf/Saepedslide.pdf (accessed February 7, 2016). 4. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Leading Causes of Death;' Web -based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), 2014, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_ causes_death.html (accessed March 24, 2016). 5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use and Minimum -Drinking -Age Laws;' Traffic Safety Facts (November 2013), http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811851.pdf (accessed February 9, 2016). 6. Safety Belts and Child Safety Restraint Systems, Wisconsin Stat. 347.48 (2m)(dm) (2001), https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/347/III/48 (accessed March 24, 2016). 7. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services, "FBI Releases 2014 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted," press release, October 19, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/ pressrel/press-rel eases/fbi-releases-2014-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers- killed-and-assaulted (accessed January 21, 2016). 8. Eun Yong Noh, Characteristics of Law Enforcement Officers' Fatalities in Motor Vehicle Crashes (January 2011), 24, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811411.pdf (accessed February 7, 2016). 9. Tam! Abdollah, "Not All Cops Use a Buckle;' Statesman Journal, December 15, 2013, http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2013/12/16/not-all-cops-use- a-buckle/4036179 (accessed March 18, 2016.) 10. David Kinaan, "Courageous Conversations;' Law Officer (April 2013), http:// lawofficer.com/2013/04/30/Courageous-conversations (accessed March 18, 2016). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CHAPTER 3: ALLOCATION, DEPLOYMENT AND EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC PERSONNEL Police Allocation r Manual (PAM) By: David Bradford, Executive Director, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety The Police Allocation Manual (PAM), and Police Allocation Manual User's Guide were developed and field tested by Northwestern University Center for Public Safety under a contract (No. DTNH22-92-C-05051) issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The author for the study was Dr. William Stenzel. The project was administered by the Office of Enforcement and Emergency Services. There are three separate versions of The Police Allocation Manual (122 pages), one for state agencies, one for sheriff departments, and one for municipal departments. The Police Allocation Manual is designed to be used by law enforcement departments whose mission includes the delivery of patrol and traffic services. The Manual can be used to determine staffing levels for a traffic division with limited patrol coverage or for a patrol division with traffic responsibilities. The framework and rationale for the procedures presented in the Manual are the result of a distillation process that identified the "best" procedures currently in use by agencies throughout the United States, and then modified and blended those procedures into a comprehensive model for determining appropriate patrol staffing levels and deployment patterns. The procedures in PAM provide agencies with a logical and explicit format in which to frame requests for additional personnel and/ or staff allocation. The Police Allocation Manual consists of four chapters and two appendixes: ■ Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the purposes and uses of the Manual. ■ Chapter 2 describes the PAM patrol staffing and allocation model. ■ Chapter 3 contains eight worksheets, each with instructions that provide a step-by-step process for determining patrol staffing levels. ■ Chapter 4 contains one worksheet for determining patrol staffing allocations over several geographic areas or time periods. ■ Appendixes A and B contains worksheets that can be used as alternatives to the procedures presented in Section 5.2 in Chapter 3. Additional information about the PAM procedures can also be found in the companion document, Police Allocation Manual User's Guide (148 pages). The Guide presents implementation, data definition, and data collection strategies used by the field test agencies. Also included in the Guide is a summary of key input values and numerical results obtained by the agencies that field tested the Manual. The appendix materials in the Guide include: ■ a list of the input data required to use the PAM model (Appendix A), ■ a glossary of key terms and notation (Appendix B), ■ a detailed example showing all nine worksheets in completed form (Appendix C), ■ and derivations of all key formulas used in the model (Appendix D). Law enforcement officers who are developing patrol staffing calculations for traffic safety services will find the information in the Manual to be very helpful. For additional information, contact the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety at nucps@northwestern.edu or toll free at 800-323-4011. Using Traffic Safety Data to Drive Resource Allocation By: Jana R. Simpler, Former Director, Delaware Office of Highway Safety and Former Chair, Governors Highway Safety Association Law enforcement agencies are challenged every day with questions on how to best use their existing resources in a climate that is ever evolving. In the realm of traffic safety, support agencies such as the Office of Highway Safety can provide police agencies and law enforcement leaders with timely data to assist them in their decision making and resource allocation. Resource allocation in this day and age requires finesse. With no time, effort, or energy to waste, many law enforcement agencies are finding success by targeting limited resources by using crash data to drive decision making. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 45 One of the most powerful resources law enforcement leaders generally should have at their fingertips is crash data, especially data specific to their jurisdiction. National crash data can be valuable in identifying trends and for making comparisons to support threat assessments about crashes and their causation at the macro level. The drawbacks related to national data are that it tends not to be as current or specific as state or local data and therefore not as valuable for making resource allocation decisions at the local level. Law enforcement leaders may find their local and/or state crash data sets of greater value for making resource allocation decisions. Ultimately, all crashes are local, so the local data may provide greater clarity in the department's analysis of traffic safety issues. Because the relative sample population is far smaller, local data often provides greater insight regarding crash or injury causation, such as primary contributing factors, demographic details about the motorists involved, vehicle specifics, occupant protection use, problem intersections/locations, and levels and types of impairment. Armed with specifics about the types and locations of crashes, a chief, sheriff, or other operations officer can make informed decisions about how to allocate limited resources to address them. A law enforcement agency's greatest assets are its human resources - especially its officers on patrol. Using the crash data to allocate resources allows an agency to more efficiently and effectively deploy these assets to improve traffic safety in their community. Officers can be directed to specific locations at specific times of the day/ day of the week and even to look for specific violations. For example, directing safety restraint enforcement activities to an area where crashes are occurring in which drivers and/or passengers are unbelted typically leads to better compliance by motorists. Directed high visibility enforcement strategies have proven extremely effective at addressing a number of traffic safety issues, including safety restraint use, phone use and texting while driving, and impaired driving. Moreover, staffing strategies based upon crash data analyses are effective for general staffing, overtime traffic enforcement, and special details, such as saturation patrols. Another related resource that law enforcement agencies manage is funding. With limited funds for traffic enforcement, crash data analysis can help identify an agency's traffic safety priorities and ensure that these limited funds are aligned with those priorities. This can facilitate decision making about where and when and for what target violation agencies deploy their officers. The analysis and subsequent targeted deployment can aid in driving the development of budgets related to the use of straight time and overtime funds. Finally, there is a tremendous amount of evidence and commentary on the use of crime data to drive the use of staffing and allocate financial resources to address a certain problem. The same mentality for the use of crime data can easily be applied to the use of crash data to address crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities due to motor vehicle crashes. Targeting limited resources in a specific area, focusing on a specific violation as identified by careful crash analysis can reap dividends in the protection of the public and prevention of devastating crashes. One model is the Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS). DDACTS is an operational model for deploying law enforcement resources. This differs from traditional enforcement projects in that DDACTS is not meant to have a specific timeframe. DDACTS is a method of doing business. Operational deployment is based on data related to criminal incidents, traffic crashes, or other incidents causing social harm. The use of data is one of the primary elements of DDACTS, which is intended to "integrate location based crime and traffic crash data to establish effective and efficient methods for deploying law enforcement and other resources." [1] Police leaders are always looking to work smarter, not harder. By using data to develop resource allocation models, leaders can pinpoint known traffic hot spots and provide more effective traffic safety practices for the community. Notes: 1. Howard Hall, "Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety — Its Application to Public Safety and Accreditation," CALEA Update Magazine (Issue 103). The Changing of Culture as a Byproduct of the Delaware State Police -Is Implementation of the Stratified Model to Address Traffic Safety: The Pilot Study By: Captain Jennifer D. Griffin, Troop 1 Commander, Delaware State Police and Captain William D. Crotty, Director, Delaware State Police Fusion Center and the Delaware Information and Analysis Center Introduction This article details the pilot study that was conducted by the Delaware State Police (DSP) on the implementation of the Stratified Model of Problem Solving, Analysis, and 46 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Accountability (hereafter "Stratified Model"), which is an evidence -based practice to reduce incidents of criminal and traffic complaints using data driven analysis, while increasing accountability into police organizations day-to- day activities. The pilot study was conducted at Troop 1, a patrol troop in the northernmost region of the State of Delaware. This study officially started at Troop 1 on May 4, 2015. The goals of the pilot study were to: ■ evaluate the usefulness of current data, ■ evaluate and improve the quality and thoroughness of reports, ■ improve responsiveness to the hot spots based on long term data analysis, as well as trends, ■ ensure effective use of data by the Troop Administration and First Line Supervisors to develop and implement timely strategies, ■ assess how officers respond to the new strategy, ■ identify issues or obstacles and deal with them quickly, ■ develop procedures to report outputs (productivity), ■ develop means of communication to best convey information, data, and strategy, ■ and most importantly, to increase accountability for Traffic issues across all levels of troop personnel from the captain to the newest trooper. Agency The Delaware State Police is a full -service law enforcement agency providing traffic and criminal enforcement along roadways and interstates, as well as patrol and investigative services in urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout the State of Delaware. With almost 800 troopers, the State Police is the largest police agency in the state and has primary jurisdiction statewide, while aiding numerous other law enforcement agencies. Location/Participants Troop 1, also known as the "First Troop in the First State" has been an icon, located at the top of Penny Hill since 1923. The 45-Troopers assigned to Troop 1 patrol an approximately 60-mile area, where diversity spans from Wilmington to Claymont, and Brandywine Hundred to Centreville. The patrol area also includes two interstate highways (1-95 & 1-495), as well as the Concord Pike corridor, which has become a regional retail mecca, and the site of the world-wide headquarters for Astra Zeneca. During the pilot, Troop 1 was made up of four shifts, which included: one sergeant, one assistant, and eight patrol troopers per shift. The Troop also had a one trooper Retail Theft Unit (R.T.U.) and one Traffic Action Car (T.A.C.). The Troop Administration includes one traffic and one criminal lieutenant, who report directly to the captain, who is responsible for the overall implementation of the Stratified Model. Stratified Model The Stratified Model was developed by the pilot studies research partners, Drs. Rachel and Roberto Santos, who have been assisting law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada over the last 10 years in implementing the model. This pilot study was one of the first times a state police agency in the United States implemented the model. The Stratified Model "provides a stratified structure that standardizes crime and traffic analysis, the problem -solving process, and accountability within a law enforcement agency while providing the flexibility to allow agencies to implement different evidence -based practices as they are deemed relevant for the unique nature of crime, traffic and environmental issues within a law enforcement jurisdiction." [1] The Stratified Model was selected due to its focus on using evidence -based practices to reduce incidents of criminal and traffic complaints, while using resources, both equipment and personnel, in the most efficient and effective manner, all the while embracing and enhancing community partnerships. For a comprehensive description of the Santos' Stratified Policing methodology as an example of a sustainability approach, please see the attached link from a presentation given at the Bureau of Justice 2013 Smart Policing conference (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=R1G09KcAagQ), or review A Police Organization Model for Crime Reduction: Institutionalizing Problem Solving, Analysis, and Accountability. Washington D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Pilot study A pilot study can be helpful as a "small-scale version or trial run in preparation for a major study." [2] A pilot study was employed because the Stratified Model was a major change from DSP's previously employed strategy of focusing primarily on solving crimes through intensive investigations, handing traffic crashes/issues after calls for service while reviewing statistics, versus ensuring responses were implemented effectively and efficiently. One of the major changes with the Stratified Model was the increased usage and reliance on data and analysis to formulate strategies to address and prevent additional incidents. There are five key factors to incorporate a structured approach to a pilot study. [3] 1. Plan and design the pilot study 2. Train personnel to accomplish change INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 47 3. Support and monitor pilot study 4. Evaluate pilot results Make recommendations and improvements prior to agency wide implementation Methodology The Delaware State Police's method to execute this pilot study was structured around a simple three step process. The first step was an analysis focused on Data - Driven decision making via a comprehensive traffic study. The Delaware State Police utilized traditional hot - spot analysis of crash reporting data via the CrimeView system to identify geospatial density of crashes, day of the week and time of day frequency analysis, and analysis of the primary contributing behavior that led to the crash. CrimeView is computer software that allows for the mapping and organization of complex information from multiple databases into visualizations that reflect a snapshot of current activity. This analysis also allowed for the identification of locations and peak time periods where deployment could be most effective. Furthermore, the Delaware State Police also instituted a deployment time of 4-hours to coincide with these identified deployment areas. The second step was to develop a specific traffic deployment strategy to target areas for crash reduction. This deployment strategy was formulated after an analysis of traffic data from the traffic study created by the Delaware State Police Crime Analysis Unit. Included in this strategy, was the identified responsibilities and accountability from the strategy development, to include collecting and reporting the results, which was performed by the Troop 1 Administration specifically reporting detailed metrics on the implementation of the strategy. The data points identified for this pilot were the following ■ Specific location ■ Day of the week ■ Time of the day ■ Number of troopers assigned ■ Number of hours dedicated in the target areas during target times ■ Number of Traffic Summons/Citations for key crash contributing behaviors ■ Total number of Summons/Citations - the focus was on the percentage (percent) of proactive enforcement in the hot spots, NOT the total number (#) of citations, or citations from crashes ■ Number of crashes occurring during enforcement hours The third step was the strict set of reporting periods of daily, weekly, and monthly reports based on the Stratified Policing Model process. Daily reporting occurred at the Troop level, where the Troop 1 Administration would report the strategy to include the specific deployment plan, and the outputs/productivity of the above data points. Weekly reporting occurred from both the Troop Administration and the Delaware State Police Crime Analysis unit. The weekly reporting from the Troop Administration consisted of aggregate reporting of the above data metrics, and the percentage obtainment of maximum deployment hours (i.e. 15 troopers covered 100 percent of the hot spot hours during the deployment times, and 550 /citations/ summons were issued, 500 of which were proactive/non- crash, on 480 separate operators). The weekly report from the Crime Analysis Unit would verify the specific metrics reported and the identification of data quality issues in reporting. Finally, monthly reporting from both the Troop Administration and Crime Analysis Unit summarized efforts and results. These monthly reports focused on aggregate reports of identified data metrics from the Troop Administration, while the Crime Analysis Unit provided a critical evaluation of deployment strategies/practices to validate which preformed behaviors of deployed Troopers optimized crash reduction. All the reports were shared with the Delaware State Police Executive Staff (Colonel, Lt. Colonel and Majors), Troop 1 Troopers, the County Investigative Units, and the Criminal Analysis Unit. Rollout/Implementation of Stratified Model in the pilot study Although a pilot study does not guarantee success when the strategy is fully implemented, it greatly increased the likelihood. To implement any type of change within a law enforcement agency, the first step should be to gather exhaustive information on the issue. The following is a brief chronological description of the process the DSP followed in developing the pilot study and then carrying it out: ■ Gather exhaustive amounts of research and information on the Stratified Model ■ Form a Stratified Model Committee ■ Select a pilot location, in this case Troop 1 ■ Perform a Traffic and Crime Study of the pilot location, to provide data to drive decision and strategy creation ■ Train Troop 1 Administration and First Line Supervisors, in this case Sergeants, on the Stratified Model, as well as their responsibilities/accountability ■ Send explanatory emails and hold shift briefing meetings with all troopers to explain the model, implementation, goals, strategy, common language, and responsibilities/accountability 48 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ■ Establish deadlines for reporting and communication Establish strict accountability guidelines to identify responsibilities at all levels The first thing that had to be accomplished once the pilot site was identified, was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the troop's calls for service. This initial report established hot spots for traffic calls for service, which included crashes and traffic citation data. The analysis was performed by the Crime Analysis Unit and analyzed data for the prior year. During 2014, Troop 1 investigated 2,856 traffic crashes. A geo-spatial analysis of the crashes clearly identified a hot spot of U.S. Route 202 and Interstate-95 which accounted for approximately 10 percent of all crashes in Troop 1 area. A report classification study revealed that reportable property damage crashes accounted for 67 percent of all crash investigations (1,928), Non -Reportable Crash investigations accounted for 17 percent of all crash investigations (503), Personal Injury Crashes accounted 14 percent of all Crash Investigations (416), and less than 1 percent were fatal crashes. Examination of the time of occurrence of these crashes revealed that 89 percent of all crashes occur between the hours of 0600 hours and 2100 hours, with 64 percent of all crashes occurring on the Interstate-95 between the hours of 0600-0800 hours. An examination of the primary contributing circumstances revealed the top three contributors to be Driver Inattention (19 percent), Following Too Closely (17 percent) and Careless Driving (11 percent). The utilization of the Stratified Model further focused the strategy and deployment for dealing with the traffic issues in the Troop 1 area. Based on the enhanced data analysis, there were several initiatives that Troop 1 focused on to include: Increased enforcement during peak crash times and at hot spot locations; Increased proactive enforcement of crash contributing factors; ■ Increased proactive DUI enforcement. These were the top three traffic initiatives; thus, all traffic deployment tactics revolved around increasing productivity in these areas with a precise and targeted strategy. To reduce crashes based on the data, the Troop Administration's strategy was to have high presence and enforcement of crash contributing behaviors in the hot spot of Interstate-95 and U.S. Route 202 from the hours of 0600-1000. The second strategy was to increase proactive traffic enforcement as opposed to relying on troopers' enforcement of traffic violations AFTER crashes. And lastly, the third strategy was to increase DUI proactive production to engage the impaired driver before they crashed, as over 50 percent of all Troop 1 fatal crashes involved an impaired driver. Results During this pilot, Troop 1's first goal was to reduce traffic crashes in designated hot spots. To measure the success or failure of the pilot, the Troop 1 Administration examined the following data sets within the targeted area. 1. Geo-Spatial density changes to targeted area 2. Suppression of the frequency of crashes Below is a representation of Geo-Spatial density changes to a targeted area. Table 1 is pre -pilot (January 1 - April 30, 2015), and Table 2 is post -pilot start (May 1 - August 30, 2015). Overall, looking at the post -pilot compared to the pre -pilot, it is evident that the increased enforcement decreased overall crashes. However, a deeper examination of the meaningfulness of these reductions from the focused 4-hour deployment by the Crime Analysis Unit found the following: ■ Troop 1 successfully reduced crashes in the target area (U.S. Route 202 and Interstate-95) by 50 percent. The reduction of crashes in this targeted area also lead to a 30 percent reduction in the weekly complaint load for Troop 1. J � ' r •d �' Table 1. Pre -pilot (Jan. 1 - April 30, 2015) Table 2. Post -pilot start (May 1 - Aug. 30, 2015) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 49 In regard to the second strategy of issuing proactive tickets in the hot spots, troopers were advised to focus enforcement during peak crash times at peak crash locations. Troopers' enforcement efforts were closely measured, and accountability was tracked to ensure that they were present and engaged in the hot spots during appropriate times. The strategized targeted enforcement directed troopers to specific locations, at specific times, to show both presence and perform meaningful enforcement of crash contributing behaviors. The goal was to be present in the hot spot during the strategic time to both deter and apprehend violators. A 100 percent coverage of the entire 4-hour block by one or more troopers was the goal set by the Troop Administration. Although this was not always achieved, troopers were covering over 80 percent of the time, with most shifts covering 90-100 percent of the 4-hour blocks. Thus, time present in the hot spot during the strategized time was monitored daily by all shifts. However, being present was not the only data point being tracked. Engagement and enforcement in the hot spots during peak times was also closely monitored and reported daily, weekly and monthly to track outputs. Troop 1 troopers consistently wrote between 85-98 percent of all proactive tickets in the hot spots. Proactive citations in the hot spots was a key data point and a goal to be maintained. On many days, Troopers wrote 100 percent of traffic citations in the hot spots, showing not only their engagement, but their dedication to the process, even if it meant that they got less citations than they would have written at a different location. This was also shared with the community and key stakeholders to show that troopers were issuing citations in high crash locations for crash contributing behaviors. The daily tracking of this data point reaffirmed the goal for Troopers to issue meaningful tickets for dangerous moving violations in locations identified as hot spots to reduce crashes and change crash contributing behaviors as opposed to just going out and getting numbers. The following graphs are the pre -and post -frequency analysis of the targeted area to show that the increased enforcement during the 0600-1000 hours decreased crashes. During the pre -pilot period, there were more than 10 crashes between 0600-0700 hours, approximately 50 between both the times of 0700-0800 and 0800-0900 hours, and then 30 crashes between the hours of 0900- 1000 hours. During the post -pilot period, crashes were reduced to less than 10 during the 0600-0700 hours, and less than 35 between both the times of 0700-0800 and 0800-0900 hours (30 percent reduction), and an almost equal amount of crashes during the 0900-1000 hour block. The reduction in crashes during the 4-hour period, which is historically a rush hour period for commuters, reduce the calls for services for Troopers to allow them to engage in proactive deterrence and enforcement, while Table 3. Time of Day Pre -pilot (Jan. 1 - April 30, 2015) Table 4. Time of Day Post -pilot (May 1 - Aug. 30, 2015) The last initiative was to increase proactive DUI enforcement, so that Troopers engaged the impaired motorists before they caused a crash and/or fatality. From May 1, 2014 to May 1, 2015, one full year prior to the pilot, Troop 1 troopers made 178 DUI arrests, 92 from crashes and 86 from proactive efforts. This resulted in 52 percent of DUI arrests from crashes and 48 percent from proactive enforcement. From May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2016, one full - year of the pilot study, Troop 1 Troopers made 243 DUI arrests, 91 from crashes and 152 from proactive efforts. This resulted in 37 percent of DUI arrests from crashes and 63 percent from proactive enforcement. Overall, there was a 15 percent increase when evaluating one year prior to the pilot to the first year of the pilot, and the overall number of DUI crashes decreased by 1 percent. Lessons Learned and Conclusion During and after the pilot study, there have been short - and long-term successes and cultural changes. In 2015, Troop 1 troopers worked to respond and adjust to the Stratified Model with its focus on the previously listed metrics and accountability. Most law enforcement leaders have heard the saying "There are two things that cops so INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE hate most. The first is the way things are. And the second, is change." However, due to the successes experienced at Troop 1 in 2015 through the Stratified Model, there has been a cultural shift at all levels. The usage of accountability meetings and structured reporting not only provided timely data to base decisions on, but also provided timely updates on accountability. Prior to the pilot, troopers were more reactive to calls for service and less proactive in their efforts to decrease crashes. Throughout the process, engagement, effort, flexibility, and creativity were praised from the Troop Administration to the Executive Staff. Flexibility was a key component of the pilots' success, and failure wasn't seen as a negative, but as an opportunity to learn from a strategy and improve upon it. Due to the mentality that the strategies for handling a situation will change at any time depending on the data, the Troop Administration and troopers weren't afraid to try and fail because it viewed as part of the process to find what may or may not work. This allowed troopers at all levels the ability to take chances in their approach to resolving an issue. One year after the pilot, the top three traffic initiatives continued to show success. In 2016, Troop 1 troopers again increased their proactive DUI enforcement by almost 20 percent. Increasing DUI production was critical to the Troop 1 traffic strategy as over 50 percent of DSP fatalities are DUI related; and by engaging the impaired driver prior to the crash, troopers are saving lives. Troopers, have also increased their proactive traffic enforcement in the hot spots, where most Troop 1 crashes occurred. On average, during the times of 0600-1000 hours between 90-95 percent of all proactive traffic citations were written in the hot spots, showing that troopers were enforcing traffic violations in those areas that are accounting for most crashes within the Troop area occur. Although there are countless successes of the pilot study, and the full -implementation of the Stratified Model, there were challenges and obstacles that should be noted. First, with any change there is going to be apprehension and some resistance of the unknown. Agencies interested in moving to a Stratified Model with its data -driven focus need to take conscious steps to educate officers at all levels of the model, implementation, goals, strategy, common language, and responsibilities/accountability. Explaining the process through a variety of means (i.e. emails, PowerPoint presentations, informal and formal meetings) will not only ease fears and apprehension, but will also give officers input and buy -in to the process, as accountability and shared responsibilities is critical to the pilot's success. Secondly, make sure that other support units or groups understand the Stratified Model and their responsibilities and accountability in supporting the pilot location. Cultural change doesn't occur in a vacuum, and not ensuring other units not only understand the Model, but are held accountable for their responsibilities will surely undermine the pilot locations success. And lastly, remember that organizational culture isn't developed overnight, that it occurs over years, and in some cases generations. So, changing culture will take time, so do not lose hope when there are set backs or pushback. Notes Santos, Roberto G. & Rachel Boba Santos, Evidence -based policing, "What works" and Stratified Policing, "How to make it work," Translational Criminology 8 (September 2015): 20-22. Polit, Denise .F., Cheryl Tatano Beck, & Bernadette P. Hungler, Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisals and utilization (5th. Ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2001. Kasunic, M. (2004). SEPG Conference sponsored by the United States Department of Defense. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (need proper citation) Additional Information for the Bibliography of Resources Boba, R. & Santos, R. (2015). A Police Organization Model for Crime Reduction: Institutionalizing Problem Solving, Analysis, and Accountability. Washington D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://ric-zai-inc. com/Publications/cops-p208-pub.pdf For more information on The OMEGA Group, Crimeview Dashboard System, go to http://www.theomegagroup. com/police/omega_dashboard_police.html INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 51 CHAPTER 4: CRASH INVESTIGATION Every day, law enforcement officers provide a critical role in ensuring the safety of motorists on our roads. While education, enforcement, and engineering are all components to traffic safety, the thorough and sound investigation of a crash provides critical information in addressing driver behavior. Additionally, data from the police crash investigation may assist in developing effective enforcement and engineering countermeasures. Police departments have developed effective data - driven strategies to address crime hot spots. Equally as important is the use of crash investigation data points to help departments allocate resources where repeat crashes occurred, where driving under the influence offenses are predominant and where the most egregious traffic violations seem to cause crashes. While some police departments have had to limit their traffic enforcement functions in order to address what some might claim are more pressing violent crime trends, the fact remains that citizens continue to be very concerned about traffic crashes and traffic enforcement in their communities. While some agencies have focused more intently on violent crime, other progressive agencies have used evidence - based practices in applying crime fighting principles to simultaneously address traffic issues. At the heart of these solutions is the efforts of the officer on the scene of a crash in providing meticulous details and important data through a professional collision investigation. Purposes of Investigating and Reporting Collisions Ideally, a collision should be both investigated and reported. Police administrators must be mindful of the purposes of investigating and reporting. Law enforcement officers have multiple goals in their investigation of crashes. First, they are expected to protect the crash scene and those involved to ensure secondary collisions do not occur. Secondly, they also provide a written record, in the form of a crash report, of the facts of their investigation. State laws outline specific requirements, however, in most states, any crash involving injury, death or a certain value of property damage, necessitate a police investigation and crash report. The ultimate purpose is to make our roads and highways safe. More immediate purposes are to combat criminal activity, promote safety, and just results in civil litigation. In very serious crashes, where a death results, criminal charges ranging from vehicular assault to homicide by automobile may follow. These complex investigations may lead to extensive and protracted investigative tactics and can involve the use of multiple police resources (i.e. specially trained fatal crash investigation personnel) as well as new technologies. Detecting At -Fault Drivers Although investigation frequently reveals who is primarily responsible for the collision, sometimes technical reconstruction is required. The at -fault driver can be charged with the violation(s) that caused the crash and, if convicted, can be punished or given remedial driver training. If the number of previous violations is sufficient for suspension of the driver's license, the individual's license can be suspended or revoked. By policy, police departments are tasked with holding at -fault drivers accountable for their driving which may have resulted in a serious collision. Detecting Medically At -Risk Drivers. A crash may be caused by a driver's physical or mental deterioration through illness or age. By working with state motor vehicle departments, the police investigator can request retesting to determine if that individual can still drive safely, if restrictions should be imposed, or if the driving privilege should be suspended or revoked. In the absence of a thorough crash investigation, a potentially dangerous driver could continue to drive without having the condition properly addressed. Detecting Distracted Drivers With the increase in the number of distracted driving crashes, law enforcement has an important role in attempting to determine the level of distraction in crashes. With greater awareness, training, and investigative techniques, officers can attempt to establish the level of distraction pre -crash. In the most severe cases and where the filing of serious criminal charges will result, officers know to preserve all evidence (i.e. cellphone or mobile device that has been identified) and to seek search warrants and/or prosecutorial advice on evidence preservation. Forensic analysis of a mobile device may be necessary to establish a "timeline of activity on the device" leading up to the crash. [1] Apprehending Criminals A vehicle involved in the crash may have been reported stolen or the operator may be involved in some other undetected criminal activity. A thorough crash investigation will establish a specific date and time of the crash. Significant unsolved crimes have been solved by investigators referring back to crash investigation reports which have placed a suspect at a crash scene. Without an investigation, these criminal acts might not be discovered, and offenders have an opportunity to reoffend. 52 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Hit and Run Collisions These collisions may require additional investigative steps to be taken in identifying the offending operator who may have already fled the scene of the crash. Police officers have successfully used sound police investigative skills, motor vehicle databases, reconstruction, witness interviews, and, increasingly, technologies such as highway cameras to arrest and prosecute offenders. Enhanced penalties, especially in very serious crashes, may result in criminal charges as well as the revocation of the license. Use of Motor Vehicles to Cover Up Homicides Vehicles have been used to carry out homicides, and to cover up homicides committed at locations far removed from the staged crash. These homicides may not have initially involved the motor vehicle as the primary weapon or homicide instrument. In those cases where a death results and a motor vehicle is involved, police officers are encouraged to use state or regional specially -trained advanced crash investigation personnel to establish cause and the manner of death. In most cases, this will require extensive joint investigative effort with the local medical examiner or coroner. Drivers without Licenses or Insurance Coverage Another reason for conducting a comprehensive crash investigation is to establish the operator(s) possess the required license and liability insurance coverage. Police departments provide an important service to the community in detecting and seeking the prosecution of unlicensed and uninsured motorists. The collision investigation also provides critical information to insurance companies in assigning fault and compensating victims of crashes that may have resulted from a violation of state motor vehicle laws. Defective Equipment Equipment problems also cause collisions. Police crash investigators have the authority to inspect vehicles to ensure all equipment was functioning properly at the time of the crash. Investigators may also inspect and ensure all equipment meets the established design and equipment standards mandated by law. This is especially important for heavy commercial vehicles and buses whose weight can make them especially formidable in a crash. Crash investigations encompassing a thorough equipment inspection may lead to additional charges or the removal of the vehicle from the road. Vehicle Design Defects Crash investigations may uncover problems in the design of the vehicle or equipment. It may be prone to roll- over, have its fuel tank located where it is particularly vulnerable, or come equipped with tires susceptible to failure when under -inflated. With no policy requiring the investigation of every collision, such findings might never come to light or be recorded; inherently dangerous designs would never be corrected. Roadway Defects An investigation can reveal problems with the roadway design or conditions, or with traffic control devices. Such problems may have contributed to similar crashes in the past and continue, unless reported to the appropriate federal or state department of transportation. Insurance Settlements Unrelated to safety but important to those affected, an investigation can provide a means for civil litigation to help the aggrieved party recover just compensation and establish a basis for insurance companies to determine payments for property damage, personal injury, medical expenses, and disability. A perceptive, well -trained officer will detect crashes that have been staged to bilk insurance companies —a crime now of such proportions that it adds substantially to the cost of insurance for every motorist. A detailed crash report conducted in the field by a trained investigator can be an excellent tool in fighting fraud. Collision Reporting A qualified officer or civilian investigator should properly investigate every collision. It is also important to file a standard crash report for every collision. These reports allow the federal and state governments and law enforcement agencies to compile statistics to assess objectively the effectiveness of police traffic enforcement. The concept of selective traffic law enforcement rests on data that show the violations that actually cause serious crashes, and the locations and times when they are most likely to occur. Levels of Investigation The severity and circumstances of a collision will determine the proper level of investigation. In their order of complexity, the levels are usually called at -scene investigation, advanced (technical) investigation, and reconstruction. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 53 At -Scene Investigation Basic to any collision is an at -scene investigation. Ideally, the first responding officer will conduct this and file a standard crash report. The officer's first task is to make the collision scene safe and prevent a second crash. Traffic must be immediately redirected by means of patrol vehicles or other emergency vehicles, cones and/or flares. Next, the officer must care for the injured, summoning emergency personnel if needed, and then observe and record facts pertaining to the collision. These include all measurements, such as the length of tire marks and the final rest positions of collision vehicles and bodies from permanent reference points; the drag factor of the roadway surface; view obstructions; the condition of the collision vehicles, including lamps and tires; the condition of the roadway, traffic signs and signals; and the weather and environmental conditions (daylight or nighttime). A field sketch should be made to show the direction of travel of the vehicles and the location of all relevant objects. To document damage, the officer should photograph the vehicles and the collision scene. Finally, the officer should check all drivers for indications of impairment, interview all drivers and witnesses, and record their addresses and telephone numbers, as can is safe and reasonable to do so. The at -scene investigation is concerned primarily with data gathering and recording. It may also involve some interpretation of the collected data. For example, from the skid mark measurements and the drag factor, the officer can calculate the minimum speed of the vehicle at the beginning of the skid. Ideally, every officer should be qualified to conduct an at -scene investigation. By attending and successfully completing a state -approved course, an officer can become qualified to investigate crashes. Emergence of Technology in Crash Investigation In more complex cases or where significant criminal charges may result, investigators are more reliant upon emerging technology to aid their investigation. A comprehensive study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in 2015. A report entitled "Crash Investigation and Reconstruction Technologies and Best Practices" was the culmination of this study. It provides information about traffic crash reconstruction technology investigators are using in the field as well as other evolving and promising innovative equipment for crash investigation and reconstruction. [2] cw.v�K-((K Lor, i--D US- K!i The technologies detailed in this report are becoming much more prevalent in their use by investigators. Global positioning systems, three-dimensional laser scanning, unmanned aerial systems (drones), among others, are all helping investigators to provide more precise investigative finding while also enabling roadways to be cleared of crashes and the traffic flow to be restored more quickly. This reduces the length of time that emergency response workers are exposed to traffic hazards at the scene. Advanced (Technical) Investigation Whereas an at -scene investigation should be conducted for every collision, an advanced investigation is undertaken whenever the data obtained at the at -scene level is considered insufficient to complete the investigation. The purpose of the advanced investigation is to collect additional data for determining the charges to be brought against one or more of the individuals involved, for litigation reasons, or for laying the foundation for the next level of investigation —re -construction. Unlike the at -scene investigation, which is initiated immediately or as soon as practicable after the collision, the advanced investigation may take place at a later time. Data, including that from the at -scene investigation, will be interpreted, as well as collected. Since much of the evidence at the scene may already have disappeared, the advanced investigation may depend heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the data recorded in the at - scene investigation. The same officer who conducted the at -scene investigation, if trained and qualified, may conduct the advanced investigation. This officer is expected: ■ To determine the drag factor of the skid surface(s) and the minimum initial speed of each vehicle (unless already calculated in the at -scene investigation); To determine time -distance relationships and solve momentum problems; 54 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ■ To match marks on the roadway with the parts on the vehicle causing this damage, to determine the point of impact; ■ To determine what is impact damage to the vehicle and what is contact damage; ■ To match the damaged areas of the vehicles to determine the principal direction of force (PDOF); ■ To correlate injuries with the parts of the vehicle impacted by the occupants (occupant kinematics); ■ To determine if headlamps and other lamps were ON or OFF at impact; ■ To determine if any fire damage occurred before or after impact; ■ To determine if a mechanical or electrical failure contributed to the crash (this may require the help of a specialist); and ■ To prepare a scale drawing of the scene from measurements and notes made at the scene. Officers can receive advanced investigation training by successfully completing a POST -approved course. The length of this training is up to 80 hours, and includes classroom instruction and hands-on activities. A prerequisite is usually the completion of a basic collision investigation course, such as at -scene investigation, or several years' practical experience in at -scene investigation. Collision Reconstruction Reconstruction is the highest of the three major levels of investigation, and is usually undertaken only in support of litigation or research. Its main purpose is to determine how the collision occurred. It deals primarily with direct and immediate causes of the crash. These frequently entail behavioral errors on the part of the drivers. The findings are mostly objective, supported by the facts uncovered or determined by investigation at any of the three levels. The purpose may be extended to attempt a determination of why the collision happened (called "cause analysis" and sometimes regarded as a separate and even higher level of investigation). This phase looks at all the circumstances of the crash in order to identify the probable and possible contributing factors. The findings are to some extent speculative. Take, for example, a case where two vehicles crash head-on. The direct cause is that one vehicle suddenly crossed the centerline and encroached on the opposite travel lane, placing this vehicle in the path of an oncoming vehicle. The probable indirect cause may be that the driver of the encroaching vehicle fell asleep, inasmuch as the collision occurred at 3:00 A.M., and the driver had been driving continuously since the previous noon. Reconstruction expands on all the principles of at -scene and advanced investigation. In addition, it includes impulse —or the force exerted by each vehicle upon the other —and energy loss through crush —or the extent of deformation of the vehicle caused by the impulse. It may involve experiments to ascertain performance and other capabilities of the vehicle, or to determine driver and pedestrian behavior. Reconstruction entails assembling all the technical data required to build a case for court. Among the duties of the reconstruction ist are the following: ■ Cooperating closely with the attorney, if litigation is involved; ■ Interpreting photos, information contained in field notes, and all other recorded data from the at -scene and advanced investigations; ■ Using photogrammetry to determine distances between objects and location of objects; ■ Matching paint, glass and vehicle parts found at the scene to the vehicle being sought after its driver fled; ■ Determining who was the driver of each vehicle; ■ Determining occupant movement (occupant kinematics) and how injuries were received; ■ Checking all calculations made previously and performing any additional calculations required; and ■ As needed for the courtroom presentation, preparing scale diagrams of the scene —often via specialized computer -aided diagramming software —showing vehicle and body positions, time -distance relationships, and momentum vectors. Although a reconstruction ist usually has greater depth of knowledge and broader experience than an investigator qualified only in at -scene or advanced investigations, and can make more inferences from existing data, he is very dependent on the thoroughness and quality of the investigations conducted at the scene, and may have to work largely with the evidence that has been preserved and recorded by the officers who initially responded to the scene. Officers can receive training in reconstruction by attending a POST -approved course of up to 80 hours in length. Such a course combines classroom instruction with hands-on activities. The pre- requisite is usually successful completion of a state -approved course in advanced (technical) investigation. More advanced and specialized INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 55 crash reconstruction training is typically conducted a state police academies by highly -trained senior investigators. Organizations such as the Institute of Police Technology and Management offer the "At -Scene Traffic Crash/Traffic Homicide Investigation" course and an "Advanced Traffic Crash Investigation" course, among others. (To learn more about these courses, see: http://iptm.unf.edu/) Using Data to Better Understand Crashes: The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Police departments have become increasingly more skilled at using traffic crash data to address "hot spots" by deploying high -visibility enforcement in identified problem locations. As data has become more important to the efforts in analyzing crashes and causation factors, the need for comprehensive crash reporting by police officers is underscored. NHTSA developed the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) in 1975 to assist the traffic safety community in identifying traffic safety problems and to evaluate both motor vehicle safety standards and highway safety initiatives. FARS maintains, analyzes, and provides access to data from motor vehicle crashes in the United States that occur on a public roadway and involve a fatality. NHTSA collects and tabulates data on fatal crashes from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. NHTSA contracts with each state government to provide information on fatal crashes within the state. [3] w v..avrna. mn.��..c v.., �� oaw,�e r..s en. �� iM �...�< m•.•e x.u. . maww.omwanrw vex¢e.r-n rvn use nxrcsna+r•moawaea eum rw er ma oor.. eaexndnu nr ��n<,arn ,�.ia�k, vom iw, Ur •.x �... p• � p+., pnr �eaA.ww, uota x..,,xw..,,��+.hm �,w.,,,e r,riMe.. .Pn.eaer�eere,oarww�h�Nn v.art✓Mnls wMnanrMs axa.dwevraw tiwdy rteaa4n Ca.i Ca e'e IYgd „M,Iw F,r[wy Y, ti naR .w�4 Source: NHTSA, FARS Encyclopedia site. https.11www-fars. nhtsa.dot.gov/Help/Help.aspx States also maintain their own traffic crash and highway safety data and some states have a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC). The Governors Highway Safety Association, working with its State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) and NHTSA are involved in many efforts to ensure traffic crash data is standardized and can be used in the planning of effective highway safety programs. [4] Additionally, the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) is another data set that law enforcement officers can use to help with planning effective highway safety strategies. The MMUCC is a voluntary minimum, standardized data set for describing motor vehicle crashes and the vehicles, persons and environment involved. The Guideline is designed to generate the information necessary to improve highway safety within each state and throughout the U.S. This data set, originally published in the MMUCC Guideline, 1st Edition (1998), has been revised three times, most recently in the 4th Edition (2012), in response to emerging highway safety issues. The 5th Edition is scheduled for a summer 2017 release. [5] The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its Office of Safety Programs, uses "safety data to identify those areas with the greatest need for improvement because understanding the most prevalent safety problems on our roadways is the first step to solving them. The FHWA Office of Safety's Roadway Safety Data Dashboard provides graphical presentations of data elements that characterize fatal crashes on U.S. public roadways. These elements include FHWA and NHTSA definitions of fatality type, collision type, collision location, and type of person involved in the fatal crash. All of these elements can be viewed and compared at the national, State, regional, or MPO level." To access the dashboard, click on https:// rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/Dashboard/DefauIt.aspx. [6] Notes: 1. Horsman, Graeme, and Lynne R. Conniss. "Investigating Evidence of Mobile Phone Usage by Drivers in Road Traffic Accidents". Digital Investigation 12 (2015): S30-S37. doi:10.1016A.diin.2015.01.008. 2. Federal highway administration. Crash Investigation and Reconstruction Technologies and Best Practices. Washington, DC, 2015. 3. "PIA - Fatality Analysis Reporting System". US Department of Transportation, accessed September 3, 2017, https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/ pia -fatality -analysis -reporting -system. 4. "Traffic Records I GHSA". Ghsa.Org, accessed September 3, 2017, http://www.ghsa. org/issues/traffic-records. 5. "Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)'. US Department of Transportation, accessed September 3, 2017. https://www.transportation.gov/ govern ment/traffic-records/model-m in imu m-u niform-crash-criteria-m m ucc-0. 6. "Facts & Statistics - Safety I Federal Highway Administration". Safety.Fhwa.Dot. Gov, accessed September 3, 2017. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts_stats/. 56 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CHAPTER S: COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATION U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration As the lead federal government agency responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight of Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMV) in the United States, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-159). Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Administration. FMCSA resources and programs are focused on and support its mission through education, regulation, enforcement, research, and innovative technology, thereby achieving a safer transportation environment. Additionally, FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that commercial vehicles comply with all Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). Further, to accomplish these activities effectively, FMCSA works closely with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and the public. The agency is guided by four core values: ■ Integrity. We uphold the highest standards of equality, integrity, and ethical behavior. Through our actions, we earn the respect and trust of our peers, partners, customers, and the American people. ■ Knowledge. We seek new ways to accomplish our responsibilities and achieve extraordinary results by delivering creative, forward -looking, and data -driven solutions in advancing our mission. ■ Collaboration. We work as a team, furthering our goals and strategies by valuing the commitment and contributions of our many partners and stakeholders to achieve mission success. ■ Excellence. We strive for excellence and seek to provide the highest level of service by embracing our mission with the utmost energy and enthusiasm. We Are FMCSA Brochure.pdf CMVs play a significant role in moving our nation's economy. They transport volumes of goods and carry thousands of passengers across the country every day. Every mode of transportation moves freight, but trucking is the primary mode of freight travel. At the same time, CMVs pose unique safety and regulatory challenges due to their size, weight, and unique operation —from wide turns and massive blind spots, to transportation of hazardous materials. That's why FMCSA asks everyone to be a partner in truck and bus safety. FMCSA partners with industry, safety advocates, and state and local governments to keep our nation's roadways safe. Approximately 1,100 dedicated FMCSA employees across the country work diligently every day to improve CMV safety by preventing large truck and bus crashes and saving lives. Our Roads, Our Responsibility Large trucks and buses maneuver very differently than passenger vehicles. The Our Roads, Our Responsibility campaign empowers all drivers to be aware of those differences and make simple adjustments to help keep the roads safer for everyone. Learn more about the Our Roads, Our Responsibili campaign. Grants and Financial Assistance FMCSA safety grant funding opportunities are primarily available to state and local government agencies in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. Applicants for FMCSA funding opportunities should be working on commercial motor vehicle safety activities and should demonstrate a capacity to work with highway traffic safety stakeholders which may include, but are not limited to, state and local law enforcement agencies, state departments of public safety, departments of transportation, state traffic records coordinating committees, associations that focus on commercial motor vehicle safety and training issues, and other industry stakeholders. FMCSA State and local government grantees often work in conjunction with for -profit and nonprofit organizations including public and private institutions of higher education, businesses and independent contractor consultants. Specific eligibility for each of the FMCSA safety grant funding opportunities is defined below. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 57 Commercial Driver License (CDL) Program Implementation Grant Eligible Applicants: The state agency designated as the primary driver licensing agency responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of the CDL program or State agencies local governments, or other persons for high priority activities or emerging issues as identified by the Secretary of Transportation. Learn more about the CDL Proqram Implementation Grant. CMV Operator Safety Training Grant Eligible Applicants: State or local governments; accredited post -secondary educational institutions (public or private) including colleges, universities, vocational / technical schools and truck -driver training schools. Primary funding priority is given to regional or multi -State educational or not -for -profit associations that recruit and train current and former members of the United States Armed Forces (including National Guard members and Reservists) and their spouses to receive training to transition to the CMV operation industry. Learn more about the CMV Operator Safety Training Grant. Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Grant The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) is a Federal formula grant program that provides financial assistance to States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to reduce the number and severity of crashes and hazardous material incidents involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Specifically, only the State lead agency (as designated by the Governor) is eligible to apply for MCSAP grant funding. Learn more about the MCSAP Grant. High Priority Grant High Priority is a Federal competitive grant program which provides financial assistance to States, local governments, federally recognized Indian tribes, other political jurisdictions as necessary, and other persons to carry out high priority activities and projects that augment motor carrier safety activities and projects: To carry out activities and projects that augment motor carrier safety; To advance the technological capability and promote the deployment of intelligent transportation system applications for CMV operations, including CMV, commercial driver, and carrier -specific information systems/networks; and to support and maintain CMV information systems and networks. Learn more about the High Priority Grant. Regulations Regulations issued by FMCSA are published in the Federal Register and compiled in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Copies of appropriate volumes of the CFR in book format may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, or examined at many libraries. The CFR may also be viewed online. Search Search FMCSA Regulations and Interpretations - 49 CFR Parts 300-399 Search HM Regulations - 49 CFR Parts 100-177 Search HM Regulations - 49 CFR Parts 178-180 Unified Registration System FMCSA monitors and ensures compliance with regulations governing both safety (all carriers) and commerce (for - hire carriers). Companies may find they are subject to both registration requirements (USDOT Number and MC Number) or either one separately. To determine the need to apply for a US DOT number, click here. Learn more about URS. Commercial Driver's License Program Driving a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) requires a higher level of knowledge, experience, skills, and physical abilities than that required to drive a non-commercial vehicle. In order to obtain a Commercial Driver's License (CDL), an applicant must pass both skills and knowledge testing geared to these higher standards. Additionally CDL holders are held to a higher standard when operating any type of motor vehicle on public roads. Serious traffic violations committed by a CDL holder can affect their ability to maintain their CDL certification. Licensing Driving a commercial motor vehicle is a big responsibility. It requires special skills and knowledge. Most drivers must obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL) through their home State (it is illegal to have a license from more than one State). In addition, special endorsements may be required if you or your company drivers will be driving any of the following vehicles: ■ a truck with double or triple trailers ■ a truck with a tank 58 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ■ a truck carrying hazardous materials ■ a passenger vehicle Learn more about the Commercial Driver's License Program. Hazardous Materials FMCSA's mission includes reducing the number of transportation incidents that involve hazardous materials and could potentially harm the public and the environment. Developing programs to accomplish these goals and increase the safety of hazardous material transportation is the responsibility of the FMCSA Hazardous Materials (HM) Program. Learn more about Hazardous Materials Transportation. Protect Your Move Planning to move? FMCSA can help protect your life's memories and move with confidence. Our "Ready to Move" brochure and checklist is a handy tool to help you prepare for your move, and understand what you will need to know and do during each phase of your moving process. Explore the sections below to learn more. r_or cr�.ro.� Learn About Moving Fraud Find out what you need to know about moving fraud so you can plan your move with confidence. I _V, r- Research Your Mover When you move, there's plenty to worry about. Your mover shouldn't be one of them. File a Moving Fraud Complaint Trouble with your move? Your complaint may help prevent others from becoming victims of moving fraud. Look Before You Book Cost effective... energy -efficient... comfortable... It's little wonder that bus travel is growing in popularity. And, overall, buses are one of the safest passenger options. But even one crash is too many - particularly if you, a loved one, or your travel group is affected. When planning a trip, exciting destinations and fun activities may be top of mind. Business or necessary personal bus travel may put the focus on convenience and cost. But safety should always be the highest priority... Wherever you're going, make sure the bus company that's bringing you there is safe. Check out the company's safety record and always Look Before You Book! Contact Us Headquarters Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 Field Offices & Service Centers ■ Field Office Contact Information FMCSA Information Line ■ U.S. DOT Numbers ■ Status of DOT Numbers ■ Operating Authority Information ■ Safety Ratings ■ Licensing Information ■ Insurance Information ■ Email ■ Chat Consumer Complaints ■ Household Goods ■ Passenger Carrier (Motorcoach/Bus/Van) ■ Hazardous Materials ■ Safety ■ Driver 1-800-832-5660 1-888-DOT-SAFT 1-888-368-7238 Federal Relay Service for TTY 1 1-800-877-8339 Share the Road Safely NHTSA Hotline Number 202-493-0472 1-888- DASH -2-DOT 1-888-327-4236 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CHAPTER 6: DRIVER LICENSING SYSTEM The Driver Licensing System By: Brian Ursino, Director of Law Enforcement, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) Motor vehicle administrators of the U.S. states and Canadian provinces generally are responsible for issuing driver licenses. As well as serving as the de facto identification document of choice, the state -issued driver license also is used for: ■ The verification and identification of persons who are driving motor vehicles; ■ The operation of a secure license testing system which provides separate knowledge and skill tests for various types of vehicles, such as motorcycles, passenger vehicles, and commercial vehicles; ■ Managing a pointer system targeting unsafe drivers for license suspension or revocation to remove hazardous drivers from the roads; ■ Managing the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) pointer to ensure that commercial drivers have one driver record and one license; and ■ Identifying and tracking traffic violators through the court system and preventing persons from defaulting on traffic citations. ■ Responsible for accessing various Federal databases (i.e. Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) and Social Security Numbers (SSN) via SSOLV, etc.) The License as a Positive Identifier When first issued, driver licenses were intended to verify that the holder complied with the regulations associated with vehicle operation and the privilege to drive. A driver license database typically contains a variety of information, including some —but not always all —of the following: full name, date of birth, date of issue, date of expiry customer identifier, document discriminator, portrait, signature, cardholder address, vehicle classifications, endorsements, restrictions, sex, height, and eye color. The DL/ID card has become the identity document of choice for satisfying: evidence of the privilege to drive, identification, age verification, address/residence verification, and automated administrative processing. The state and provincial agencies issuing driver licenses are finding that better identity proofing and vetting of applicants is very challenging due to the absence of better initial identification systems. Currently, the verification of a U.S. birth certificate is less than optimal for identification purposes. Motor vehicle administrators never sought to have driver's licenses serve as a national identification. However, when photographs were added to licenses to aid in positive identification and to reduce fraud, their usefulness for other purposes soon became apparent. Today, it is virtually impossible to cash a check, to board a commercial aircraft, to obtain government benefits, to access certain restricted areas, or to rent a car without presenting a valid license. In fact, many states and provinces have now passed laws that require motor vehicle agencies to issue "non -driver's photo identification cards" to persons who do not drive. All states and most provinces are now using a digital photo method (versus a printed photo that is then affixed), which provides more effective physical security and permits photographic information to be transmitted via computer to police officers in the field. These documents offer advantages over instant photo technology. Central electronic image storage makes access to the pictures and information much easier. Digital imaging has eliminated some of the fraudulent practices that plagued previous affixed photo approaches. Multiple driver's licenses, held by the same or different people, are more difficult to obtain, if the licensing authority takes the time to compare the appearance of the person applying for a duplicate license to the digital image of the original applicant. Auditing of the driver's license production procedure also helps to eliminate abuse by individuals who create fraudulent licenses used in check and credit card fraud, in drug trafficking, in underage drinking, in tobacco usage and, in illegal immigration. The implications for law enforcement go far beyond these obvious benefits. With a central image database of every driver in a state, the public safety community has a ready- made storehouse of photos that may be available to law enforcement except for those jurisdictions where privacy laws prevent such usage. The public safety community, particularly law enforcement, should be continually alert to legislation that limits and/or precludes the transmission to a police officer of the digital image driver's license and pertinent information. 60 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE After the Pentagon and World Trade Center terrorist attacks, data entry errors are avoided, thus saving precious patrol concerns arose in the United States over the ease with which time while. undocumented immigrants could obtain driver's licenses by using counterfeit supporting documents. In fact, several of the 9/11 terrorists had obtained multiple driver's licenses from various jurisdictions and had driven extensively throughout the Eastern seaboard and the Midwest, apparently scouting potential targets for attack. Over the past several years, there has been widespread criticism of loopholes in the system of issuing driver's licenses and a call for national standardization of driver's license formats and data elements. Responding to such criticism, some oppose such standardization for fear that it would lead to some sort of "national identity card" that people would be required to display, similar to practices in some totalitarian nations. Another major problem is the use of fraudulent driver's licenses by minors to purchase alcoholic beverages. A number of states have addressed this problem through the use of special licenses, or the addition of identifying features to the licenses of persons under the age of 21 years, so law enforcement, bartenders and package store employees can readily identify them. For example, many states now issue a vertical driver's license/ID card valid for persons under 21 years old. Strategies to prevent counterfeiting and fraud include the use of biometrics, micro -printing, digital watermarks, digital photo overlays, and optical varying devices (typically holograms). Many states include additional security features in their documents that are not publicized outside their agencies. Other strategies include attacking the problem at the source by training license issuing agents and examiners to better spot phony supporting documents, such as birth and baptismal certificates, social security cards, and immigration paperwork. All licenses contain machine-readable technologies (bar codes, magnetic strips) to provide the encoded details of the driver's license information, if a citation is issued in the field. A typical traffic stop in a jurisdiction using this technology can go something like this: The driver's license with a bar code or in some cases a magnetic stripe also, can be read by an in -car unit. This unit then transmits the information to the department's central computer that runs a standard check of traffic and criminal records on the individual. This information is returned to the car, either by the dispatcher or through an in -car computer. This same computer may display the photo of the driver from the driver's license database. Information on the type of violation is then entered into the unit. This generates the printed citation to be given to the driver and at the same time updates the departmental computer and transfers the violation information electronically to the courts and the DMV. Multiple entries of the same information or All U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions have now deployed this technology. Work is progressing on standards (common data elements and compatible records) so that a national and, perhaps, an international network can be established. This progress emphasizes the importance of the law enforcement role to maintain a proactive relationship with motor vehicle departments. In an effort to strike a reasonable balance between these competing interests and still address an escalating problem of fictitious, fraudulently altered and fraudulently obtained driver's licenses, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) invited the IACP, other law enforcement groups and vital statistics agencies to join a task force to work on ways to provide at least minimal standardization from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and to combat fraud. One of the most controversial issues that the task force encountered is how to handle the problem of licenses for undocumented immigrants, and whether such licenses should be issued to expire when the individual's privilege to remain in the country expires. Graduated Driver's Licenses (GDL) Graduated Driver Licensing programs were designed to help reduce crashes amongst novice drivers by incorporating restrictions and minimizing their exposure to hazardous situations. The objective of a GDL program is to minimize motor vehicle crashes due to inexperience, high risk taking behavior, and high risk exposure by reducing and limiting hazardous exposures. By reducing hazardous exposures, it allows new drivers to safely gain driving experience before obtaining full driving privileges. Three phases of a GDL Program: ■ Learner Permit Phase ■ Intermediate or Provisional Phase ■ Full/Unrestricted Licensure Currently there are no standardized national requirements for GDL programs. It is important to note that each State may have varying requirements and restrictions for each phase. National Driver's License Compact The Driver License Compact (DLC) was a major step necessary in helping to maximize law enforcement efforts against drunk drivers and other serious traffic offenders. The DLC was created to provide uniformity among the member jurisdictions when exchanging information with other members on convictions, records, licenses, withdrawals and other data pertinent to the licensing INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 61 process. The concept behind the DLC agreement was that each driver have only one driver license and one driver control record (DCR). The Non Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) was developed to help standardize methods utilized by the various jurisdictions to process non-resident violators receiving citations, and their failure to appear or otherwise failure to comply with outstanding moving traffic summons. The NRVC allows participating jurisdictions to inform each other's motor vehicle administrations when a resident of one jurisdiction did not comply with the citation's term. Once the home jurisdiction motor vehicle administrator receives notice of a resident's citation noncompliance, the procedure for license suspension is initiated. AAMVA supports the DLC / NRVC activities by providing Secretariat services and having an AAMVA Board Advisor in attendance at Compact Executive Board meetings. For example, a driver charged with DUI in a Compact state will have his or her license suspended in his or her home state as well. Also, a nonresident driver can promise to appear in court, or to pay a waiver and be released without bond. If they fail to satisfy the court appearance, a mechanism permits the issuing state to revoke the driver's privileges until they comply with the laws of the other state. Administrative License Revocation (ALR) State government traditionally has retained the responsibility of issuing and regulating driver's licenses. Upon conviction, the courts have been permitted to limit or suspend driver's licenses or operating privileges. A current trend is to remove the license sanction from the courts, to eliminate unnecessary delays associated with court backlogs, and to reduce the impact of plea bargaining. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advocates the on -the -spot revocation by police officers of the driver's licenses of those persons they arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In states with this legislation, police officers are empowered to confiscate the driver's license of a person arrested for impaired driving when that person either refuses a chemical test of blood, breath or urine or tests above the prescribed limit. The license is usually forwarded to the licensing agency, and the holder is issued a temporary permit to drive pending a hearing. The benefit of ALR is that action is less complicated and immediately removes a known hazardous driver from the roads. Most states have some version of ALR in operation; it is a condition for some states to receive additional federal highway safety funds. Although the system is claimed to get drunk drivers off the road more quickly, it is not without its critics. In some jurisdictions, the police feel that administrative law judges and hearing examiners are more prone to dismiss cases for hyper -technical reasons than are criminal court judges, and that the system just adds one more layer of complexity and ties police officers up at another hearing. Detecting Suspended and Revoked Driver's Licenses The revocation or suspension of a driver's license is potentially very effective because it prevents persons with physical or mental disabilities, as well as those with poor driving records or attitudes, from the other users of our highways. In 2013, AAMVA published their Best Practices to Reducing Suspended Drivers. This publication includes research that reveals that approximately 40 percent of drivers suspended are suspended for non -driving reasons. Research further indicates that persons suspended for a driving reason are three times more likely to be involved in a crash than a person suspended for a non -driving reason. As a result, AAMVA recommends jurisdictions repeal laws and regulations requiring suspension for non -driving reasons. Implementation would result in 40 percent fewer suspended drivers and a commensurate reduction in resource drain on law enforcement and the courts. Moreover, the remaining suspended drivers would be the ones law enforcement should truly focus on removing from the roads. [1] In practice, however, this strategy is not as effective as it should be, because many persons continue to drive after their driving privileges have been suspended or revoked and are not detected by law enforcement. This problem leads to a breakdown in respect for the law, places dangerous drivers on the roadways, and frustrates the criminal justice and driver's licensing processes. Although detecting and apprehending suspended or revoked drivers is difficult, few police activities yield higher dividends in improving traffic safety and promoting respect for the law. Repeated studies indicate that license suspensions are an effective sanction used in traffic law enforcement. For this reason, law enforcement generally opposes limited or "drive - to -work" licenses as a dilution of the law and too subject to potential abuse. The Need for a Policy Police agencies need policies to ensure that appropriate enforcement action is taken when a suspended or revoked driver's license is found. The policy should not permit an officer to lodge a charge of driving without a license as a substitute for driving after suspension. Policies should advocate that driving after suspension cases are pursued to conviction and not dropped as part of a plea bargain, especially when accompanied by DUI charges. When a 62 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE motorist displays a suspended or revoked license, the individual should be charged with that separate offense, as well as with driving after suspension. The license should be confiscated and returned to the state or provincial licensing agency. Police agencies should form task forces to contact anyone who fails to turn in his or her driver's license, if it is under suspension or revocation. Officers should confiscate the license and return it to the licensing authority. The individual should be charged with failing to surrender a suspended or revoked license. Violator -directed patrols are effective when police departments are notified by licensing agencies of the suspension or revocation of the driver's license of a person who is a habitual motor vehicle offender. The National Driver Register (NDR) The National Driver Register (NDR) is a central repository of information on individuals whose driver's licenses have been revoked, suspended, cancelled, or denied, or who have been convicted of certain serious traffic -related violations, such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. When an individual applies for a license, state driver licensing officials query the NDR to determine if the individual's driving privilege has been withdrawn in any other state. Because the NDR is a nationwide index to driver records from all states, a state needs to submit only a single inquiry to obtain this information. The information obtained from the NDR assists state driver licensing officials in determining whether or not to issue a license. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration also use the NDR to process their inquiries for the detection of driving violations, especially alcohol -related ones, among their applicants for certification. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard recently was authorized to receive NDR information regarding their applicants for certification. Every state in the U.S. has established electronic access to the NDR file —a major step for states that issue licenses over the counter rather than require a waiting period. As required by Public Law 97-364, the NDR has converted to a Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) to improve the timeliness and reliability of NDR information. Under the PDPS, the NDR no longer contains substantive data. Instead, it contains only identifying information to enable it to check whether or not adverse action has been taken against an individual —not specific information about why an individual's name appears in the NDR file; such information will be maintained by the state that executed the adverse action. When a match occurs with a record on the NDR file, the NDR electronically points to the state where the adverse action is maintained, retrieves that information, and relays it to the state of inquiry. In this way, the state of inquiry is assured of receiving the latest information available regarding the driver's record. Motorcycle Licensing Requirements Motorcyclist deaths had been declining since the early 1980s but began to increase in 1998 and continued to increase through 2008. Motorcycle deaths accounted for 13 percent of all motor vehicle crash deaths in 2015 and were more than double the number of motorcyclist deaths in 1997 In 2015, motorcycle crashes were up 8.3 percent from 2014, according to the NHTSA. Forty-one percent of motorcyclist deaths in 2015 occurred in single -vehicle crashes, and 59 percent occurred in multiple -vehicle crashes. This has remained largely unchanged since the 1980s. [2] To receive the proper endorsement in most states, individuals need to pass a knowledge and skills test by either a state licensing agency or state sponsored rider education course. The Problem of Unlicensed Motorcyclists Despite many states having licensing requirements, motorcyclists continue to operate without a valid license. In 2015, 27 percent of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were operating without a valid motorcycle license at the time of the collisions, while only 13 percent of passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes did not have valid licenses. Motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were 1.3 times more likely than passenger car drives to have previous license suspensions or revocations. [3] Notes: 1. "Best Practices Guide to Reducing Suspended Drivers," American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 2013, www.aamva.org/workarea/downloadasset. aspx?id=3723 2. "Traffic Safety Facts," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017, https:// crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812353 3. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017, March). Motorcycles: 2015 data (Updated, Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 353). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 63 CHAPTER 7: REGISTRATION, TITLE AND INSPECTION ENFORCEMENT Registration, Title and Inspection Enforcement By: Brian Ursino, Director of Law Enforcement, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) License plates serve one common purpose across the states and provinces throughout North American jurisdictions; to identify motor vehicles. They also identify vehicle registrants and demonstrate compliance with motor vehicle registration laws. License Plate Design and Manufacture License plates are most effective when they are designed to optimize legibility to the human eye as well as for automated license plate readers (ALPR). The ability for law enforcement and citizens to quickly and easily identify license plate numbers (consisting of alpha and/or numeric characters) is fundamental to accurate vehicle identification. Toward that end, law enforcement has a vested interest in ensuring the plates issued by their state comply with the License Plate Standard published by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators in August 2016. The adoption of the administrative, design and manufacturing recommendations contained in this standard are intended to streamline the license plate retrieval processes within motor vehicle agencies, support highway safety, and increase certain revenue collection which is dependent on accurate license plate identification, such as toll collection, restricted lane access and parking regulations. License plate recognition, by human eye and ALPR, is critical to serving these purposes. In addition, license plates play a central role in preventing and solving crimes. Every day across North America, crimes are prevented or solved through the identification of a license plate. It is difficult to quantify the missed opportunities that occur to prevent or solve a crime because a license plate was misread by either the human eye, or by ALPR, but testing has documented that misreads occur. Adoption of the license plate standards contained in this document will minimize the risk of such misreads. Two -Plate Reflectorized Registration Mandating that all vehicles display registration plates on both the front and rear of the vehicle enhances law enforcement's efforts to identify a vehicle rapidly, whether it is from a frontal position or from the rear of the vehicle. Police officers are commonly trained to jot down the license plate numbers of oncoming vehicles they see while responding to a collision or crime scene, in an effort to identify possible fleeing perpetrators or eyewitnesses to the incident. Bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers frequently observe the plate numbers of suspicious vehicles and report them to the police. This assistance has been instrumental in solving many serious crimes over the years. To read more on the support of the AAMVA and the IACP policy position on license plates, please refer to the AAMVA and the IACP websites. If for no reason other than officer and public safety, two - plate reflectorized registration should be incorporated as a primary design for registration plates in every jurisdiction. Additionally, a reflectorized plate aids in the prevention of collisions with vehicles parked along streets in poorly lighted areas. The proliferation of different plate types bearing the same characters creates problems in proper vehicle identification and states should avoid issuing duplicate plate numbers. Enforcing the Two -Plate Requirement Vehicles required by law to display two registration plates are easier to identify, and the dual plate registration is effective in thwarting vehicle thefts. In those jurisdictions where two plates are required, the absence of one plate provides an officer with articulable, reasonable suspicion to execute a traffic stop for a vehicle registration inquiry, leading to the detection of impaired drivers, persons operating under revocation or suspension, and persons transporting contraband. It should be the responsibility of law enforcement and other public agencies to demonstrate and convey both to the public and to legislative bodies the benefits derived from a two -plate system. Vehicle owners can see potential benefits in the event their vehicles are stolen. Citizens can appreciate how the two -plate system enhances police officers' abilities to detect criminals and simultaneously heightens personal safety. Police executives and associations should be proactive in advocating two -plate systems in jurisdictions that do not have them and in fighting back attempts to go to a one -plate concept. However, justifying the need for a two - plate system is difficult unless law enforcement officers aggressively enforce the two -plate requirement by stopping vehicles with only one plate and issuing either warnings or 64 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE citations to these drivers. Each police department should have a specific policy supporting enforcement against drivers with missing, mutilated, or illegible number plates. Title Enforcement Within the law enforcement community, title enforcement responsibilities usually do not generate discussion; however, without specialized training and concentration in vehicle titling and registration, the public can suffer astronomical fraud and economic loss. Title enforcement requires investigating law enforcement personnel to have a comprehensive knowledge of federal, state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances and to understand the lack of uniformity between the various types of titles, duplicate titles, salvage titles, and manufacturer's statements of origin. As with most sophisticated law enforcement areas and functions, specialty skills have evolved that are essential to effectiveness. The National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) is a database operated by AAMVA. NMVTIS tracks vehicle history from cradle to grave and is designed to protect consumers from fraud and unsafe vehicles as well as keeping stolen vehicles from being re -sold. NMVTIS also has a "Law Enforcement Access Tool" specifically designed to assist law enforcement in deterring and detecting title fraud and other vehicle related crimes. Hidden VIN Beginning in 1981, all motor vehicles manufactured in the United States or imported for sale for on -road use were required to have 17-character vehicle identification numbers (VINs). With the enactment of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, vehicles with high - theft potential were further required to use component part labeling. This secondary source of identification, the so-called "hidden VIN" (frame stamping, firewall stamping, transmission cross -members, engine markings, and transmission markings), may be used by specially trained officers to verify the authenticity of vehicles and/or of component parts. This secondary source of identification is required by law to be indelibly printed on a label or "inscribed" directly into a vehicle part. This label must be permanently affixed to the component part on an interior surface or location, so it cannot be damaged in a collision or during part installation, adjustment, or removal. It must be located in such a fashion as to prevent its destruction or defacement during normal dealer preparation, including any after -market installation procedures. The label must contain the manufacturer's logo, or some other unique identifier, plus the VIN. Any attempt to alter the label must either leave traces of the original number or visibly alter the label's appearance. In cases of non -label identifiers, inscriptions to the part must be so that any removal or alteration visibly changes the appearance of the vehicle part. The location of secondary sources of identification is made at the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Manufacturers must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in writing of their number system and their locations within 308 days of the date the vehicle line is offered for sale. Having the special expertise to utilize secondary sources of vehicle identification to investigate cases is invaluable to a police agency. The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), a private organization funded by the automobile manufacturers and insurers, has special agents available to assist law enforcement agencies on a regional basis to provide training and other technical assistance in identifying hidden VINs. Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection Approximately, 17 U.S. states, plus several U.S. territories and Canadian provinces, have some type of a periodic motor vehicle inspection (PMVI) program for passenger vehicles. These jurisdictions require annual or semi- annual safety inspections at either state -maintained or private motor vehicle inspection stations licensed by jurisdictional authorities. For commercial vehicles and school buses, many jurisdictions require more frequent inspections. Law enforcement agencies are often charged with using specially trained officers or inspectors to perform additional inspections of school buses. In other jurisdictions, periodic safety inspections by an authorized inspection station are not required, but officers are allowed to stop vehicles to conduct roadside safety inspections. Although variation exists within the types of PMVI programs, most ensure the periodic inspection of basic safety components, such as steering, tires, suspension, brakes, lighting systems, and glass. In addition, increased concern by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over air pollution caused by vehicle emissions has led many jurisdictions to require periodic testing of motor vehicle emission systems. This procedure can be effectively combined with periodic safety inspections in a single system. Because PMVI programs help ensure the integrity of basic motor vehicle safety systems, law enforcement executives and associations are encouraged to lobby for enacting PMVI in those states and provinces where it does not currently exist. Effectiveness of PMVI Programs Studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have identified vehicle defects as INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 65 the sole cause in a significant number of fatal crashes. In addition, it has been determined that vehicle defects play a partial role in a much larger percentage of all collisions. The failure of essential mechanical vehicle components —such as ball joints, idler arms, rack and pinion steering units, shock absorbers or struts, tires, and brakes —can cause loss of control of a motor vehicle while it is in motion. Public Support for PMVI While PMVI programs are not always recognized for the benefits they deliver, public support does exist for such programs. Public perception in some regions is that the benefits derived from the inspection outweigh the inconvenience or cost of having to take a vehicle to a service facility for an inspection. Without a PMVI program, what would be a simple, low-cost replacement of brake pads often leads to the expensive replacement of rotors simply because the problem was not caught in time. Thus, PMVI programs can actually reduce the cost of motor vehicle maintenance, as well as enhance safety factors. Law Enforcement Benefits and Concerns With the conscientious efforts of state agencies, street -level enforcement officers, and public advocacy groups, a PMVI program can be effectively administered and enforced and can contribute enormously to highway safety. Requiring an inspection sticker on a vehicle also gives the police additional articulable, reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, and frequently leads to the detection of drunken drivers, revoked or suspended operators, persons transporting contraband, or stolen vehicles. Although not the primary purpose of a PMVI program, this enforcement tool can provide significant additional public safety benefits. Rebuilt Vehicles Motor vehicle thieves often utilize rebuilt or reassembled vehicles to conceal the identities of stolen vehicles. Using parts salvaged from several stolen vehicles to rebuild another vehicle, the thief then represents the stolen vehicle as one rebuilt and thereby is able to secure the proper documentation to legitimize the sale of the vehicle. Secondary concerns regarding rebuilt vehicles are the level of safety those vehicles provide to their occupants and their roadworthiness. Law enforcement officials must take specific measures to ensure that stolen vehicles are not legitimately sold in the public market, and that unsafe vehicles are not allowed to operate on the highways. Rebuilt vehicles can offer an affordable alternative to individuals who otherwise could not purchase vehicles, but unscrupulous or incompetent rebuilders may shortcut or overlook critical safety components. For this reason, all rebuilt vehicles should be inspected for safety compliance. A check of all vehicle safety equipment should be performed to assure compliance with applicable statutory requirements. To prevent the sale of stolen vehicles, law enforcement personnel should examine all salvaged or rebuilt vehicles prior to issuing titles. Specially trained VIN examiners, generally at the state level, should closely scrutinize each such vehicle for signs of repair and/or part replacement. The examination should include a review of documentation to ensure all replacement parts are accounted for and that component part labels or inscriptions are intact and free of tampering. Any discrepancy should be thoroughly investigated, including an examination of major component part labels and identifiers Specially Constructed Vehicles Specially constructed vehicles, "street rods," and other assembled vehicles pose many of the same problems as rebuilt vehicles. A specially constructed vehicle generally is not visually recognizable as being produced by a particular manufacturer, while an assembled vehicle is distinguishable because its composition is by a well-known manufacturer of commercially produced vehicles. When the owner of a specially constructed or assembled vehicle requests a title or registration, law enforcement and vehicle titling authorities should ensure that the vehicle is examined for safety compliance. Such vehicles should be required to meet and be in compliance with all state equipment laws prior to final inspection and the issuance of a title. A particular problem involves vehicles fitted with oversize tires or "jacked up" by other means so that they are extremely high on the road and their centers of gravity have been drastically altered. Such alterations can impair the handling dynamics of such vehicles and lead to component failure and dangerous traffic crashes. When such vehicles slip through the registration process, street -level law enforcement officers are obligated to enforce state laws and local ordinances regarding such standards as bumper height requirements. Law enforcement agencies should have written policies encouraging their officers to enforce these requirements. AAMVA has developed two best practice guides that may be useful: Best Practices for the Title and Registration of Rebuilt and Specially Constructed Vehicles (2012) http://www.aamva.org/WorkArea/Iinkit. aspx?Linkldentifier=id&ltemlD=4748&liblD=4725 Best Practices for Title and Registration of Reconstructed and Replica Vehicles (2013) http://www.aamva.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset. aspx?id=4752 66 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE CHAPTER 8: UNIFORMITY, RECIPROCITY AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS Federal Agencies and Grants The following is a summary of the various federal agencies that are active in highway safety and traffic enforcement, along with their roles and responsibilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Website: https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970, as the successor to the National Highway Safety Bureau, to carry out safety programs under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. It also administers consumer programs established by the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, enacted in 1972. NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. NHTSA also sets safety standards for motor vehicles and associated equipment, investigates possible safety defects, assures that products meet safety standards and are not defective (through recalls if necessary) and tracks safety - related recalls. The agency also enforces regulations on fuel economy, odometer fraud, and vehicle theft. 402 Funds The State Highway Safety Program, commonly referred to as Section 402, was initially authorized by the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and has been reauthorized and amended a number of times, including most recently on December 4, 2015, when the President signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94. Section 402 funds are used to support countermeasure strategies and projects identified in the States' Highway Safety Plan (HSP). This includes resources to initiate new projects and catalyze or accelerate existing projects to address major safety issues with well -planned strategies, and leverage additional State and local investment in highway safety. States must have an approved HSP to receive Section 402 grant funds. To review eligibility determination, qualification criteria, and use of grant funds, reference: 23 CFR Part 1200. The program is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the Federal level and by the State Highway Safety Offices (SHSO) at the State level. Under the FAST Act, states are required to have a highway safety program that is approved by the Secretary. Funds can be spent in accordance with national guidelines for programs to: ■ Reduce drug- and alcohol -impaired driving ■ Reduce speeding ■ Encourage the use of occupant protection ■ Improve motorcycle safety ■ Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety ■ Reduce school bus deaths and injuries ■ Reduce crashes from unsafe driving behavior ■ Improve enforcement of traffic safety laws ■ Improve driver performance ■ Improve traffic records ■ Enhance emergency services ■ Increase awareness of commercial motor vehicles ■ Support school -based driver's education classes In addition, states may (but are not required to) spend 402 funds on teen driver programs. If they do choose to fund these programs, they must fund only strategies authorized under 23 USC 402(m). No 402 funds can be spent on the implementation of automated enforcement programs. States must submit an annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP) which must be data -driven and set quantifiable, annual performance targets for 15 performance measures. The plan must include strategies that will allow the state to meet its performance targets and must describe its successes in meeting its performance targets in the previous fiscal year. States are required to submit their Section 402 and Section 405 consolidated grant application by July 1 of each fiscal year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will have 60 days (45 days beginning with FY 2018) to review and approve or disapprove the consolidated grant application. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 67 Funds are apportioned to the states under the same formula as MAP-21: 75 percent population and 25 percent road -miles. At least 40 percent of Section 402 funds must be spent by local governments or be used for the benefit of local governments. For exact dollar amounts, funding charts by fiscal year can be found on the Federal Grant Programs page under «Highway Safety Funding.» Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State highway safety programs. These guidelines offer direction to States in formulating their highway safety plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with section 402 and other grant funds. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and serve as a tool with which States can assess the effectiveness of their own programs. NHTSA encourages States to use these guidelines and build upon them to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs conducted at the State and local levels. The Guidelines may be found at: https://one.nhtsa.gov/ nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea2lprograms/index.htm. Section 403 Section 403 funds demonstration grants (in addition to other programs) to develop new approaches and strategies to reduce motor -vehicle -related deaths and injuries. Section 404: High -visibility enforcement program comprises not less than 3 campaigns in each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020. The purpose of each campaign carried out shall be to achieve outcomes related to not less than one of the following objectives: 1. Reduce alcohol -impaired or drug -impaired operation of motor vehicles. 2. Increase use of seatbelts by occupants of motor vehicles Incentive Funds Section 405: Under the FAST Act, Section 405 is the National Priority Safety Program, which provides grant funding to address selected national priorities for reducing highway deaths and injuries. Previously authorized under MAP-21, the FAST Act made no substantive changes to many of the grants (Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety Improvements, Impaired Driving Countermeasures and Motorcyclist Safety). Limited changes were made to the Alcohol -Ignition Interlock Law, Distracted Driving and Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive grants. The FAST Act added two new grants, 24-7 Sobriety Program and Nonmotorized Safety. All are administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the federal level and the State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) at the state level. Each program is authorized as a separate section or tier within Section 405, and each has its own eligibility criteria. States must satisfy the eligibility criteria of each tier in order to receive funding for that tier. States must submit their Section 405 applications on July 1 as part of the consolidated application process. For exact dollar amounts, funding charts by fiscal year can be found on the Federal Grant Programs page under «Highway Safety Funding.» Section 405(d): Impaired Driving Countermeasures 52.5 percent of Section 405 funds are earmarked for impaired driving incentive grants to reduce the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of the two. There is a maintenance of effort requirement and states would have to provide a 20 percent matching share. All states receive funds under this tier. They are divided into low-, medium-, and high -range states based on the most recent three years of FARS data. Low -range states do not have to satisfy specific eligibility requirements. The requirements increase for the other two types of states. Low -range states have more flexibility in the use of funds than medium- or high -range states and may use up to 50 percent of the funds for any Section 402 purpose, in addition to qualifying by having an interlock program. States with a compliant 24-7 sobriety program also qualify for funding .The State must have a law the requires all individuals convicted of driving while intoxicated to receive restricted driving privileges for at least 30 days, and, must have a law or program that authorizes a statewide 24-7 sobriety program. 12 percent of this tier is earmarked for ignition interlock incentive funds. States that have an all - offender ignition interlock law, with certain limited exceptions allowed by the FAST Act, will be eligible for these grants. Eligible states can use these funds for any purpose under 402. States qualifying with a 24-7 program receive 3 percent of available funding States can qualify with both provisions and receive a total of 15 percent of available funding. 68 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Section 405(e): Distracted Driving 8.5 percent of Section 405 funds are earmarked for distracted driving incentive grants. The FAST Act amended the qualifications, revising the Comprehensive Distracted Driving grant to provide more flexibility and establishing a new Special Distracted Driving grant for two fiscal years for States that do not qualify for the Comprehensive grant. States must enact and enforce a prohibition on texting as well as a ban of the use of all electronic devices for all drivers aged 18 and younger, plus additional requirements. Eligible states can use 50 percent of the funds for Section 402 purposes and 50 percent for distracted driving purposes. The FAST Act allows states with distracted driving data that conforms to the most recent MMUCC to use 75 percent of the funds for Section 402 purposes. $5 million of these funds are earmarked for a national media campaign on distracted driving. Section 405(f): Motorcyclist Safety - Section 405(g): State Graduated Driver Licensing Laws 5 percent of Section 405 funds are earmarked for graduated driver licensing (GDL) incentive grants. States have to require a two -stage driver license and satisfy specific criteria for the learner's and intermediate stages. The FAST Act changed the age requirement to 18 (rather than younger than 21) and some other requirements are less prescriptive. Eligible states can use 25 percent of the funds for GDL-related purposes and 75 percent for any purpose under Section 402. If a state is in the lowest 25 percent of states for under-18 age drivers involved in fatal crashes per the total number of under-18 drivers in the state, the state may use 100 percent of the funds for any Section 402 purpose. Section 405(h): Non -motorized Safety 5 percent of Section 405 funds are earmarked for non - motorized safety incentive grants. States would have to provide a 20 percent matching share, the only incentive grant with a specified federal fund limit. States are eligible if the annual combined pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in the state exceed 15 percent of the total annual crash fatalities in the State using the most recently available final data from NHTSA's FARS. Eligible states may use grant funds only for training law enforcement on state laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety; enforcement mobilizations and campaigns designed to enforce those state laws, or, public education and awareness programs designed to inform motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists of those state laws. Section 1906. Racial Prohibition Grants The Section 1906 Racial Prohibition Grants program was authorized under SAFETEA-LU. It was administered by NHTSA at the federal level and the State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) at the state level. Although this program was not reauthorized under MAP-21, the FAST Act revived the grant program for FY 2017-2020 with some changes and the law requirement was removed. This program provides grants to encourage states to maintain and allow public inspection of statistical information on the race and ethnicity of the driver for all motor vehicle stops made on all public roads except local or minor rural roads. Under the FAST Act, a state is eligible for a grant by: Maintaining and allowing public inspection of statistical information on the race and ethnicity of the driver for each motor vehicle stop made by a law enforcement officer of a Federal ad highway or, 2. Undertaking activities during the fiscal year of the grant to do so. Eligible states are able to use grant funds to: 1. Collect and maintain data on traffic stops; or, 2. Evaluate the results of the data The FAST Act authorizes the Section 1906 program at $7.5 million each year for FY2017 - 2020. Eligible states cannot receive more than 5 percent of the total annual funding. A state may not qualify by providing assurances for grants for more than two years. The federal share payable is 80 percent. States may use grant funds only for the costs of: 1. Collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops, and 2. Evaluating the results of the data. Funds remaining available each fiscal year may be reallocated by NHTSA to carry our activities authorized under Section 403. For Additional Resources: http://www.ghsa.org/about/ federal-grant-programs/405 & http://www.ghsa.org/about/ federal-grant-programs/1906 The Federal Highway Administration Website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was established as a component of the Department of Transportation in 1967 as a result of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. app. 1651 note). The FHWA supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation's highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). Through financial and technical assistance to State and local governments, the Federal Highway INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 69 Administration is responsible for ensuring that America's roads and highways continue to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world. Federal -Aid Highway Program The FHWA administers the Federal -aid highway program of financial assistance to the states for highway construction and improvements. This program provides for construction and preservation of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, financed generally on a 90-percent Federal, 10-percent state basis, and the improvement of other Federal -aid roads, with financing generally on an 80-percent Federal to 20-percent state basis. The agency also administers the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program to assist in the inspection, analysis, and rehabilitation or replacement of bridges both on and off the federal -aid highway systems. The FHWA is responsible for carrying out several highway safety programs. These safety programs provide funding for projects which remove, relocate, or shield roadside obstacles; identify and correct hazardous locations; eliminate or reduce hazards at railroad crossings; and improve signing, pavement markings, and signalization. The agency promulgates and administers highway - related safety guidelines providing for the identification and surveillance of crash locations; highway design, construction, and maintenance; traffic engineering services; and highway -related aspects of pedestrian safety. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Website: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the lead Federal government agency responsible for regulating and providing safety oversight of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). FMCSA's mission is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA exercises federal regulatory jurisdiction over the safety performance of all commercial motor carriers (trucks and buses) engaged in inter- state and foreign commerce. The agency's motor carrier safety investigators conduct safety reviews at the carriers' facilities and at roadside to determine the safety performance of the carriers' operations. Compliance reviews are conducted to follow up on problem areas identified during the safety reviews and at times result in prosecution or other sanctions against violators of the federal motor carrier safety regulations or the hazardous materials transportation regulations. Grant Funds The FMCSA safety grant funding opportunities are primarily available to State and local government agencies in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. Applicants for FMCSA funding opportunities should be working on commercial motor vehicle safety activities and should demonstrate a capacity to work with highway traffic safety stakeholders which may include, but are not limited to, State and local law enforcement agencies, State departments of public safety, departments of transportation, State traffic records coordinating committees, associations that focus on commercial motor vehicle safety and training issues, and other industry stakeholders. Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Program The Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Program Implementation Grant provides financial assistance to States to achieve compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384. Additionally, the CDLPI grant program provides financial assistance for other entities capable of executing national projects that aid States in their compliance efforts and that will improve the national Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. The goal of the national CDL program is to reduce the number and severity of commercial motor vehicle crashes in the United States by ensuring that only qualified drivers are eligible to receive and retain a CDL. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Website: https://www.fietc.gov/ The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), a bureau of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security FLETC serves a leadership role as the U.S. Federal Government's principal provider of world class, interagency training of Federal law enforcement personnel. The FLETC prepares new and experienced law enforcement professionals to fulfill their responsibilities in a safe manner and at the highest level of proficiency. Training consists of all phases of law enforcement instruction, from firearms and high-speed vehicle operations, to legal case instructions and defendant interview techniques. The FLETC delivers interagency training with optimal efficiency through the government - wide sharing of facilities, equipment and expertise which produces economies of scale available only from a consolidated law enforcement training organization. It is through consolidated training that the FLETC can respond quickly to emerging training needs, readily adapt 70 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE to new requirements and focus exclusively on training, which is FLETC's only mission. The FLETC currently provides law enforcement training to over 80 Partner Organizations. The FLETC also trains state, local, tribal, campus, and international law enforcement officers and agents. The number of agencies attending training, the number of students trained and the number of student - weeks delivered have steadily increased over the FLETC's 37-year history. NHSTA Regional Offices Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 1 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway Kendall Square —Code 8E Cambridge, MA 02142 (617) 494-3427 Email: Regionl@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 2 245 Main Street, Suite 210 White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 682-6162 Email: Region24dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 3 31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 902 Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 962-0090 Email: Region3@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 562-3739 Email: Region4@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 5 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 300B Matteson, IL 60443 (708) 503-8822 Email: Region5@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 6 819 Taylor Street, Room 8A38 Fort Worth, TX 76102 (817) 978-3653 Email: Region6@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 7 901 Locust Street, Room 466 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 329-3900 Email: Regionl@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 8 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 140 Lakewood, CO 80228 (720) 963-3100 Email: Region8@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 9 John. E. Moss Federal Building 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-400 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 498-5058 Email: Region9@dot.gov Regional Administrator NHTSA - Region Office 10 3140 Jackson Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 (206) 220-7640 Email: Regionl0@dot.gov FHWA Field Services/ Resource Centers Eastern Field Services/Resource Center Center 10 South Howard Street, Suite 4000 Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2819 (410) 962-0093 Midwestern Resource Center One Prairie Office Center 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, Illinois 60461-1021 (708) 283-3500 Field Services 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 340 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (720) 963-3250 Southern Field Services/Resource 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Suite 17T26 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 562-3570 Western Resource Center 201 Mission Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 744-3100 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 71 CHAPTER 9: EMERGING AND CRITICAL ISSUES IN TRAFFIC SAFETY Traffic Safety's Critical Role in the drawings, and carry out other related investigative tasks. The skills required for these law enforcement duties are Law Enforcement Mission similar to any other investigation —and it's just as important that these investigations be taken seriously and be By: William P. Georges, Assistant Chief (Pet.), Albany, New performed with diligence. York, Police Department Leadership is an important concept in law enforcement, and every member of an agency from the chief executive to field training officers should strive to both lead and provide guidance to personnel that results in long-term benefits for both the agency and the community it serves. There are numerous factors and changing situations that negatively impact every community, and, as a result, an agency's priorities are constantly shifting. One of the factors that is omnipresent is traffic safety. Illegal and unsafe driving are problems that negatively impact every community. From crashes and the related problems that result from them to neighborhood complaints about speeding and other violations, traffic safety is a daily issue affecting law enforcement; as such, traffic safety should be a core component of every agency's overall mission. While the first reaction to this statement may be "sure, we do traffic," often, traffic enforcement is sometimes viewed as a "have to do," but not a "need to do." Also, at times, traffic -related activities are decreased due to factors such as shifting priorities and assignments, increased calls for service, decreased personnel levels, and so forth. It is important to understand why maintaining or, in some cases, beginning or enhancing a comprehensive traffic safety program is important and how this activity can provide myriad benefits to a community and enhanced overall public safety. First of all, as simple as this statement may sound, traffic enforcement is law enforcement! Every traffic stop is basically an investigation. Did the motorist knowingly commit the violation? Are there extenuating circumstances? Is the driver impaired and, if so, by what means? Are the occupants of the vehicle really who they say they are? Is there additional criminal activity beyond the initial reason for the stop? With a crash investigation, especially in a serious crash, an in-depth investigation must be conducted. What actions or factors contributed to the crash? Are there traffic violations and, if so, what are they? Is the driver impaired? Is the driver properly licensed? What other factors might have contributed to the crash? Investigators must interview witnesses, examine physical evidence, determine the minimum initial speed each vehicle was traveling, determine if there are possible vehicle defects, take measurements and photos, do scale A comprehensive traffic safety plan can benefit a community and its residents in many ways, including reducing unsafe driving, contributing to investigations, and improving community -police relations. In order to capitalize on a traffic safety plan's full potential, it is necessary to examine the different areas that can be affected and the components that can be initiated by an agency. Decreasing Crashes and Unsafe Driving When one speaks of traffic safety, the mission of reducing crashes and unsafe driving is understandably what most people think of first —and with good reason. Most law enforcement personnel are familiar with crash data, but the numbers are worth mentioning. Every year, crashes kill or seriously injure people while also costing millions in medical, lost property, and other costs. In 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 37,133 people were killed in traffic crashes in the United States. While efforts in enforcement, education, engineering, and EMS have slightly decreased this number in the past few years, the current death and injury rates on U.S. roadways are still alarming. This is not only a traffic safety problem, but also a public health problem. What do data show about the impact on your community? How can law enforcement improve this dangerous condition and better safeguard community members? The answer is clearly a comprehensive traffic safety program, and a variety of efforts and initiatives can be conducted by a single department or, as has been done in many jurisdictions, by multiple agencies working together in a single operation, thus expanding the area covered by the initiative and using collaboration as a force multiplier. Crime and Traffic Safety Effective and balanced traffic enforcement can often lead to the discovery of or leads for other criminal offenses. One need only look to general news sources to see cases where an initial traffic stop led to additional criminal investigations or arrests. From driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs, to the possession of narcotics or firearms, to human trafficking and wanted persons, traffic stops often are the foundation for other criminal arrests. With good investigative skills, traffic stops can often result in additional charges. As a result, increasing traffic enforcement does have the potential to also increase other types of criminal apprehensions. 72 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE It is also important to monitor, analyze, and understand the relationship between crime and traffic safety in a jurisdiction. Using the Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) model can greatly enhance an agency's analysis of both crash and crime activity and the nexus between them. This NHTSA program, developed in partnership with the IACP and several other organizations, provides the framework for analysis of timely and accurate data as they relate to both traffic enforcement and crashes and to crime and has proven very useful in effective analysis and personnel deployments. Additional information on DDACTS can be found on NHTSA's website at www.nhtsa.gov. Traffic Enforcement as a Component of Community Policing For many community members, a traffic stop may be the only contact that they will ever have with law enforcement, so educating people about the importance of traffic safety is a key factor in these encounters. Just issuing a citation negates an opportunity to positively interact with community members. It is important that they understand the dangers of unsafe driving and the heartache that it has the potential to cause them and others. Officers need to ensure that community members understand that traffic enforcement is not done for revenue generation and is conducted in locations where data show that dangers exist or when a violation is observed. Some agencies offer motorists a pamphlet explaining how or why traffic safety benefits their community. There are obviously several options that law enforcement personnel have when stopping a person for an offense. There is a citation, a warning ticket, or an oral warning, among other options, but the most important actions are terminating the offense and educating the offender. Having community members understand the importance of traffic safety and the positive impact that it can have on their quality of life through both enforcement and educational efforts, such as child safety seat checks, pedestrian and bicycle safety, impaired driving informational sessions, and other activities, can be an integral part of a community policing model. Allied Organizations There are numerous organizations, both public and private, that are available to assist an agency with its traffic safety mission. One of the most important is a state's Highway Safety Office (SHSO). Every law enforcement agency should maintain a good relationship with its SHSO and take advantage of its expertise and resources. In addition to NHTSA and SHSOs, the following allied organizations can assist agencies with a variety of matters, including data and analysis, programs, material, and subject matter expertise: ■ American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) ■ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ■ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) ■ Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ■ Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR) ■ Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) ■ Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) ■ National Safety Council (NSC) ■ Safe Kids Worldwide Additionally, IACP's Highway Safety Committee is a resource for IACP members. The committee comprises representatives from international, federal, state, county, and municipal agencies, along with representatives from allied organizations. The committee and its members are available to assist IACP members with traffic safety issues. From a serious vehicle crash, to a resident's complaint of cars speeding through the neighborhood and endangering children, to other problems caused by traffic -related issues, law enforcement agencies are impacted by traffic safety on a daily basis. Main-taining a comprehensive traffic safety program consisting of data - driven enforcement, education, and engineering as a core component of an agency's mission will serve to enhance public safety, work as a part of community policing efforts, and ultimately produce positive benefits. Traffic safety should always be mission critical for both the agency and its personnel. Traffic Enforcement: Back to the Basics By: Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police, Roanoke County, Virginia, Police Department and Anthony S. Lowman, Major, Maryland State Police Quite a few years ago, as the authors were completing selection processes and training academies, they were each asked repeatedly why they wanted to become a law enforcement officer. Like most, they said that they wanted to save lives and help their communities. Today, they would answer that question the same way. Their roles, however, have changed. Instead of directly performing law enforcement work, they direct the work of others. As such, they have the opportunity and obligation to direct they limited resources to tasks and activities that positively impact their communities. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 73 Law enforcement leaders, whether local police chiefs, state troopers, or sheriffs, are faced with numerous, competing demands that include significant issues like increasing violent crime, home grown extremists, and opioid addiction. Given the seriousness and complexity of these problems, it is not hard to see why traffic safety sometimes takes a back seat. Law enforcement leaders should, however, consider the extent to which traffic safety impacts the overall safety of their communities. In 2015, there were 35,092 people killed in the U.S. in traffic crashes, a 7.2 percent increase from 2014 [1], while 15,696 were victims of homicide. [2] The number of victims in both of these categories is far too high, but the number of traffic crash victims is more than double the number of murder victims. For many of our communities, the odds of being killed or injured in a crash are far higher than suffering a similar outcome from a crime. Citizens want to live in safe communities, and too often, safety is judged based on crime, particularly homicide. Many people consider large cities, where homicides occur in higher numbers, to be more dangerous than other places. However, in 2002, an article in Governing included an argument that safety is an issue broader than simply violent crime. The author asked, "What if, instead of being measured by itself, homicides were to be measured along with other forms of violent fatality, specifically, automobile crashes, the second major category of violent death in the United States?" William Lucy, a University of Virginia professor, found that the most dangerous parts of metropolitan areas are likely to be rural or exurban communities simply because the fatal crash rates are much higher. Lucy combined statistics for homicides committed by strangers and traffic fatalities from Houston, Texas, in 2000 and calculated a death rate of 1.5 per 10,000 people. Using the same calculation, he found that the rate in Montgomery County, Texas, bordering Houston, was 2.5 people, more than double the number in Houston. [3] This was due to the much higher rate of traffic fatalities. The point is that while violent crime makes the news, traffic crashes often present a greater threat. While there are some visible exceptions, most agencies could do more to improve the overall safety of their communities by ensuring that traffic safety is a continuous priority. Hopefully, the safety of officers, troopers, and deputies is a high priority for law enforcement leaders as well as their agencies. Law enforcement officers drive millions and millions of miles every year, exposing them to all of the dangers associated with traffic crashes. A review of the Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP) shows that traffic - related incidents are one of the leading causes of line - of -duty deaths. [4] Additionally, numerous more agency personnel are injured in these incidents. Consistently enforcing traffic laws and working to reduce crashes not only makes communities safer, it makes officers safer. The economic costs of traffic crashes are tremendous. Here are some interesting and disturbing, findings from a 2010 publication of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: ■ The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes that occurred in the U.S. in 2010 totaled $242 billion. This is equivalent to approximately $784 for every person living in the U.S. and 1.6 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. ■ The lifetime economic cost to society for each fatality is $1.4 million. Over 90 percent of this amount is attributable to lost workplace and household productivity and legal costs. ■ Each critically injured survivor cost an average of $1.0 million. Medical costs and lost productivity accounted for 82 percent of the cost for the most serious level of non -fatal injury. ■ Lost workplace productivity costs totaled $57.6 billion, which equated to 24 percent of the total costs. Lost household productivity totaled $19.7 billion, representing 8 percent of the total economic cost. ■ Total property damage costs for all crash types - fatal, injury, and property damage - totaled $76.1 billion and accounted for 31 percent of all economic costs. ■ Congestion costs, including travel delay, added fuel usage, and adverse environmental impacts cost $28 billion, or 12 percent of total economic crash costs. ■ Approximately 7 percent of all motor vehicle crash costs are paid from public revenues. Private insurers pay approximately 54 percent of all costs. Individual crash victims pay approximately 23 percent while third parties, such as uninvolved motorists delayed in traffic, charities, and health care providers, pay about 16 percent. Overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for over three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, and congestion - related costs, such as travel delay, excess fuel consumption, and increased environmental impacts. In 2010, these costs, borne by society rather than by crash victims, totaled over $187 billion. [5] Law enforcement leaders should also consider the amount of resources that their agencies devote to responding to crashes. If they can take action to prevent them, much like preventing crime, they can not only reduce the number of victims in their communities, but also re -allocate limited resources to other activities. Keeping the roadways safe is a multi -disciplinary task that requires participation from law enforcement, engineers, emergency medical personnel, elected officials, advocacy 74 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE groups, and the general public. The individual roles of these groups include designing and maintaining roads in accordance with safety standards, developing effective laws and rules of the road, implementing response protocols to mitigate damage and injury when incidents occur, and ensuring comprehensive public awareness. While many of these overlap, there is one task that is exclusive to law enforcement, which is traffic enforcement. Law enforcement officers are sworn to enforce the laws, including traffic laws, and are given the authority to do so. In fact, they belong to the only profession that is granted this authority. It is incumbent upon them, therefore, to ensure that traffic laws are vigorously enforced to promote safe roadways. The purpose of this article is to argue that the traffic stop is one of the most valuable self -initiated activities that a police officer, deputy, or trooper can perform, simply because a single traffic stop provides a high return on investment in the form of five separate benefits related to public safety. Return on Investment Specific Deterrence - Traffic: The most basic reason for stopping a vehicle is because of a traffic violation. The purpose of the stop is to identify the driver responsible for the violation and to take the appropriate enforcement action. Traffic citations and the penalties that may result are intended to change driver behavior. Even minor violations can result in hefty fines, higher insurance, and points against driver's licenses. If necessary, repeat offenders may have their licenses suspended or revoked by motor vehicle authorities who use conviction data to monitor the behavior of the drivers they license. This is particularly important for commercial vehicle drivers who operate the largest vehicles on the roadways, oftentimes across many states. Studies have shown that highly visible traffic enforcement leads to reductions in traffic crashes and changes in driver behavior. For example, a study of the Click It Or Ticket Program in Massachusetts found that "tickets significantly reduce crashes and non -fatal injuries." [6] This, of course, is one of the underlying reasons for conducting enforcement in the first place. General Deterrence - Traffic: The visibility traffic stops gets the attention of other drivers and have the potential to change their behavior as well. Passing drivers are likely to assume that a traffic stop is resulting in a citation for the other driver. That memory may help to change those drivers' behavior, particularly if the enforcement efforts are sustained over time. A study sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that that "the most important difference between the high and low belt use states is enforcement, not demographic characteristics or dollars spent on media ... Enforcement was much more vigorous in the high belt use states, as shown by an average of twice as many seatbelt law citations per capita..." [7] There have also been a number of case studies documenting the effectiveness of high -visibility enforcement on impaired driving offenses. For instance, a formal evaluation of the Checkpoint Strikeforce program indicated a 7 percent decrease in impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes associated with the overall program. The participating states of Maryland and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, have all remained at low -fatality rates as the program has continued. [8] Specific Deterrence - Crime: It is well-known that traffic stops lead to the apprehension of criminal suspects. Whether the offender is as notorious as the Oklahoma City Bomber or simply a wanted subject on a misdemeanor warrant, the violator contact can frequently lead to a criminal subject being arrested and the recovery of evidence, contraband, or illegal weapons. Any law enforcement officer that develops the skills to look beyond the traffic stop will consistently produce significant criminal arrests. For example, the Grand Prairie, Texas, Police Department determined that traffic enforcement was responsible for 37 percent of all arrests in 1994. It was also determined that 47 percent of the arrests made by traffic enforcement officers were for serious and criminal offenses. [9] This makes the traffic stop an indispensable tool in areas experiencing patterns or trends of criminal activity. General Deterrence - Crime: Many criminals commit their crimes in areas where they are comfortable. This may be near their homes or places of work or recreation. The crime is made easier since the offender is familiar with the area, the people, and potential escape routes. If law enforcement can make an area uncomfortable for a potential criminal, the likelihood of a crime being committed may be reduced. What could be more uncomfortable than a police vehicle with lights flashing in the area of the potential crime? Studies have shown that visible police presence has an impact on crime in targeted areas. Two studies in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated that communities with higher levels of traffic enforcement also experienced lower rates of robbery. [10] In the mid-1990s, the Peoria, Illinois, Police Department dramatically increased its traffic enforcement and self -initiated activity. This resulted in large reductions in reported crimes, as well as traffic collisions. [11] Since 2008, agencies around the country have been implementing the Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) model to maximize the use INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 75 of resources to target both crime and crash problems. NHTSA states, "By identifying areas through temporal and spatial analysis that have high incidences of crashes and crime, DDACTS employs highly visible, targeted traffic enforcement to affect these areas. This model affords communities the dual benefit of reducing traffic crashes and crime, thus reducing overall social harm. Drawing on the deterrent value of highly visible traffic enforcement and the knowledge that crimes often involve the use of motor vehicles, the goal of DDACTS is to reduce the incidence of crashes, crime, and social harm in communities across the country." [12] Research suggests that this has been successful. A study of the Shawnee, Kansas, Police Department's use of DDACTS found reductions in robbery, auto theft, and auto burglary, along with total reductions in targeted crimes of almost 40 percent over a three-year period. Overall crashes were also reduced by 24 percent. [13] Intelligence: Perhaps the most valuable benefit of the traffic stop is the information that it generates. Gone are the days when citations and warnings were simply filed away. Modern records management systems allow us to collect information about who is stopped, what they were driving, where it occurred, and when it happened. This information can be extremely valuable to the investigation of crimes that may not have been discovered at the time of the stop. Crime analysts and investigators use this information to develop suspects and leads that may result in the clearance of criminal incidents. All of this results in a tremendous return on investment from a single traffic stop carried out by uniformed patrol personnel. For these reasons, law enforcement leaders should be doing everything possible to encourage traffic stops in their communities. A simple way to start a discussion about traffic stops with enforcement personnel is to talk about tolerance; in other words, under what circumstances do officers routinely stop vehicles? Law enforcement leaders should this question in a room full of officers. The answers will vary greatly, ranging from hazardous violations and suspected crimes, to administrative violations, such as expired tags. While officers have always had and will continue to have discretion in terms of stopping vehicles, command staff should encourage stops for all of these things. The discussion gets better when the topic of speed tolerance is introduced. An officer will rarely admit to stopping a speeding vehicle for less than 10-20 miles per hour over the limit. This begs the question of why they would allow drivers to routinely violate established speed limits by this margin, particularly in residential areas, school zones, or high crash areas. Law enforcement agencies should be working to lower this tolerance to enhance the safety on roadways, pointing out that the mere stopping of a vehicle does not necessitate charges being placed. While this resource guide strongly advocates for traffic enforcement, it should be done in a random or arbitrary manner; should be purpose -driven and directed at social harms affecting our communities. Enforcement Done Right Communities expect their law enforcement agencies to keep the population and their roadways safe. In other words, they expect, and sometimes demand, traffic enforcement. Any law enforcement official who works with residential communities can recount the numerous, and sometimes vociferous, complaints of speeding and other local traffic violations that are brought to their attention by citizens. These citizens rightly expect that, when complaints are valid, their local law enforcement agency will take action. They also expect that their children can travel safety to and from school and their daily commutes, and those of their family and friends, can be completed in a timely and safe manner. While enforcement practices in some areas have led to criticism, the fact remains that a strong traffic safety program is integral to community policing. The return on investment from the traffic stop becomes especially significant when the activity is deployed properly. Enforcement should be purpose -driven and directed at a specific problem occurring in a community. For the most part, these problems will relate to traffic crashes, crime, or other social harms. It is important to understand where problems are occurring, as research has shown that a large percentage of criminal incidents occur in relatively small geographical areas. The first major study to arrive at this conclusion was conducted in Minneapolis in the 1980s. The study found that 3.5 percent of the addresses in the city of Minneapolis produced about 50 percent of crime reports. Another study in Seattle found that 86 street segments out of over 29,000 examined accounted for one-third of juvenile crime in the city. [14] Observations would suggest that this also occurs for traffic crashes as state highway safety offices and law enforcement agencies routinely analyze the locations of crashes and identify areas and intersections with particularly high numbers of incidents. Deploying enforcement to the places where problems occur is the first step towards mitigating the dangerous effects of traffic violations. Of course, narrowing this further, targeting the days and times when the problem is most likely to occur will also increase effectiveness. Officers engaged in targeted enforcement should understand what they are doing and why. While it is appropriate to expect that officers will enforce violations that they observe while on routine patrol, there should be a reason for targeted 76 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE enforcement and officers should understand it. It is even better when officers communicate that reason to the drivers being stopped. A data -driven, place -based, and purpose -driven approach is appropriate and provides the information necessary not only to justify actions, but also to share with their communities to promote understanding. To be accepted by their communities, enforcement must not only be data -driven and place -based, it must also be conducted in a legally sound, fair, and impartial manner. Simply driving around a vehicle in a high -crime or high - crash area is not, by itself, a reason for a stop. Over the years, there have been many court decisions that define what is required for a stop to comply with constitutional principles. Generally, the totality of the circumstances must lead to "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity."[15] This is the basis for reasonable suspicion, which is necessary before a stop is made. Fortunately, most traffic stops are made for observed violations of traffic laws and far exceed the criteria established by the Supreme Court. Officers should be cautioned, however, that initiating a stop for suspected criminal activity may require a more specific articulation of facts. Fairness and consistency is a critical part of any enforcement program. The notion of fairness is imbedded in the principles of procedural justice. Leading researchers on this topic have identified several factors that influence the perception of fairness: ■ Voice: The perception that your side of the story has been heard. ■ Respect: The perception that system players treat you with dignity and respect. ■ Neutrality: The perception that the decision -making process is unbiased and trustworthy. ■ Understanding: Comprehension of the process and how decisions are made. ■ Helpfulness: The perception that system players are interested in their personal situation to the extent that the law allows. [16] Most of these factors can be achieved through communication with the person being stopped. Although officers may never be able to change the perception of some who simply refuse to understand the role of law enforcement, the overwhelming majority of citizens will respond positively to officers who provide an explanation for the stop and what will happen as a result. Fairness is particularly important as it relates to the disposition of a stop. Violators should be treated as similarly as possible based on the seriousness of the offense. Officers have the discretion to use enforcement options that range from physical arrest to warnings. The use of these should be proportional to the offense, with more serious and hazardous violations resulting in more severe actions. Fairness naturally leads to the need for consistency. Agencies should consider policies and training that define enforcement options and their suggested uses. In general, officers have the following options: Physical Arrest: Physical arrest is the most severe enforcement option available and is appropriate for serious violations, which are generally prescribed in the laws of each state. Significant traffic violations, such as impaired driving, often result in arrest. Criminal examples would include outstanding warrants or possession of illegal weapons or controlled substances. Citation: Citations, normally resulting in a monetary fine or points against a driver's license, may be the most common form of traffic enforcement activity. These are appropriate for hazardous traffic violations, particularly those that are contributing to traffic crashes in targeted areas. Other appropriate uses would include significant administrative violations such as lack of a license, suspended driving privileges, driving without insurance, and significant registration issues. One other area where citations are almost always appropriate is occupant protection. Seatbelt use in most states has been mandatory for many years. Those who violate these laws are likely to be doing so intentionally; therefore, enforcing these laws by issuing citations is appropriate. ■ Written Warning: Many agencies use or have recently implemented written warning systems. These are based on the premise that the appropriate response to a violation is not always a formal enforcement action. Violations that are minor in nature or are newly enacted may be handled more effectively as an educational opportunity for the motorist. The purpose of using a written warning is to document the nature of the stop and maximize the benefits that have previously been discussed. Appropriate uses of this tool may include minor or less -hazardous moving violations, administrative issues such as expired tags, and speeding violations where the motorist is only slightly above the posted limit. Verbal Warning: Verbal warnings have existed for as long as traffic stops. Even in agencies without formal written warning policies, these are being used. It is simply a function of officers trying to achieve fair outcomes in their enforcement stops. When written warnings are allowed, verbal warnings should be minimized as they don't result in a record of the stop. There will always be a few cases where these INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 77 are appropriate, such as the need to respond to an emergency call after a stop has been initiated. It is important that agency leaders take the time to consider policies and training related to the importance of traffic enforcement, procedures for traffic stops, and appropriate outcomes. The New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police has developed a model policy entitled "Traffic Enforcement Tolerances and Latitude" that addresses these issues. It also discusses a variety of violations and enforcement options to ensure fair and consistent enforcement. It does not, however, supplant an officer's judgement or discretion in dealing with the myriad of issues that can arise from a stop. Much of the external and internal issues that traffic stops have been known to cause could likely be avoided by having simple conversations about these issues. Our employees and our communities should understand what we do and why we do it. This can be accomplished with a little planning and good communications. Conclusion There is and always has been a strong case for making traffic safety a priority and using traffic enforcement as a tool to reduce both traffic crashes and crimes. Doing this the right way takes time to plan and properly implement. Fortunately, there are numerous resources that can help. Consider the following: Every state has a highway safety office that is responsible for distributing highway safety grant funding. Many of these offices have law enforcement liaisons and other staff and resources for the specific purpose of helping agencies implement traffic safety programs. A list of state offices as well as other highway safety resources can be found here: http://www.ghsa.org/about/shsos ■ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration maintains a web site with a tremendous amount of information on all aspects of traffic safety here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety. ■ The IACP posts a variety of related information on its web site at: http://www.iacp.org/TrafficSafety Many state chiefs and sheriffs associations can also help. For example, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police coordinates the "Smart, Safe, and Sober" Program here: http://www.smartsafeandsober.org/. The Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Maryland Sheriff's Association, and the Maryland Highway Safety Office recently collaborated on the publication of the "Law Enforcement Executive's Guide to High Visibility Enforcement," which can be found here: http://www. nlelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LE_Exec_ Guide.pdf These resources will help law enforcement leaders focus on traffic safety and improve the safety of their communities. Notes: 1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-fatalities-sharply-2015 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/murder-crime-fbi.html 3. http://plannersweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/297.pdf 4. http://www.odmp.org/ 5. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013 6. Luca, Dara N. "Do Traffic Tickets Reduce Motor Vehicle Accidents? Evidence from a Natural Experiment;' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 34, Issue 1, Winter 2015. 7. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/810962 8. https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811716.pdf 9. http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/Paper%2029%20-%2OFell%20-%2OTraffic%20 Leg%20&%2OEnforcement. pdf 10. http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/Paper%2029%20-%2OFell%20-%2OTraffic%20 Leg%20&%2OEnforcement. pdf 11. http://www.tiami.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/the_peoria_experience.pdf 12. https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/ddacts/811185_DDACTS_OpGuidelines.pdf 13. Bryant, Kevin M., Greg Collins, and Josie Villa. "An Evaluation of Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety in Shawnee, Kansas, 2010-2h013:' Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Smart Policing Initiative, 2014. 14. Weisburd, David. "Place Based Policing," Ideas in American Policing. Police Foundation: Number 9, January 2008. 15. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) 16. https://cops.usdoi.gov/html/dispatch/09-2013/fairness_ as_a_crime_prevention_ tool asp Leading Traffic Safety By: Dr. Mitchell Weinzetl, Former Senior Program Manager, The International Association of Chiefs of Police If you do a quick Internet search on negative articles about the police, you will get about 61 million hits. In the wake of such negativity, some law enforcement leaders (and some police officers) have questioned the value of continuing proactive traffic stops.' In addition, various members of the public and the media have even suggested that police agencies should rethink this aspect of their work, calling for a reduction or elimination of traffic stops altogether.$ Although those involved in the discussion have offered numerous reasons for considering a reduction of effort in this area, much of the emphasis seems to focus on reducing biased enforcement. To be clear, biased policing is wrong, in any category. Still, from an industry leadership 7 http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/486945181/some-police-departments-are-rethinkinq-traffic-stops-to-reduce-bias 8 httr)://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0813-kutz-traffic-stops-201508l2-storv.html INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE and public safety perspective, the question remains; "Is reducing traffic enforcement or the use of traffic stops in everyone's best interests?" According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were 35,092 fatal motor vehicle crashes in 2015, which represents a 7.2 percent increase over 2014 figures.9 The number of fatal crashes in 2015 translates into 96 fatalities per day, with one occurring every 15 minutes across the U.S. In the same year, NHTSA estimates that there were 2,443,000 injuries associated with motor vehicle crashes, which amounts to nearly 5 persons injured in crashes per minute, in every hour of every day. In light of these statistics, it is evident that traffic safety is an ongoing concern in the U.S., and despite criticism over their use, law enforcement leaders need to remain vigilant in encouraging the use of traffic stops to achieve public safety objectives. However, leaders also have the responsibility to ensure that traffic stops are done properly, in an unbiased manner, and that their use and purpose is clear, both to the officers who conduct them, and those in the public who are on the receiving end of these encounters. Most would agree that the primary purpose of a traffic stop is to "promote public safety by stopping a violation, reducing crashes [the severity and number], and enhancing public enjoyment."10 Significant private and public research has been done regarding traffic stops and roadway safety (e.g., NHTSA, Bureau of Justice Assistance), and there is significant evidence that there is a correlation between traffic enforcement and reducing motor vehicle crashes. In particular, a 2015 study that evaluated the Click It Or Ticket campaign in Massachusetts, showed that a 1 percent increase in traffic citations resulted in a .28 percent reduction in traffic crashes11 In one specific example, Safe Communities of Wright County Minnesota, which is a private collaborative traffic safety partnership focused on the areas of Enforcement, Education, Engineering and Emergency Medical Services (the 4 E's), has observed a 40 percent reduction of serious injury and fatal motor vehicle crashes since 1997, all of which occurred during a period of significant population and traffic growth within the county.12 Although there is clear evidence that supports the importance of traffic enforcement in reducing motor vehicle crashes and promoting public safety, some still object to their use, and it is important to understand what is prompting these objections. Despite the significant evidence that supports the use of traffic stops in improving roadway safety, traffic stops have also become a popular tool by the police in addressing issues of crime, particularly drug trafficking. In fact, there are a variety of resources available for officers that encourage the use of traffic stops for detecting criminal activity, including Charles Remsberg's ageless text, Tactics for Criminal Patrol, and numerous in-service training courses on criminal interdiction through traffic enforcement. Like the traffic safety data, regular media reports that chronicle significant arrests emanating from traffic stops, provide significant evidence of the effectiveness of these efforts. Even though these approaches work, success in this regard (in terms of arrests) has caused great scrutiny over the tactics used, and whether they are biased or discriminatory. As criminals have become more sophisticated and as crime has evolved, law enforcement has evolved, too. Recognizing that catching criminals, and preventing and solving crimes, is a complex business, much of the policing industry has turned toward intelligence -led policing,13 predictive policing,14 or data -driven approaches to policing. These methods involve an analysis of data available to the agency to determine personnel deployments, to include proactive efforts in hot -spot areas (where crime is notably higher or more frequent than other areas) or areas where predictive models suggest a greater likelihood of criminal incidences. However, this data analysis is not necessarily restricted to crimes, it also typically involves an analysis of traffic patterns areas where a significant number of motor vehicle crashes occur. In an effort to engage best -practices relating to the use of data, many law enforcement agencies have adopted a specific operational model, Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS)15 The DDACTS model utilizes "location -based traffic crash and crime data to establish effective and efficient methods for deploying law enforcement and other resources." One of the key components of the DDACTS model is the strategic and tactical focus on places. This focus is based on three underlying assumptions: ■ It is more efficient to focus on places than to focus on individuals; ■ The places that experience a high number of traffic crashes also exhibit a high number of crimes; and 9 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.goy/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812318 10 https://www.criminaIjusticedegree.com/basic-composition-of-traffic-enforcement/ 11 Luca, D. L. (2015), Do Traffic Tickets Reduce Motor Vehicle Accidents? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 34: 85-106. doi:10.1002/pam.21798 12 https://www.safecomm.org 13 httos://www.ncirs.goy/K)dffilesl/boa/210681.r)df 14 https://www.nii.goy/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx 15 httos://www.nii.goy/topics/law-enforcement/operations/traffic/Pages/ddacts.asr)x INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ■ Tools like computer mapping have made it easier to adopt place -based strategies 16 The use of DDACTS (or other data -driven approaches) by police agencies is a double-edged sword; the methods used produce positive results, but they can also produce community trust and resentment issues by those who feel disaffected. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon law enforcement leaders to address and mitigate these concerns. So, what should law enforcement leaders do? Law enforcement leaders must understand that there is a right way (and a wrong way) to conduct traffic stops. Most in the industry would agree that traffic stops have the potential to be dangerous and contentious, and officer -safety issues demand that they are conducted in a particular manner. At the same time, concerns over officer safety do not necessitate that officers engage in behaviors that are considered rude or abrasive, and leaders should not condone this or accept this as a given or an excuse by officers. Traffic stops can be done correctly, safely, and frequently, without generating citizen complaints. For example, Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputy Elton Simmons has written more than 25,000 traffic tickets over 20 years, all without generating a single complaint.17 The Elton Simmons YouTube video, provides a real -life example of how the approach and demeanor of the officer can contribute to success in the traffic safety mission. This video could be a valuable training tool for new officers, or those who seem to generate an inordinate number of complaints. Either way, leaders must set the standard for traffic stop encounters, and leaders must provide staff with the guidance they need to conduct them properly, safely, and in an appropriate manner. 2. Leaders should ensure that officers understand that during all traffic stops, they are expected to engage the elements of Procedural Justice.'$ As noted in the 21s' Century Policing Task Force Report, the core concepts of procedural justice include: • Treating people with dignity and respect • Giving individuals `voice' during encounters • Being neutral and transparent in decision making • Conveying trustworthy motives Although the concepts should be promoted throughout the organization, internally and externally, and with respect to all citizen contacts, the frequency and nature of traffic stops requires that officers consistently practice these behaviors. Additionally, leaders should develop strong policies related to impartial policing, and provide ongoing training to officers in these areas, whether that training is formal or informal. 3. When considering concentrated enforcement efforts, whether they relate to traffic safety, crime, or both, agencies should be data -driven, to include monitoring of resources deployed, and the results of those efforts. Part of the data -led strategy of the agency should include examining whether their tactics are producing required results, and if they are not, leaders should thoughtfully adjust their approach. Leaders should share this information and the results with the public, to include outcomes, and any associated adjustments in the approach of the department. 4. Whether traffic stops are used for crash reduction or crime interdiction, leaders should adopt an education strategy, both for officers, and for the public. Officers need to understand where they are being deployed and why, and what their objectives are. They also need to understand the purpose behind what they are being asked to do, as this will equip them to engage the public in a positive manner. Agencies should consider creating a literature piece that explains why they are conducting traffic stops, or working a criminal interdiction detail. Officers could use this brochure as a means to explain their presence, and to further justify the intervention. This type of action relates back to procedural justice, and adds to police transparency and legitimacy. S. In addition to delivering materials during direct encounters, agencies can also educate the public in other ways. Many police agencies use various social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter, to convey important public safety messages. Some departments, like the Orwell, Ohio, Police Department, have even used their website as an educational forum, providing detailed information about why the police make traffic stops, why the police act in a certain way during those encounters, and tips on what the public can do to make the traffic stop less stressful for all 19 6. More than ever in the history of law enforcement in the U.S., there is a need for leaders to engage the public directly on the issues of crime, police procedures, and 16 https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/r)df/809689.r)df 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhzilwmEeEw (Elton Simmons) 18 The President's Task Force for 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the Presidents Task Force for 21st Century Policing (Washington, D.C.: Office for Community Oriented Policing Services, 2015), http://www.cops.usdoi.gov&df/taskforce/TaskForce FinalReport.pdf 19 httr)://www.orwellpolice.com/trafficstor)s.htm ■ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE personnel deployments. The public has a keen interest in what the police do, as those efforts tend to affect are linked to traffic enforcement. It will address the topic using the perspective of the modern science of bias that them, either directly or indirectly. Further, the public recognizes that even well-intentioned individuals, including has set a new standard of accountability for the police, well-intentioned law enforcement, have biases that can and more transparent and robust communication is now a mandate. When police agencies are considering new or varied approaches to crime and/or traffic safety, leaders should thoughtfully consider how these strategies will affect the public, and when doing so would not compromise those efforts, the public should have the opportunity to offer their feedback and input for consideration. Traffic stops have proved to be a very effective mechanism for police agencies to improve roadway safety, and to reduce crime and apprehend criminals. In conducting traffic stops, it is important, that law enforcement leaders ensure that traffic stops are done properly, for the right reasons, and in a fair and unbiased manner, which does not produce discriminatory treatment. Secondary to ensuring that they are done properly, law enforcement leaders also have a responsibility to engage the public on this topic to explain the purpose, processes, and personnel deployments used, and to educate the public on the outcomes associated with these efforts. Further, in keeping with a procedural justice approach, police agencies should consider allowing the public to have a voice in this process, when appropriate, and law enforcement leaders should consider the will of the public when determining how, when, and where, the police engage the resources at their disposal. In Pursuit of Bias -Free Traffic Enforcement By: Lorie A. Fridell, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida The issue of biased policing returned to the forefront in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The focus was on vehicle stops and we heard complaints about "Driving while Black" and "Driving while Brown." The issue of biased policing returned to the forefront again in 2014 following the shooting of Michael Brown and other events in Ferguson, Missouri. Attention turned to bias and the use of force, but again vehicle stops remained in the headlines; many of the most controversial cases involved police actions associated with a vehicle stop, including incidents in Cincinnati, Ohio; North Charleston, South Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Waller County, Texas; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. This article will focus on bias in policing, with a particular emphasis on both the issues and interventions as they impact on perceptions and behavior. After setting forth the science and discussing how bias might manifest in traffic enforcement, the article will outline what agency leaders can do to promote bias -free policing in traffic enforcement and all other police activities. Emphasis will be given to interventions linked to training and measurement. The Modern Science of Bias Social psychologists have been studying bias and prejudice since about the 1950's. For a long time, they recognized only what we now call "explicit biases." With explicit biases, a person associates groups -such as racial minorities, women, transgender individuals, homeless people -with negative stereotypes. These associations are based on animus or hostility toward the groups, and the person with these biases is well aware of them and unconcerned about the discriminatory behavior that those biases produce. (See, e.g., Amodio & Mendoza, 2010; Dovidio et al., 1997; Nier, 2005; Petty, et al., 2009). As an example, a racist has explicit biases. Starting in the 1980's, these social psychologists discovered another way that bias and prejudice can manifest -in the form of implicit biases. Implicit biases share some similarities with explicit biases. With implicit biases, we still link individuals to stereotypes or generalizations associated with their group or groups. And these biases and stereotypes can impact on perceptions and behavior. But, unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are not based on animus or hostility and these implicit associations can impact individuals outside of conscious awareness. The worst news is that, even individuals who reject prejudice and stereotyping at the conscious level, can and do manifest implicit biases (Correll et al., 2007; Dasgupta, 2004; Dovidio, et al., 2002; Dovidio et al., 2009; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). This science requires that we move away from the "old notion" that individuals who produce biased policing are identifiable by their overt animus and hostility toward groups. We now know that even our well-intentioned law enforcement professionals can produce biased policing. In fact, the key implications for law enforcement of the science of implicit bias are these: (1) even the best officers —because they are human —can produce biased policing; and (2) even the best agencies —because they hire humans to do the work -will have biased decisions and therefore must be proactive to produce fair and impartial law enforcement. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 81 How Bias Might Manifest in Law Enforcement? How might implicit bias manifest in law enforcement? It may lead an officer to perceive the ambiguous behavior of a Black male as more threatening than the same behavior on the part of a White male. It may manifest among agency command staff who decide (without crime -relevant evidence) that the forthcoming gathering of Black college students bodes trouble, whereas the forthcoming gathering of White undergraduates does not. Although these types of implicit biases pertaining to Blacks and crime are well -documented, there are other biases that might impact law enforcement actions or procedures. For instance, implicit bias might lead an officer to be consistently "over vigilant" with males, low-income individuals, and Hispanics, and "under vigilant" with female subjects, people of means, and Asians. Traffic enforcement is "ripe" for the manifestation of implicit biases. First, most people's interactions with police is in the context of traffic enforcement. Second, there is lots of discretion in traffic enforcement, and wherever there is discretion there is the potential for human bias. Putting those two facts together, we have interactions that are both numerous and at high risk for human bias. How might implicit bias manifest in traffic enforcement? Implicit bias might lead the line officer to automatically perceive crime in the making when he or she observes two young Hispanic males driving in an all -Caucasian neighborhood. When there is a motor vehicle crash and the participants tell two different versions of what happened, implicit bias might lead the trooper to believe the story of the man in the shirt and tie driving the BMW as opposed to the story of the man in dirty jeans driving a pick-up truck. After a vehicle is stopped, implicit bias might lead the deputy to request for consent to search from the young kids in low -hanging pants, whereas the same request would not be made of individuals with other demographics and dress. Consequences of Biased Policing There is no question that biased policing can negatively impact the community members who are on the "receiving end" of this treatment; and those negative experiences can produce negative impressions of law enforcement that can have serious consequences for agencies (Tyler & Huo, 2002). But it is also the case that biased policing can have negative impacts on the officer engaged in it. Policing based on biases or stereotypes can produce ineffective, unsafe, as well as unjust policing. In terms of effectiveness, biases and stereotypes might, for instance, lead an officer to focus on a particular group in her surveillance or when she runs queries on license plates (see Meehan & Ponder, 2002). If this focus is link to stereotypes about demographic groups and not criminal intelligence, she might miss the traffic violations or crimes committed by other demographic groups to which she does not attend. In a role play in the training program described below (Fair & Impartial Policing), patrol officers are dispatched in a role play to a domestic violence scene and told the perpetrator is still present. They arrive to find the sobbing victim with a man comforting her on one side and a woman comforting her on the other. Invariably the officers approach the man and take him off to the side -leaving the victim next to the actual perpetrator, the female partner. Biases can lead to ineffective policing. Policing based on stereotypes and biases can also be unsafe. Much of the community concern about bias since the events in Ferguson has pertained to use of force. The allegation is that law enforcement are over -vigilant with certain groups based on stereotypes about that demographic. (An example is provided below.) But the converse of this potential problem is the danger when police are under -vigilant with certain groups based on their biases. Correll et al (2002, 2007) in laboratory "shoot, don't shoot" studies found that both police and non -police subjects were slower to identify a gun in the White man's hand, than in the Black man's hand. The danger of biases leading to under -vigilance was highlighted in a story shared by an officer with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.20 This officer was responding to the shooting of two of his fellow officers in 2014. The PD knew little about who had shot these officers, but other events indicated they might be inside a nearby Walmart. The officer telling the story was moving down a Walmart aisle toward a White male that he identified as the killer of his colleagues, when he saw a White female. He reports, "I thought that this woman wasn't going to be a threat and so I let her remain as she was a little bit longer than I should have." Once he realized that she "wants to be exactly where she is right now," he exchanged gunfire with her, wounding her and thwarting the threat. (He was not hit.) In telling his story, this officer recognized that his (very understandable) stereotypes about who is a threat slowed down his response and could have led to his own death. An additional concern about how biases can be unsafe for police was raised in the New York State Task Force on Police -on -Police Shootings (2010). This Task Force found for both the state and the U.S. that the off -duty, plain clothes officers who were the tragic victims of friendly 20 The story was shared during a segment entitled "Cops See it Differently, Part 2" on "This American Life" broadcast February 13, 2015. Found on 3/20/2017 at https://www. thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two; segment starts at 54:00. PPM NNEEF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE fire were disproportionately individuals of color. The Task Force writes (2010, p. 3): "Our conclusion from the review is clear; inherent or unconscious racial bias plays a role in shoot/don't-shoot decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities. The role may be small and subtle, measured during simulations only in milliseconds of action or hesitation, but the patterns ... are clear and consistent." Policing based on stereotypes and biases can also be unjust. An incident involving a South Carolina Trooper raises the specter of bias impacting on an officer's decision to shoot. In -car cameras show Trooper Sean Groubert pulling over a young man for a traffic stop. They both pull into a gas station and stop their cars. The young man of color emerges from his car and is asked by the trooper to produce his license and registration. The young man turns quickly to reach into the car and the trooper- his on - camera voice clearly indicating fear -opens fire on the man, hitting him in the hip. While it is perilous to try to ascertain motivations, including biased motivations, it is legitimate to ask whether a middle-aged woman engaging in the same behavior would have produced the fear and gunfire on the part of this trooper. Promoting Bias -Free Policing Through Training With the assistance of the modern science of bias, the law enforcement profession can be more effective in the efforts to promote bias -free policing. We certainly cannot stop the efforts that agencies have adopted to combat manifestations of explicit bias. For instance, agencies try to screen out individuals with explicit biases at the hiring stage; agency leaders try to identify officers with explicit bias (who were not screened out at the hiring stage) to hold them to account. The discovery of implicit bias, however, requires that our efforts be more comprehensive. What agencies can do to promote bias -free policing comes under the heading of a "comprehensive program to produce fair and impartial policing." Interventions within the "comprehensive program" are linked to these elements (see Fridell 2017): ■ leadership and culture, ■ recruitment and hiring, ■ bias -free policing policy, ■ training, ■ supervision, ■ accountability, Highlighted here are guidance for agencies in the realms of training and measurement. There are two types of training programs for law enforcement that reflect the modern science of bias: (a) implicit bias awareness training and (b) high -quality, scenario based use -of -force training. Implicit Bias Awareness Training For many years, across the U.S., traditional "racial profiling" training has missed the mark because some programs were based on outdated understandings of bias and prejudice. Many of these programs have treated the law enforcement audience as if they all manifested explicit bias. The message was that police needed to "stop being prejudiced," with an emphasis on reducing police animus toward marginalized groups. We now know that this message is ill -suited to most law enforcement, who may not hold explicit prejudices. And further, these messages - offensive to most -have produced a backlash against training linked to this topic. For the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned officers who want to police safely, effectively and justly, the training that is needed is "implicit bias awareness training." Such programs give officers the information they need to recognize their implicit biases and also, importantly, give them the tools to reduce and manage them. These programs use curricula that address not just racial or ethnic bias, but also biases based on other factors such as sexual orientation, gender identity, socio-economic status, gender, and so forth. The Fair & Impartial Policing (FIP) Training Program (www.fairandimpartialpolicing.com) was developed with the assistance of law enforcement experts and social scientists, and with the financial support of the USDOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). There are specific curricula for various subsets of agencies: (1) recruits in the academy and patrol officers, (2) first -line supervisors, (3) mid -level managers, (4) command -level personnel, and (5) trainers (i.e., the train - the -trainer version). The mantra of the curriculum for academy recruits or in- service patrol officers is: "policing based on stereotypes and biases is ineffective, unsafe, and unjust." Trainees learn (1) about the science of bias, (2) how individuals can reduce and manage their biases, (3) how impartial policing is linked to the concepts of procedural justice and legitimacy, and (4) what they need to do as police professionals to ensure bias -free policing. ■ measurement, First -line supervisors and mid -level managers, like the patrol officers, need to understand the science of bias ■ outreach to diverse communities, and and the tools for reducing and managing them. However, these groups also need to understand how to "scan" for ■ operations. biased policing on the part of their subordinates and how INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 83 to intervene when bias is suspected. It is made plain during the training that identifying biased behavior is not easy, because "biased policing" is, by definition, linked to the motivations of the officer. The training program guides supervisors on when and how they can (and should) intervene to stop what appears to be inappropriate conduct, while keeping in mind the ambiguous nature of the evidence and the sensitive nature of the issue. The newly updated 2017 version trains supervisors to engage in "crucial conversations" (Patterson et al., 2012) and discusses how biases can manifest internal to the agency in the form of "managerial bias." The command -level FIP curriculum is arguably most effective when the agency executive invites concerned community stakeholders to participate. Full -group and small -group discussions allow participants to share their views; perspectives; and, sometimes, their long -held frustrations. Together they learn about the implications of the science of bias for police policies and practices. This program covers the previously mentioned "comprehensive program to produce fair and impartial policing." After participating in the program, police executives come away from the training with preliminary action plans. Importantly, implicit bias awareness curricula do not have to, indeed should not, ignore the elephant in the room. It is a criminological fact that some demographic groups engage disproportionately in some types of crimes. White individuals are disproportionately represented among people involved in crimes of the powerful (see e.g., Lynch & Michalowski, 2006) and people of color are disproportionately represented among people who commit street crimes (see e.g., Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; McNulty & Bellair, 2003; Sampson et al., 2005). That these disparities exist does not negate the existence nor harm of implicit biases. It is time to bury the false narrative that there is either (a) disparity in criminal behavior across demographic groups, or (b) police bias. There can be both.21 These training sessions can produce a transformation in thinking among participants. It is not unusual, in fact it is common, for attendees to enter the room for Fair & Impartial Policing training with attitudes that are defensive or even hostile. They may expect another program that treats them as if they all have explicit biases. But then the trainers start to talk about science; and it is not the science of police bias, it is the science of human bias. The attendees start to learn about how their human biases might make them unsafe, ineffective and unjust, and the defenses start to melt away. Comments in evaluations include: ■ Recruit Participant: l learned what 'implicit bias' means and understand its effects on me, (the) decisions I make and (the) community perceptions of officers. ■ Patrol Officer Participant: We were told we were going to `racial profiling' class all day and, to be honest, that already put me off -thinking it was going to be the same stuff we always get. I was very, very surprised and happy to receive this training today. ■ Mid -level Manager Participant: (The training) gave me some eye-opening information. / used to say I wasn't biased,- I can no longer say that. However, this course has given me the opportunity to have an open conversation about this topic. Command -level Participant: l am leaving the class with a new perspective on my own views and beliefs. I have a new awareness of bias -based policing within my own agency. The presentation of scientific data provided me with a more convincing argument that supported the existence of unintentional, but widespread racial bias, which I was typically quick to dismiss. Training -of -Trainers (TOT) Program Participant: (/) wanted nothing to do with F/P or its philosophy. As fate would have it I was 'hand-picked" to attend the (train - the -trainer) classes and forced to go after presenting every excuse l could come up ... l came in Monday as opposed and defensive as l could covertly be without getting into trouble.... It took about two hours and l was sold on the theory of the class and wondering why I had not been through this training sooner. High -Quality, Scenario -Based Use of Force Training The implicit bias awareness training described in the previous section is most relevant for those decisions where the law enforcement professional has a moment, even a brief one, to contemplate how his or her biases might be impacting on him/her. The program helps them recognize when implicit biases might be manifesting and helps them to thwart their impact on behavior. Some police decisions, however, do not allow for that moment of contemplation. This is especially true of often quick -moving use -of -force situations. To help thwart the impact of human biases on these split-second decisions, agencies need to provide scenario -based, use -of -force judgment training that conditions officers to focus not on demographics, but on indicators of threat. The implicit bias concept —exposure to counter -stereotypes (see e.g., Blair et al., 2001; Dasgupta & Rivera, 2008)—can be used to explain the potential of this bias -reducing training. In modern, state-of-the-art, use -of -force training, officers "role play" while interacting with one or more individuals in video scenarios. The officer must determine whether or not the person in the scenario is a threat and, if the 21 Agency policy on biased policing is important for communicating clearly to personnel when it is legitimate, and when it is not, to consider demographics in making law enforcement decisions. See Fridell 2017. 84 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE person is a threat, the appropriate amount of force to use. This raises the question: How might effective use - of -force training take the demographics —and associated stereotypes and biases —out of that decision -making? The answer is as follows: The individuals who turn out to be a threat in a given scenario must be just as likely White as Black, just as likely female as male, just as likely old as young, and so forth. With prolonged exposure to these counter -stereotypes over time, the law enforcement officer should learn that demographics are "non -diagnostic" in terms of threat, and the officer should instead redirect his focus to different clues, such as placement of hands and other subject behavior. Laboratory studies indicate the potential value of this exposure for removing the effect of demographics —and the associated stereotypes —from split-second decisions regarding the use force (Plant et al., 2005; Plant & Peruche, 2005).22 Numerous agencies use video scenarios for their use -of - force judgment training and it is not unusual for a scenario to include a counter -stereotype. But it is reasonable to ask whether law enforcement agencies provide enough of this scenario training to in-service officers to produce the effect that both theory and preliminary research says is possible. According to research by Morrison and Garner (2011), fewer than half of police agencies have access to video -simulator training and, of those that do have access, the level of exposure to scenarios for in-service officers (versus recruits) is very low. Six in ten of the agencies that currently have these resources expose their officers to fewer than four scenarios annually, while a quarter expose their officers to just one scenario a year. And those scenarios to which these officers are exposed may not contain the requisite elements to produce the desired outcome. Vehicle Stop Data Collection to Measure Biased Policing As shared above, there are a number of elements associated with the comprehensive program to produce fair and impartial policing (e.g., leadership and culture, recruitment and hiring, policy, supervision). The previous section highlighted the importance of agency training for producing bias -free policing; the measurement element is highlighted here since traffic enforcement has been key to some of the efforts to measure biased policing. Many agencies and several states have implemented vehicle stop data collection, whereby officers making stops record/ transmit information on the stop, such as the perceived demographics of the person stopped, the reason for the stop, activities during the stop (e.g., search), the disposition of the stop (e.g., ticket) and so forth. There are benefits and costs of vehicle stop data collection (see Fridell 2004, 2017). On the "pro" side, data collection can convey the agency's commitment to unbiased policing, can give the agency information on what officers are doing, and might deter biased policing. On the other hand, the cons or costs include the time it takes officers to fill out forms and for supervisors to ensure they are being submitted, the resources devoted to data input and analysis, and the misuse or misreporting of results. And much of the debate, too, is centered on this question: what can we actually measure? The aspiration, of course, is to measure biased policing and yet these systems are wanting relevant to that goal. What agencies or their social science partners can do with these data is measure disparity. For instance, the data can be used to determine if, for instance, one demographic group is stopped disproportionate to its representation in a comparison (benchmark) population. What is much more challenging, however, is determining the causes or sources of disparity. The identified disparity might be produced in part by law enforcement bias, but it could also be produced in whole or in part by other legitimate factors such as differences in driving quantity, quality and location (see Fridell, 2004). The fact that disparity is not to be equated with police bias is often lost on key audiences, including community members and the press. Agencies that choose to engage in vehicle stop data collection, or that are required to, would be well served to partner with a social scientist for designing the system and conducting the analysis. (And, remember, many university professors will offer their services without charge, in exchange for the use of the data in their research.) Agencies should also involve key community stakeholders in the discussion and planning early on and educate these individuals on the promise and constraints associated with data collection so that they can assist agency leaders in conveying the true meaning of the results to the broader public. But also important is maintaining perspective with regard to where vehicle stop data collection fits into an agency's commitment to bias -free policing. Data collection imperfectly measures biased policing; all of the other elements of a comprehensive program (outlined above) actually do something about it. Therefore, it is legitimate for an agency leader with finite resources to decide that measurement is not as important as effective implicit - bias awareness training, use -of -force video training with exposure to counter -stereotypes, or other efforts designed to produce bias -free policing. 22 To be most effective, research on implicit bias indicates that these scenarios with counter stereotypes should be placed in ambiguous -threat situations. See Fridell 2017. � _W ENEIr INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Conclusion Concerns on the part of community members of biased policing go way back in our history. For many years, leaders were frustrated in their attempts to understand and respond to these concerns. Fortunately, the social scientists have provided important information that can advance our understanding of, and our efforts to achieve, biased policing. Police professionals -from the line level to the corner office -have new tools to promote bias -free policing in traffic enforcement and all other law enforcement activities. Notes: 1. Amodio, D.M. & Mendoza, S.A. (2010). Implicit intergroup bias: Cognitive, affective, and motivational underpinnings;' in Handbook ofimplicit social cognition, eds. Gawronski, B. & Payne, K., New York, NY: Guilford Press, 253-274. 2. Blair, I.V., Ma, J.E., & Lenton, A.P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(81), 828 - 841. 3. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C.M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 1314 - 1329. 4. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C.M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M.S., & Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1006-1023. 5. Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17 (2), 143-169. 6. Dasgupta, N. & Rivera, L.M. (2008). When social context matters: The influence of long-term contact and short-term exposure to admired, outgroup members on implicit attitudes and behavioral intentions. Social Cognition, 26(1), 112 - 123. 7. Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K. & Gaertner, S.L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62-68. 8. Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510-540. 9. Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., Smoak, N., & Gaertner, S.L. (2009). The nature of contemporary racial prejudice. In Petty, R.E., Fazio, R.H. & Brinol, P. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures, NY, New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 165-192. 10. Fridell, Lorie A. (2004). By the numbers: A guide for analyzing race data from vehicle stops. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 11. Fridell, Lorie A. (2017). Producing bias -free policing: A science -based approach. Springer International Publishing. 12. Greenwald, A.G. & Krieger, L.H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations, California Law Review, 94(4), 945-967. 13. Kubrin, C.E. & Weitzer, R. (2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture. Social Problems, 50(2), 157 -180. 14. McNulty, T.L. & Bellair, P.E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 200M - 31. 15. Meehan, A.J. & Ponder, M.C. (2002). Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 399 - 430. 16. Morrison, G.B. & Garner, T.K. (2011). Latitude in deadly force training: Progress or problem? Police Practice and Research, 12(4), 341 - 361. 17. New York State Task Force on Police -on -Police Shootings (2010). Reducing inherent danger: Report of the task force on police -on -police shootings. Unpublished report retrieved on 3/20/2017 from http://samuelwalker.net/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/Pol ice-on-Pol ice_S hooti ngs. pdf 18. Fridell, Lorie A. (2017). Producing bias -free policing: A science -based approach. Springer International Publishing. 19. Lynch, M.J., & Michalowski, R.J. (2006). Primer in radical criminology. Fourth edition. Monsey, MY: Criminal Justice Press. 20. Nier, J.A. (2005). How dissociated are implicit and explicit racial attitudes? A bogus pipeline approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(1), 39-52. 21. Patterson, K., Granny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. Second Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional. 22. Petty, R.E., Fazio, R.H., & Brinol, P. (2009). The new implicit measures: An overview, in Petty, R.E., Fazio, R.H. & Brinol, P. (Eds.), Attitudes: insights from the new implicit measures, NY, New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 3-18. 23. Plant, A.E., Peruche, M.B., & Butz, D.A. (2005). Eliminating automatic racial bias: Making race non -diagnostic for responses to criminal suspects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 141 - 156. 24. Plant, A.E. & Peruche, M.B. (2005). The consequences of race for police officers' responses to criminal suspects. Psychological Science, l6(3), 180 - 183. 25. Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 224 - 232. 26. Tyler, Tom R., and Huo, Yeun J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell -Sage Foundation. Author: Lorie Fridell is a former Director of Research at the Police Executive Research Forum and currently on faculty in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida. She is a national expert on biased policing and creator of the Fair & Impartial Policing training program (www.fairandimpartialpolicing.com). Highly Automated and Connected Vehicles By: Staff Sergeant Terence McDonnell, New York State Police, Albany, New York Technology advancements are transforming society on a daily basis and this is especially true of automotive transportation. The modern motor vehicle is a computer - controlled machine that is becoming increasingly automated. Fully self -driving vehicles, once a thing of fantasy, are today considered inevitable. While this transformation may be unnerving to some, it holds tremendous potential to reduce motor vehicle crashes and their resultant injuries and fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that human error is a factor in more than 90 percent of traffic crashes. Therefore, if human operation is removed from the driving task, tremendous public safety benefits should be attainable. In addition, the integration of technologies that allow modern motor vehicles to continually communicate both with each other and with the roadway infrastructure promises to improve safety and efficiency and thereby improve public health. Finally, driverless cars promise increased mobility and independence for large segments of society, including the elderly, the blind, and the physically and mentally challenged. However, such transformative technologies do not come without risk, and regulators and lawmakers are challenged INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE to strike a balance between encouraging testing and deployment of these vehicles on public roads and potentially hampering technological development due to perceived safety threats. States and political jurisdictions worldwide have taken varying approaches in this regard. At the federal level in the United States, NHTSA issued its first Federal Automated Vehicles Policy in September 2016, which the Secretary of Transportation acknowledged was not intended to be the final word but merely a framework and foundation on which to build for the future. [1] Indeed, the NHTSA Policy is not regulatory in nature, serving merely as guidance to the industry. It is important to realize that such technologies are also applicable to commercial motor vehicles and there is a tremendous potential for improved safety and economy for connected and automated trucks. Like NHTSA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which bears responsibility for the safety of the nation's trucking industry, is also engaged in an ongoing effort to balance its safety mission without hampering technological development and integration in the trucking industry. Autonomous Vehicles: Revolution or Evolution The history of vehicle automation has largely followed two divergent strategies: a revolutionary approach and an evolutionary one. The revolutionary approach is dedicated solely to the development of fully autonomous vehicles, based largely on GPS tracking, integrated mapping and telemetry, and development of artificial intelligence to enable the vehicle to "recognize" its environment and "learn" how to respond appropriately based upon millions of miles of experience, much the same way humans learn to drive. The evolutionary approach is based upon integration of multiple technologies and capabilities, such as lane centering, crash avoidance, blind spot monitoring, and adaptive cruise control, which may allow a human operator to cede driving responsibilities to the vehicle itself under certain circumstances only, enroute to perfection of the systems and ultimately to autonomous driving. SAE International (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers) developed a six level taxonomy for automated vehicles ranging from no automation (Level 0) to full automation (Level 5) in order to provide a standard framework for the industry and regulators alike [2]. This system has been widely adopted and includes a lexicon of standard terms used in the industry. Highly automated vehicles are considered Levels 3 and 4, and are differentiated by whether the human operator needs to be prepared to take control of the vehicle under circumstances outside of the vehicle's operational design capabilities (Level 3 - Conditional Driving Automation) or if the vehicle itself is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition without human intervention under such circumstances (Level 4 - High Driving Automation). A Level 5 vehicle is fully autonomous and may be designed to operate without manual steering or operational controls or even without a human onboard. Connected Vehicles In contrast to autonomous vehicle technology, connected vehicle technologies refer to any of a variety of communications technologies which facilitate information sharing between vehicles (vehicle -to - vehicle, also known as V2V), between vehicles and the roadway infrastructure (vehicle -to -infrastructure, also known as V21), and the vehicle and anything (V2X), including via the internet and "cloud -based" applications. Connected vehicle technologies are largely envisioned to operate on a Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) frequency (5.9 GHz) set aside by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifically for this purpose. DSRC technologies are capable of V2V communications up to about 300 meters, and V21 with roadside equipment at a range of 800 meters or more [3]. Other communications technologies, such as 4G and 5G, may also be integrated in connected vehicles. A wide variety of V2X capabilities are possible, including: ■ Intersection and vehicle -to -vehicle collision avoidance ■ Intersection control for traffic volume harmonization ■ Approaching emergency vehicle warnings ■ Roadway alerts and traveler information ■ Vehicle performance optimization and resultant fuel economy/environmental benefits ■ Commercial vehicle safety inspection clearance ■ Toll and parking management. Several connected vehicle technologies are under development specifically for use by the law enforcement/ first responder community, including: ■ Intersection signal prioritization for emergency vehicles ■ Enhanced interoperability between first responders enroute to or on the scene of emergencies ■ Situational awareness and staging guidance ■ Public messaging to approaching traffic from on scene first responders ■ Public messaging to aid "move over" law compliance ■ Automatic notifications to dispatch points INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 87 ■ Direct communications with highly automated or fully autonomous vehicles Electronic VIN and vehicle pedigree transmission to emergency responders to identify potential hazards at crash scenes prior to approach. Although connected vehicle technologies have evolved relatively independent of autonomous vehicle technologies, there are obvious safety benefits of integrating both to achieve a safety synergy. Law Enforcement Concerns While highly automated vehicles hold great promise for the improvement of public safety, there are also significant law enforcement concerns inherent in the testing and deployment of these vehicles on public roads, particularly as they integrate with traditional vehicles under human operation. These include, but are not limited to: ■ Enforcement of traffic laws, operator responsibility, and liability ■ Risks to first responders from unintended movements/ unexpected behavior ■ Access to data for crash investigations ■ Vehicle response to manual traffic controls/hand gestures ■ Vehicle response to emergency vehicles ■ Vehicle identification as highly automated or fully autonomous vehicles ■ Cybersecurity and criminal use ■ Criminal behavior targeting vehicles with predictable behavior ■ Commercial vehicle safety and integration of automated commercial vehicles with traffic ■ Training needs of law enforcement officers nationwide Technological advancements are occurring rapidly. Although industry and safety organizations alike caution against the temptation to enact laws and regulations governing highly automated vehicles, law enforcement should stay informed and engaged on the issues. It is incumbent upon law enforcement leaders to ensure that the needs and concerns of their officers and communities are given proper consideration as jurisdictions consider the testing and subsequent deployment of highly automated and connected vehicles. Notes 1. "Federal Automated Vehicles Policy," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, page 6, September 2016. 2. "Taxonomy and Definitions of Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On -Road Motor Vehicles," SAEInternational, J3016, January 2014, revised 2016-09, http://standards.sae.org/j30l6 201609/. 3. Connected Responder Business Needs Case Framework, Rylex Public Safety Consulting, 2016 Legalization of Marijuana: Issues for Traffic Safety By: Dr. Darrin T. Grondel, Director, Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Chairman, Governor Highway Safety Administration Throughout the U.S., marijuana is the most commonly detected non -alcohol drug found in drivers who died within one hour of a motor vehicle crash. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) National Roadside Survey (NRS) in 2013-2014, noted that more than 22.5 percent of night-time drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter medications (based on the combined results of either or both oral fluid and blood tests. [1, 2, 3] Additionally, 8.6 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for psychoactive THC. This number increased to 12.6 percent in the 2013- 2014 NRS, a 48 percent increase. [4] In 2012, Washington State and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. This set the stage for numerous state public initiatives and legislative actions around the U.S., resulting in a patchwork of differing marijuana laws. As a result, law enforcement executives are grappling with the various challenges legalization poses to the safety of their communities, especially in the arena of fatal and serious injury collisions due to drug impaired driving. This article provides a high-level overview of lessons learned, areas of focus, resources and training, and other useful information to enhance a jurisdictions preparation, response, and resource allocation. Marijuana 107 This basic overview is critical in establishing a foundation for understanding the definitions and terminology prior to jumping into a discussion of marijuana legalization. Law enforcement professionals are generally attuned to marijuana and its impairing effects, however, what do we really know about cannabis? Do we understand the chemistry and the differences between delta- 9tetrahydrocannabinol (a9-THC), 11-Hydroxy-THC or 11-OH- 88 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE THC and 11-nor-9-Carboxy THC or THC-COOH, known as Carboxy and why this is important? "Marijuana or cannabis consists of 483 compounds and 84 different cannabinoids - these are different classes of chemical compounds that act on cannabinoid receptors in cells that repress neurotransmitter release in the brain." [5] In examining the various THC metabolites, it is important to understand the differences between psychoactive (impairing) and inactive (not impairing). The following is not a scientific resource but for contextual purposes only: THC or delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol (A9-THC) is the most well-known cannabinoid and the main psychoactive substance found in marijuana. Hydroxy-THC 11-Hydroxy-THC or 11-OH-THC, is a psychoactive metabolite of THC formed in the body after marijuana is ingested or consumed. Carboxy-THC is an inactive metabolite of THC formed in the body after marijuana is consumed and is not a psychoactive substance. Carboxy-THC can remain in the body for days or weeks and may show up in chemical tests, indicative of recent use. Carboxy-THC is not a useful indicator for impairment. Marijuana is significantly different than alcohol; however, the public and even some within the criminal justice community erroneously try to compare them, especially when it comes to per se blood concentrations. Per se relates to a statutory prohibition of a blood concentration For example, 5 Nanograms/mLis used by some states as a cutoff, whereby anyone over 5 nanongrams/mL is presumed to be impaired. The chemical composition, methods of ingestion, absorption, and presentation of impairment between marijuana and alcohol are very different. The patch work of legislation and the lack of research have resulted in three types of per se laws for driving under the influence of drugs: ■ Per se: illegal to drive with amounts of specified drugs in the body exceeding set statutory limits. The Per Se limits in the United States range from zero tolerance to 5 nanograms. Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID): illegal to drive while impaired by any drug or substance. ■ Zero Tolerance: illegal to drive with any amount of specified drugs in the body. See NMS (2014) for key provisions of each state's laws and procedures. There are a number of research studies regarding the effects of THC on the brain, including evidence that THC binds with cannabinoid receptors in the brain, the hippocampus (short-term memory), cerebellum (coordination), and basal ganglia (area of the brain managing unconscious muscle movement), and other parts of the body. Marijuana is a lipid (fat) soluble, and is therefore stored in the fatty tissues (including the brain), as opposed to water-soluble, like alcohol, which distributes into areas of the body with a high water content, such as the blood. [6] The legalization movement has raised the awareness of the importance of enforcement and toxicology. Officers traditionally make a stop on a suspected impaired driver, make observations of the driver's behavior, notice the presence or lack of an odor of intoxicants, conduct standard field sobriety tests (SFST) and make an arrest based on the totality of the circumstances. In many cases, once a breath alcohol reading in excess of .08g is obtained, the officer generally concludes the investigation without considering if drugs might also be a consideration of impairment. Unfortunately, legalization has identified this gap in the DUI investigation process. Toxicology reports are indicating the presence of multiple drugs to include alcohol in a driver's system, also known as poly drug use, which could be amplifying the impairment but is not being collected as part of the DUI investigation. Officers also need to be conscientious of drivers who exhibit signs of impairment and have a low portable breath test (PBT) or BAC result. It is not uncommon for those who have consumed drugs to have also consumed a beer or two prior to driving and, if stopped, would produce a low PBT reading and potentially be released without further investigation. Despite the increased risk of drugged driving, jurisdictions are operating from a deficit in regards to baseline data, reliable database systems, and consistent data on marijuana or drug related crashes. Data Legalization has highlighted a significant data gap, "Most state data on drugged driving in its current form is of limited use for measuring and tracking drugged driving incidents, evaluating the effects of changing laws... and or improving our knowledge about drug use and driving impairment." [7] Inadequate data systems at a national, state, and local level are complicating the issues and providing a misperception to the public regarding the level of risk resulting from drugged driving. Law enforcement leaders need to play an active role in current and future database systems, weighing in on the type of data collected, and methods of collection, with consideration of improving the quality and value of the data. In Washington state, an evaluation of crash reports and toxicology highlighted the importance of delineating INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 89 between the presence of active or non -active THC and other drugs and impairment. The increase in testing puts additional pressures on labs by requiring more trained technicians, supplies, and hours in court. Fatal and serious injury crash reports may display the quantity of a drug listed, but may only indicate one drug even though the toxicology report identified several substances in the drivers system. The NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) captures alcohol use and the BAC level; however, FARS only allows for three drugs to be entered into the fatality report, by name only and does not allow for the blood level. FARS is the official database for all fatality crashes in the United States and should have no limitations on the number of substances entered and should include the toxicology results for a national perspective on drugs involved in fatality crashes. A question that states with legalized marijuana often receive is, "Have fatality collisions increased with drivers positive for THC?" This is a difficult question to answer with the lack of good baseline data. In response to legalization, Washington state completed a descriptive report entitled, "Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-2014." The analysis on fatality crashes delineated psychoactive THC and non -active Carboxy-THC, to assess potential impacts of legalization on fatality crashes. In 2014, 84.3 percent of Washington drivers positive for cannabinoids were positive for active THC, compared to only 44.4 percent of cannabinoid-positive drivers in 2010. In this descriptive report, of 75 drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for active THC, approximately half (38) exceeded the 5 ng/ml THC per se limit. In 2015, 36.4 percent of fatalities involved a drug -positive driver and 19.9 percent involved an alcohol -impaired driver, marking the fourth year in a row where drug involvement occurred more frequently than alcohol impairment. Many drivers were impaired by a combination of multiple drugs or by drugs and alcohol, an increasingly -common factor known as the "poly -drug use." Washington drivers involved in fatal crashes who were under the influence of multiple drugs (including alcohol) rose from 82 in 2011 to 146 in 2015, a 78 percent increase. In Washington State from 2013 - 2015, impaired drivers (including those with alcohol BAC >_ .08 or drug -positive) were a factor in nearly half (49.4 percent) of all traffic fatalities and 19.2 percent of all serious injuries. Impaired driver -involved fatalities increased 6.5 percent in 2013 - 2015 (717) compared with 2010 - 2012 (673). [8] Law enforcement leaders must consider data collection, methods, and sources as one of their highest priorities in addressing drugged driving, regardless of whether their jurisdiction is facing legalization or not. This data is essential to accurately and objectively educate the public and future jurors on the issues of drugged driving. Public Perception Several state and national surveys have identified a divergence in public perceptions between drunk driving and drugged driving. The results demonstrate a public indifference towards drugged driving (Responsibility. org) and abhorrence to drunk driving. The public tend to view drunk driving as clearly dangerous and socially unacceptable with decades of research to substantiate the dangers of alcohol -impaired drivers. Conversely, with mixed information and a lack of substantive research regarding drugged driving, the public does not feel strongly one way or the other about drugged driving. As a result of legalization and the fervent debate surrounding impairment by marijuana, leading researchers from around the world are undertaking a variety of research proposals to better understand the science of marijuana impairment. Law enforcement organizations working collaboratively with their respective stakeholders need to develop key messaging using accurate data and relevant research to show the impacts of marijuana use on impaired driving. The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), on contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, conducted a Roadside Survey in Washington State in 2014 and 2015, where they surveyed 926 drivers in five counties. Of drivers who said they had used marijuana within two hours of driving, 67 percent said that it made no difference in their driving with some respondents indicating it made them a safer driver. This self -reported data is an area of opportunity to educate the public on what is known about marijuana and the impacts it has on the brain, overall coordination, depth perception and ability to operate a motor vehicle. [9] Research The overarching theme around legalization of marijuana remains a knowledge gap around the effects of cannabis (and other drugs) on driving. This is challenging for those on both sides of the issue. Some proponents of marijuana legalization claiming it is safer than alcohol, they are safer drivers, and it has no effect on driving. Over the past 40 years empirical research clearly demonstrates a strong relationship between BAC levels and levels of impairment. Conversely, research establishing levels of impairment with psychoactive drugs is not well documented. Research in this area is challenged since, "Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex molecules, whose absorption, action and elimination from the body are difficult to predict, and considerable differences exist between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur." [10] The strength and potency of marijuana has changed dramatically, especially since legalization. While most governmental research involving marijuana utilized THC 90 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE levels of 3-6 percent, this is well below what states are seeing in the varying products available to consumers (flower, edibles, liquids, and other consumable products), which have been recorded with THC levels closer to 30- 40 percent and hash oils reaching upwards of 92 percent THC. The impact these products have on driving requires additional research to accurately reflect crash risk. Enforcement Drug impaired driving may be perceived as being more complex than alcohol -impaired driving, necessitating officers to have a higher level of training and expertise. However, drug impaired driving should not be seen as more challenging. The officers do need to have some additional training to identify the signs and symptoms to successfully determine drug impairment. In some states SFST training is not part of the basic Police Officer Standards and Training certification course, which should be included and mandated for all officers. Law enforcement leaders need to ensure their officers are SFST trained and maintain certification if applicable in their jurisdiction. Agencies should also consider training all officers in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement Training (ARIDE), and in consideration of agency size and geographical dispersion should have a number of officers trained as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs). Due to the complexity and time required to process a drug -impaired driver and challenges in prosecution, law enforcement leaders need to be aware of the issues to be actively engaged in helping officers stay motivated in combatting overall impaired drivers. Jurisdictional Considerations • Assess » Current DUI and DUID laws - definitions, laws, gap analysis » Medical and Recreational - what is truly medical? What conditions? Dosage? How is it managed? Who will regulate? » Judicial - review current laws, sanctions, and training - comparison with legalized states and countries » Impaired driving training in respective jurisdictions ■ Develop and implement an educational campaign with materials in multiple languages and relevant to various cultures ■ The preceding information provided a foundation of the ■ issues and challenges with legalization relevant for law enforcement leaders. The following are considerations ■ for executives to consider in addressing the issue of legalization and the impacts on impaired driving. ■ Creation of an Impaired Driving Task Force or Working Group comprised of various disciplines and subject matter experts. Some states have included a representative from the marijuana industry. The group can outline the roles, responsibilities, and deliverables but should consider: ■ • Developing baseline data if possible with current data available and identifying the gaps Evaluate data collection sources (e.g. traffic crash data, toxicology, poison control, hospital, etc.) • What information is collected? How is it collected? Who has access for analysis? Are the systems connected for data sharing to get a broader perspective? Creation of a Marijuana Regulatory Agency • Full enforcement authority • Track from seed to sale • Packaging requirements with THC level, not attractive to children • Rules and regulations Seek dedicated funding sources from marijuana revenues for education and enforcement What DUID laws will be considered: • Illegal to drive while impaired by any drug or substance or, • Zero Tolerance - Illegal to drive with any amount of specified drugs in the body or, • Per se: illegal to drive with amounts of specified drugs in the body exceeding set limits Law enforcement training to include SIFTS, ARIDE, and DIRE ■ Utilize Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutors to support » Crash - arrest data, toxicology, hospital, public prosecution and training perceptions/attitudes on driving, healthy youth surveys, etc. ■ Process of developing or enhancing electronic search warrants for blood INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 91 ■ Chemical Evidence - Oral Swabs, Blood or Urine Phlebotomy for LE officers - this is a paradigm shift and provides support for the system of arrest creating efficiency with more timely evidence collection, single chain of custody for blood evidence and testimony, and can be done road side or at a secure facility. What percentage of surviving and deceased drivers are tested for drugs in your jurisdiction? Do the coroners or medical examiners provide a toxicology screen with the death certificate? ■ Toxicology evidence collection and analysis - How will it be collected? What are the screening tolerances? What impacts will legalization have on the crime lab and what resources are needed? Is the lab centralized or do samples need to go out of state? The legalization of marijuana highlights new and unique challenges for law enforcement organizations, the criminal justice system, and our communities. The local, state, and national data on impaired driving, particularly drugged driving, is on the rise and compelling to take action. Throughout the U.S., we are seeing significant changes in our culture and social acceptance of impairing drugs, as such law enforcement executives need to prioritize traffic safety training, initiatives, and programs to combat impaired driving. This needs to be a collaborative approach to addressing key processes and countermeasures to support public safety and the quality of life in your community. This chapter has provided you with a deeper understanding of the issues and challenges of marijuana legalization, including lessons learned from states that have legalized. Law enforcement executives should assess each jurisdictional consideration, in particular the training their officers have received and available training to elevate their skills, which should be a foundational step moving forward. Notes: 1. Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015). Results of the 2013-2014 2. National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812118). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 3. Ramirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., Scherer, M., Lacey, J. H., Kelley -Baker, T., & Fisher, D. A. (2016). Marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol use by drivers in Washington State (Report No. DOT HS 812 299). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 4. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812299-WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf S. Washington Traffic Safety Commission (2015). Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-2014 http://wtsc.wa.gov/ wp-content/uploads/d I m_u ploads/2015/10/Driver-Toxicology-Testing-and-the- I nvolvement-of-M a rij uana-i n-Fatal-Crashes_R E V Feb2016.pdf 6. Ramirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., Scherer, M., Lacey, J. H., Kelley -Baker, T., & Fisher, D. A. (2016). Marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol use by drivers in Washington State (Report No. DOT HS 812 299). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 7. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812299-WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf B. Ibid. Ramirez, Berning, Carr, Scherer, Lacey, Kelley -Baker, & Fisher, 2016, p. 27. 9. National Institute on Drug Abuse. "What is Marijuana?" https://www.drugabuse. gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana (accessed July 14, 2017). 10. Arnold, L. S., & Scopatz, R.A. (2016). Advancing drugged driving data at the state level: 11. Lindsay S. Arnold & Robert A. Scopatz, "Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: Synthesis of Barriers and Expert Panel Recommendations," AAA Foundation (March 2016). https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ AdvancingDrugged Driving Data. pdf. Resources: Arnold, L. S., & Scopatz, R.A. (2016). Advancing drugged driving data at the state level: Synthesis of barriers and expert panel recommendations. Washington DC: AAA Foundation. Retrieved from https://aaafoundation.org/ advancing -drugged -driving -data -at -the -state- level - svnthesis-of-barriers-and-expert-panel-recommendation Arnold, L. S. & Tefft, B.C. (2016) Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana: Beliefs and Behaviors, United States, 2013 - 2015. Washington DC: AAA Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aaafoundation. org/driving-under-influence-alcohol-and-marijuana-beliefs- and-behaviors-u nited-states-2013-2015. Banta -Green, C., Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Ebel, B.E., Andris, L.M., & Qiu, Q. (2016). Cannabis Used Among Drivers Suspected of Driving Under the Influence or Involved in Collisions: Analysis of Washington State Patrol Data. https://www.aaafoundation.org/cannabis-use-among- drivers-suspected-driving-under-influence-or-involved- collisions-analysis Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015). Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 118). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Governors Highway Safety Association. (2014). Drug Impaired Driving: What States Can Do Now. Retrieved from http://ghsa.org/htmI/publications/2015drugged.htmI Logan, B., Kacinko, S.L, Beirness, D.J. (2016). An Evaluation of Data from Drivers Arrested for Driving Under the Influence in Relation to Per Se Limits for Cannabis. Washington DC: AAA Foundation. https:// www.aaafoundation.org/evaluation-data-drivers-arrested- drivinq-under-influence-relation-se-limits-cannabis NMS (2014). Stop DUID (2014): A State -by -State Analysis of Laws Dealing with Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. Willow Grove, AP: NMS Labs. stopduid.org/report.html. Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation (2014). 92 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Washington State Roadside Survey, October 2014. Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation. Ramirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., Scherer, M., Lacey, J. H., Kelley -Baker, T., & Fisher, D. A. (2016). Marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol use by drivers in Washington State (Report No. DOT HS 812 299). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/ pdf/812299-WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf Ramirez, A., Berning, A., Carr, K., Scherer, M., Lacey, J. H., Kelley -Baker, T., & Fisher, D. A. (2016). Marijuana, other drugs, and alcohol use by drivers in Washington State (Report No. DOT HS 812 299). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Repp, K.K. and A.L. Raich (2014). Marijuana and health: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research. Washington County Health and Human Services. Hillsboro, OR: Washington County. Tefft, B.C., Arnold, L. S., & Grabowski, J.G. (2016). Prevalence of Marijuana Involvement in Fatal Crashes: Washington State, 2010 - 2014. Washington DC: AAA Foundation. https://www.aaafoundation.org/ prevalence -marijuana -use -among -drivers -fatal -crashes - wash i ngton-2010-2014 Van Elsland, P. & Fournier, J., & Jaffard, M. (2012). Influence of cannabis on fatal traffic crash: A detailed analysis. Transportation Research Record, pp.43-50. Washington Traffic Safety Commission (2015). Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-2014 http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/ uploads/dlm_uploads/2015/10/Driver-Toxicology-Testing- and-the-Involvement-of-Marijuana-in-Fatal-Crashes _ REVFeb20l6.pdf Are Red Light Cameras an Effective Crash -Reduction Solution? By: Richard J. Ashton, Chief of Police (Retired), Frederick, Maryland Picture a young family leaving a large suburban shopping mall in a late model SUV after an afternoon of shopping for summer clothes for an upcoming vacation and enjoying pizza and ice cream. As their SUV enters the roadway from the mall on a green traffic signal and begins to make a left turn, it is broadsided by a pickup truck that fails to stop for a red traffic signal. The family members' lives are shattered forever. Even though all were using appropriate occupant restraints at the time of the crash, the 29-year-old father is pronounced dead on the scene; the 6-year-old son sustains serious internal injuries; and his 4-year-old sister and his mother suffer no physical injuries. The 26-year-old driver of the truck is uninjured. Sadly, this scenario was repeated, on average, more than twice a day in the United States in 2008 when 762 lives were lost in crashes resulting from red light violations. [1] Sixty-four percent of those killed in 2009 were in vehicles other than the one that ran the red light. [2] When traffic control signals operate as intended, they facilitate the systematic movement of the greatest amount of traffic in the least amount of time with the greatest amount of safety and with the least amount of congestion. However, when drivers fail to heed signals' directions, crashes often occur, and, sometimes, our relatives, neighbors, friends, and coworkers are seriously injured or killed. In 2005 and 2006, about 21 percent of all traffic fatalities in the United States occurred at intersections, and approximately 30 percent of those intersections were signalized. [3] Law enforcement officers initiate effective enforcement actions —ideally on the days and at the times and locations that these violations historically have transpired —to increase red light compliance and thereby reduce the needless deaths and injuries they produce. Realistically, however, officers are unable to undertake traffic enforcement as often as they wish because of competing demands and ever-growing workloads at a time when their agencies' authorized strengths and budgets are dwindling. Even when officers are able to enforce against red light violations, their efforts often add to existing congestion and lead to frustration when these officers cannot safely apprehend violators or even stop their vehicles on shoulders that are sufficiently wide. Automated red light photo enforcement cameras (red light cameras) "can prevent the most serious crashes" [4] and can augment —not supplant —officers' enforcement efforts. These programs have grown exponentially in the United States, from 1 in 1992 [5] to 535 in April 2011; [6] have been supported by the IACP since 1998; [7] and should serve only one purpose: to enforce 24/7 against red light violations in an effort to reduce the crashes they trigger, as well as the deaths and injuries they cause. Following are several items that support the effectiveness of red light cameras: [8] A 2011 study compared fatal intersection crash rates before (1992-1996) and after (2004-2008) 14 U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 or more had implemented red light cameras and then compared those results to 48 similarly sized cities without cameras during both periods. It found that the average annual rate of fatal red light -running crashes had INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 93 declined for both study groups, but the decline had been greater for cities with red light cameras than for cities without them (35 percent versus 14 percent); and that the average annual rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections had decreased by 14 percent for cities with red light cameras and had increased slightly (2 percent) for cities without them. The study concluded that red light cameras had reduced the citywide rate of fatal red light -running crashes and, to a lesser but still significant extent, the rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections. [9] ■ Howard County, Maryland, began testing red light cameras in 1994; has utilized them for enforcement since 1997; has regularly evaluated its program; and has found "substantial overall crash reductions at almost every approach that had a red light camera," with the majority of the approaches experiencing reductions in excess of 10 percent. [10] Overall, Howard County realized a 31 percent reduction in all crashes, a 42 percent decrease in angle crashes, and a 30 percent decline in rear -end crashes. [11] Moreover, a 2002 socioeconomic cost of collision study conducted by the Maryland State Highway Administration at Howard County and other Maryland red light camera sites identified statistically significant reductions in overall crashes and in left -turn crashes, which resulted in an average cost savings of $196,000 per intersection studied. [12] When the Virginia legislature allowed the statute under which red light cameras had been authorized to lapse in 2005, the relative risk of red light running in the months immediately following their discontinuation was 2.63 times higher at four Virginia Beach intersections, and it increased at those same intersections to 3.59 times higher one year after the law's demise. [13] A study conducted between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, by the Texas A&M University System's Texas Transportation Institute of 56 intersections with red light cameras in 10 Texas cities showed an average 30 percent decrease in overall crashes, as well as an average 43 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. [14] ■ The Transportation Research Board's 2003 synthesis suggested that "automated enforcement of red light running can be an effective safety countermeasure." [15]To that end, • There is a preponderance of evidence, albeit not conclusive, indicating that red light -running camera systems improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used ... There is also evidence, also not conclusive, that there is a "spillover" effect to other signalized intersections within a jurisdiction. [16] Although nearly every study and crash analysis performed ... has had some experimental design or analysis flaw or deficiency, there is considerable "evidence" that [red light] cameras do have an overall positive effect. [17] Considerations While evidence supports the effectiveness of red light cameras, jurisdictions considering their use should think about several issues to ensure program success. ■ Red light cameras should be implemented only to benefit public safety and once an engineering study supporting their installation at the intersection or intersections under consideration has been completed. Unfortunately, too many jurisdictions have obtained red light cameras to generate revenue by placing them at intersections through which many drivers run red lights but that lack histories of serious collisions amenable to reduction via red light cameras. Some exacerbate this situation by reducing the length of the yellow change interval at the same time as the cameras became operational, obviously creating additional violations and more revenue to offset budget shortfalls or to fund other items. One small municipality even attempted to fund from red light camera fines a police officer retirement system. However, this municipality failed to realize that the jurisdiction's limited number of red light cameras working 24/7 would achieve only its goal of significantly reducing violations and would not produce a meaningful revenue stream over time. Jurisdictions considering the installation of red light cameras need to investigate first what is causing the crashes they wish to reduce. Not all collisions at red light -controlled intersections can be cured by red light cameras. A poorly designed intersection or a signal obscured by sunlight at certain times will not become safer with red light cameras. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, mixed and matched its solution by increasing the yellow change interval by about one second, reducing red light violations by 36 percent [18] and, by installing several months later red light cameras, decreasing red light violations further by 96 percent. [19] Other jurisdictions have achieved success simply by increasing the yellow change interval, which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends be a minimum duration of three seconds and a maximum duration of six seconds. [20] 94 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE f � r PHOTO ENFORCED Source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program ■ A conscientious review of the photographs taken by red light cameras should be undertaken before any action against an alleged violator is initiated. This process ensures that anything other than bona fide violations are eliminated early on; should be conducted by experienced law enforcement officers, who could be retirees or officers assigned to limited duties; and prevents the embarrassment of citing a violator whose vehicle did not commit a clear- cut violation, was in a funeral procession, or whose registration plate was obscured. Only about 35 percent of photographs in Sacramento, California, result in the issuance of citations. [21] One of the reasons for installing traffic control signals is to reduce the frequency and the severity of certain types of crashes, especially right-angle collisions. [22] Of the approximately 21 percent of traffic fatalities in the United States occurring at intersections in both 2005 and 2006, about 46 percent of them were T-bone collisions and only 5 percent were rear -end crashes. [23] Broadside crashes have declined in many jurisdictions where red light cameras have been adopted. For example, Oxnard, California, realized a 32 percent decrease in T-bone crashes and a 68 percent reduction in right-angle collisions involving injuries. [24] Although some studies have indicated that the installation of red light cameras has increased the number of rear -end crashes, others have not. [25] In any event, rear -end crashes tend to be less serious in terms of injury and cost than right-angle crashes. [26] Perhaps rear -end crashes will decline once motorists become acclimated to vehicles' stopping at yellow lights rather than continuing through intersections — the latter of which many did prior to the installation of cameras. In the aforementioned Texas study of 56 intersections, rear -end collisions increased 5 percent (by 5 crashes) during the 12-month study; however, in terms of those occurring at intersections where there had been more than 10 crashes per year, the number of rear -end crashes actually decreased. [27] In the Oxnard study, rear -end crashes increased a statistically insignificant 3 percent. [28] In Howard County, they dropped a total of 30 percent at all but one involved site. [29] Red light cameras are a relatively new enforcement technology, and their adoption may require amending existing laws or ordinances so a jurisdiction's program is not derailed when reality conflicts with prevailing statutes. Consulting with competent legal counsel; contacting nearby jurisdictions to ascertain what legislative obstacles they have encountered; and reviewing such publications as the FHWA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, [30] the IACP's Highway Safety Desk Book, [31] and the IACP's Manual of Police Traffic Services Policies and Procedures [32] during the program's planning phase will allow jurisdictions to identify and avoid the pitfalls others endured. Final Thoughts Red light camera programs should be evaluated periodically to recognize whether or not their intended purpose still is being achieved. The importance of discovering intersections where crashes are not declining is as significant as identifying those where they are, so the former can be analyzed further to ensure the appropriate crash -reducer is implemented. The results of these evaluations may yield information upon which to focus future efforts. For example, the study of 46,997 red light violations at 11 intersections in Sacramento, California, between May 1999 and June 2003 [33] suggested that as the age of the violator increased, the probability of running a red light while speeding decreased; [34] that most violations occurred during the daytime, with the highest frequency being between 2:00 p.m. and 2:59 p.m.; [35] that about 56 percent of the violating vehicles were not speeding at the time of violation; [36] that more than 94 percent of red light violations occurred within two seconds after the onset of the red light; [37] and that about 4 percent of the violators were repeat offenders. [38] Releasing to the public findings such as these contributes to the transparency of the program. Perhaps if red light camera citations were accompanied by points against violators' driver's licenses rather than by fines akin to parking citations, the cameras would reduce even more the frequency of crashes and the needless injuries and deaths they cause. Granted, the number of citations issued would decrease in response to the threat of points, and more citations would be challenged before INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 95 the judiciary because the consequences of sustained violations would be greater. However, the controversy relative to revenue generation might finally be divorced from the public safety purpose on which the adoption of red light cameras should be based. The current tendency is to regard a violation linked to a vehicle's owner rather than to its driver as a mere inconvenience, and this perception would be eliminated. The success of red light cameras can be linked to the program's transparency. If the public safety purpose of red light cameras, as well as the operation of the program, is discussed extensively in various forums throughout the jurisdiction prior to implementation; if appropriate signage is provided to apprise drivers of the use of red light cameras; if reports of malfunctioning cameras are investigated promptly and, when verified, incorrect citations are rescinded; and, if a straightforward means of contesting what drivers believe are improperly issued citations is provided and publicized, many negative issues can be avoided and public support for the effort can be garnered. A jurisdiction that operates by itself as much of the red light camera program as it is able generally will gain greater public acceptance of it. For example, while Texas allows a jurisdiction to contract for certain aspects of a red light camera program, it prohibits a jurisdiction from "agree[ing] to pay the contractor a specified percentage of, or dollar amount from, each civil penalty collected." [39] The manner in which contractors have 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. `i 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32 been compensated has been in many jurisdictions as 33. contentious an issue as the creation of cash cows. While red light cameras are not a panacea, their judicious use can achieve what law enforcement officers cannot: 24/7 enforcement against red light violations and a resulting decline in lives needlessly lost and in serious injuries sustained. Notes: 1. "Red Light Running;' Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Safety. 2. Wen Hu, Anne T. McCartt, and Eric R. Tech, Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities (Arlington, Va.: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, February 2011), 2. 3. "2005 vs. 2006 Intersection Fatality Comparison," FWHA Safety. 4. Hu, McCartt, and Tech, Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities, 10. 5. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Synthesis 370: Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2003), 3. 6. "Communities Using Red Light and/or Speed Cameras," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute. 7. Highway Safety Committee, "Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines,' IACP Resolution adopted at the 112th Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (Miami, Florida, 2005); and Highway Safety Committee, "Support for Automated Enforcement Technologies," IACP Resolution adopted at the 109th Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2002). 8. National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, "Get the Facts about Photo Enforcement," table Red Light Camera Results in Specific U.S. Cities. 9. Hu, McCartt, and Tech, Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities, 1. 10. Glenn Hansen, "Utilization and Impacts of Automated Traffic Enforcement;' 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, June 30, 2010, 4. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Synthesis 310, 24. Hansen, "Utilization and Impacts of Automated Traffic Enforcement," 4. Bryan E. Porter, Kristie L. Hebert Martinez, and Johnnie F. Bland, Survive the Drive Coalition research, abstract, Old Dominion University, January 16, 200. Troy D. Walden, Analysis on the Effectiveness of Photographic Traffic Signal Enforcement Systems in Texas (Crash Analysis Program of the Center for Transportation Safety, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, November 2008), 21. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Synthesis 310, 2. bid. bid, 38-39. Richard A. Retting, Susan A. Ferguson, and Charles M. Farmer, Reducing Red Light Running through Longer Yellow Signal Timing and Red Light Camera Enforcement: Results ofa Field Investigation (Arlington,Va.: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, January 2007), 1. Ibid. FHWA, "Highway Traffic Signals," chap. 4 in Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 ed., 489. C.Y. David Yang and Wassim G. Najm, Analysis of Red Light Violation Data Collected from Intersections Equipped with Red Light Photo Enforcement Cameras, March 2006, DOT HS 810 580, 11. FHWA, "Highway Traffic Signals," 434. "2005 vs. 2006 Intersection Fatality Comparison," FWHA Safety. Hu, McCartt, and Tech, Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities, 2. Ibid, 3. bid. Walden, Analysis on the Effectiveness of Photographic Traffic Signal Enforcement Systems in Texas, 31. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Synthesis 310, 11. Ibid, 24. FHWA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, January 2005, FHWA-SA-05-002, 14, 37-52. IACP Highway Safety Committee, "Use of Automated Enforcement," in Highway Safety Desk Book (Alexandria, Va.: September 2004), 112-21. IACP Highway Safety Committee, 1.28 Photo Enforcement," in Manual of Police Traffic Services Policies and Procedures (Alexandria, Va.: July 2004), 80-81. Yang and Najm, Analysis of Red Light Violation Data Collected from Intersections Equipped with Red Light Photo Enforcement Cameras, 11. Ibid, 39. Ibid. Ibid, 19. Ibid, 35. Ibid, 25. Photographic Traffic Signal Enforcement System, Texas Transportation Code § 707.003(b INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Speed Cameras to Reduce Speeding Traffic and Road Traffic Injuries By: Rebecca Steinbach, Chloe Perkins, Phil Edwards, Deirdre Beecher, Ian Roberts Background Exceeding the speed limit is one of the most common criminal offenses committed in the United Kingdom and can engender tremendous social harm. Speed limits on roads regulate traffic speeds by establishing a safe upper limit on vehicle speeds. Consequences of exceeding the speed limit can be severe with a direct relationship between speeding vehicles and increased crash risk. Many countries have seen an increase in the use of automatic speed enforcement to enforce traffic speed limits, detect speeding vehicles and reduce road traffic collisions and injuries that result from them. These methods employ speed detection devices such as cameras, which may be monitored or unmonitored, mobile or fixed, overt or covert. Speed cameras mostly use speed sensors to trigger a camera to capture an image of any vehicle (and its number plate) travelling above a pre-set speed. Modern systems use digital and video cameras and are able to transmit information over data networks. Once the evidence has been reviewed and an offence verified, a notification is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. Sanctions for committing an offence can include licence points, driving bans, fines and driver awareness courses. The focus of this review is on the use of all types of speed cameras to prevent speeding, road traffic collisions and injuries and fatalities resulting from road traffic collisions. Objectives The aim of this review was to update and expand a Cochrane systematic review of traffic speed enforcement cameras, and to explore under which circumstances speed cameras may, or may not work, and to assess whether any effects differ by type of device (i.e. covert versus overt, fixed versus mobile cameras). The update included studies published after 2010 (the date of the last Cochrane update) and has been expanded by including information on mechanisms, moderators, implementation and economic costs of speed camera interventions (EMMIE framework). [1] Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: OVID Transport database (1988 to June 2015); National Police Library (to June 2015), Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (to 16/03/2015), Cochrane Library CENTRAL database (to 16/03/2015); Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In -Process & Other Non -Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 16th March 2015); Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP) (1947 to 16th March 2015); ISI WOS: SCI-EXPANDED (1970) & CPCI-S (1990) to 16th March 2015); PROQUEST (to 12/06/2015); EBSCO (to 12/06/2015); Web of Knowledge (to 12/06/2015); Heritage (to 12/06/2015). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before -after studies that assessed the impact of speed cameras on traffic speeding, road crashes, crashes causing injury or fatalities, were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis We independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data from full text reports, and assessed methodological quality. We reported study authors' outcomes and calculated standardised results based on the information available in each study. Results The systematic review is based on a total of 51 primary studies including the 35 studies in the previous Cochrane review and an additional 16 evaluations uncovered from our searching which met the selection criteria. Nine of the primary studies in the review were carried out in the UK, 11 from Australia, five from the USA. The remaining studies were carried out across a number of other countries (including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Belgium, South Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, and Italy). The evidence evaluated in this updated review shows speed cameras bring about consistent reductions in both speed and collision outcomes. Results suggest that the implementation of speed camera programmes is associated with a: ■ 7 percent reduction in average speed ■ 52 percent reduction of vehicles exceeding the speed limit ■ 19 percent reduction in collisions ■ 18 percent reduction in collisions resulting in injuries ■ 21 percent reduction in severe or fatal collisions. There was no evidence that the effect of speed cameras differed by whether the camera was overt or covert. However, there was some evidence to suggest that fixed cameras had a slightly greater effect on all road traffic collisions and those resulting in fatalities or severe injuries, than mobile cameras. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 97 Authors' conclusions This review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions could be ruled out and provides evidence that speed cameras are an effective intervention for reducing speeding behaviour, and can help combat some of the negative consequences of speeding such as fatalities and injury collisions. Considering continuing increases in traffic volumes, speed cameras appear to be a worthwhile intervention to protect public safety. Notes: 1. Johnson, S.D., Tilley, N. & Bowers, K.J. 2015. "Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed -method crime prevention synthesis reviews." Journal ol'Experimental Criminology 11, 459-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292- 015-9238-7 Unmanned Aerial Systems and Traffic Safety By: Brad Blair, (ret.) Deputy Commissioner, Ontario Provincial Police The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Traffic Safety and Operational Support Command have been operating Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) since 2012. This technology is utilized to enhance our search and rescue capabilities, for forensic Identification purposes, as well as collision scene mapping as part of the Rapid Clearance mandate within the Highway Safety Division (HSD). The UAS compliments, but does not replace, the OPP's aviation assets. The current OPP UAS provides imagery through high resolution digital video, still images and Forward Looking Infrared Cameras (FLIR). The small size and autonomy allow these UAS units to reach areas that may be too treacherous or difficult for officers to be deployed. The resilience that these units have to snow, rain, and wind provide search managers with continued, low maintenance aerial assets available at all times. It also allows for aerial photography and 3D modeling of complex crime scenes. The OPP was one of the first police services in Ontario to utilize a UAS for major collision investigation. In 2013, the Traffic Support Unit - HSD deployed two units in the Greater Toronto Region. The UAS utilizes aerial photography and video to create an ortho-mosaic aerial image of a collision scene. The aerial images provide officers the ability to capture the objective collection of scene evidence in significantly less time and replaces the traditional Robotic Total Station for mapping at collision scenes. The UAS has a proven ability to provide a faster investigative process through a photo "grid -map". On average, the Traffic Support Unit - HSD maps a major collision scene in twenty-two minutes. The UAS software also provides the Reconstruction ist better analysis tools to review and animate a collision scene. The UAS software is capable of creating 2-D and 3-D images of a scene. The scene images can be manipulated to allow for various vantage points within the collision. Images can be linked together to allow for a visual representation moving through the collision scene, for example, a vehicle path of travel. Accuracy of all the UAS images is within one centimeter per pixel and similar to traditional scene mapping tools. The more technologically advanced UAS images and visual representations provide invaluable representations of the collision scene to both to the Reconstruction ist and court when applicable. The UAS directly contributes to rapid clearance while extending investigative excellence at major collision scenes. As the technology advances and the regulations are set in place to guide both private and commercial use of these small aerial units, the technological advantages and cost savings that will be realized will certainly be substantial and their use amongst police services will likely expand significantly. 5 Ways NG911 Can Improve Your Agency Adapted from NG977 Next Generation 977 for Leaders in Law Enforcement. An educational supplement produced in coordination with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association and 917.gov. 2013. Improved Officer Safety With NG911, a 911 "call" will take very different forms: Staff at PSAPs will be able to receive, process and store text, pictures and videos from citizens. Even better, that information can be quickly — sometimes almost immediately — relayed to first responders, giving them more precise information. For example, access to live video from cameras inside a bank being robbed could give responding officers valuable information about suspects, weapons and the number of hostages. NG911 also permits other digital information, such as maps, to be forwarded to officers, says Marcoux. "Most of the law officers [in Vermont] have mobile data terminals in their vehicles so we could push a map out to them instead of having the 911 operator relay this information verbally," he explains. "When you're working alone in a rural situation, the more information the officer has, the safer he will be." Dispatchers could quickly send backup to help a wounded 98 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE officer wherever he is in a sprawling rural area. Another benefit will be the ease in which dispatchers can share intelligence with officers, providing additional information on what could be a dangerous situation. In the future, the effectiveness of the NG911 system's ability to share data back and forth with officers in the field should increase as the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) establishes a wireless public safety broadband network. Improved Efficiency One big benefit of NG911: The new technology will allow PSAPs to identify the location of callers — especially those on wireless devices — faster and more accurately so law enforcement can find citizens quickly in an emergency. "Because NG911 provides more precise location information automatically, an officer won't spend as much time looking for a car that went off the road and into a ditch," says Mark Grady, founder of INdigital Telecom which provides NG911 technology to the state of Indiana. Getting more evidence in the form of videos and photos will be very useful when it comes to solving cases or taking them to trial. "If someone snaps a picture of a license plate or a suspect, that's obviously beneficial to law enforcement," says Marlys R. Davis, E-911 program manager for King County in Seattle. With this information, a deputy or officer would be able to identify and catch a suspect more easily. Adds Chief Reyes "We would significantly increase the apprehension and case -closure rate with the amount of evidence coming into our center." Transferring a 911 caller's information between jurisdictions is far easier, too, when agencies are on the same Internet Protocol (IP) technology. Jackie Mines, director of emergency communication networks for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, couldn't do that with her previous network. "That alone is a huge benefit," she says. Improved Public Safety In 2005, the year before NG911 came to Indiana, Grady says that a citizen who dialed 911 would wait 23 to 27 seconds for the call to be routed to a 911 operator; with NG911, that's now less than 3 seconds. "If you're waiting for someone to take a call during a domestic violence situation, things can go sideways on you pretty quick," he notes. Texting for help is also potentially life-saving when citizens can't make a call or speak without endangering themselves The major wireless carriers have agreed to support texting to 911 by 2014, however, NG911 texting applications will continue to improve upon the proposed services. Source: 911.gov Similarly, an upgraded emergency response system will provide better public service in a natural disaster or other emergency. NG911 call centers will be able to instantly re-route a call to another tier of PSAPs if the first is not available. This was essential when Vermont was struck by Hurricane Irene. "Our second -busiest PSAP in Rutland had to be evacuated," says Jim Lipinski, former Enhanced 911 IT manager for Vermont, one of the first U.S. states with a statewide NG911 system. "In a traditional 911 system, calls would have queued up and people would have abandoned them." But during the storm and its aftermath, the system was able to distribute the load throughout Vermont - meaning every 911 call was answered swiftly. Better Access for Special -Needs Communities The deaf and hard -of -hearing, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled and senior citizens will especially benefit from an upgrade to the nation's 911 system, since it will be easier for them to reach 911 with their phones, without requiring additional devices. Judy Flores, director of the Black Hawk Consolidated Communications Center in Waterloo, Iowa, helped launch the country's first text-to-911 program in 2009. "The biggest benefit so far is allowing our citizens to have that extra access point, in particular our hard -of -hearing and speech -impaired community," she says. "They have the same access as anyone else [now]." Potential Costs Savings Upgrading to NG911 is not inexpensive, but over time, the agencies that upgrade will save money through efficiencies. Vermont was able to save significant funds by rerouting 911 calls from a PSAP that was taking less than 1 percent of the state's calls because the new IP technology can pick up calls from other parts of the state. As already noted, it's easier, faster and less expensive to share information between jurisdictions and agencies; many communities and regions will likely combine their resources to make the transition to NG911 possible. Then there are the incalculable costs. Says Flores, "If you save one life because you made an improvement, how can you measure that?" INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 99 Public Relations and Messaging in the Digital Age By: Katie Nelson, Social Media and �� r Public Relations Coordinator, Mountain View Police Department I Police departments are not strangers to the need to develop solid working relationships with journalists, especially from their local media outlets. But with the advent and subsequent astronomical rise in the use of social media by the public, the ability to connect with a wider audience is no longer an elective pursuit, it is an inevitable one. And unlike in the past, when departments relied on media representatives to try and showcase or highlight a particular message from police agencies, we now have the opportunity to take total control of that story and tell it how we would like to in a digital sphere, every time. That ability to quickly and effectively connect and message is particularly important when it comes to traffic and highway safety. Far too often, social media management and public information officer duties are part of a collateral assignment and as a result, the department spokesperson has potentially little to no experience in communicating with the media or adequately utilizing social media tools to effectively organize and champion a public relations campaign. Even more detrimental is the potential for a lack of enthusiasm behind an online campaign or a public safety message due to an insufficient understanding of what truly integral pieces public relations and social media are to an agency. There is so much opportunity to have a message that resonates through and beyond your community. Public Information How do you want to be viewed by those you serve? The public perception you build is almost entirely defined by how you choose to connect and converse with your audience. Nothing replaces the ability to go out and personally meet with your residents, which creates an almost immediate sense of support and confidence within your community. The more face time you can have with your business owners, neighbors, and schools, the greater opportunity you have to define your agency's brand - the public display of the mission statement your department personnel work to personify every day. Such an effort should also not be limited to just the public relations role. This should be an exercise that is accomplished regularly from the top down. The more who buy in and understand and support the need to regularly connect with the community, either through in -person programs or social media campaigns, the greater the likelihood will be that your agency builds a brand that is considered transparent and trustworthy. While some agencies will have the opportunity to develop a role dedicated solely to social media management and public relations, others could potentially have a team implemented for these efforts. Some departments are unable to do either, but that in no way hinders an agency's ability to have a solid public information outreach program. Both external and internal information are key functions of a public relations role, and communicating capably under each of these is imperative to the vitality of the department's didactic enterprises, particularly when it comes to efforts around traffic safety messaging. To note, information dissemination differs greatly for each. External outreach - most effectively done through social media channels for most agencies — informs and educates the public of department business with regards to department efforts and activities. It gives your residents a chance to ask questions, and be informed of actions taken on behalf of the department. It also allows the media to cover it if they so wish, but your need for them is greatly diminished by your agency's own ability to provide the information yourselves, in essence making you a primary source of information, and the local media, secondary. It also allows you to message at opportune times throughout the day. By doing so, you increase the chance that your message is not only read, but understood, shared and discussed. This once again bolsters your efforts made to regularly enhance the overall department image. Internal public information is disseminated to department employees for the purpose of providing information on internal activities and on employee achievements. Always have a way for your personnel to see how the public is reacting to external messaging. Department morale often benefits from the positive notations made, particularly on social media, of a job well done for which officers are rarely thanked for in person and in public. Social Media Social media is one of the most effective and relevant ways to communicate with your residents, especially if done correctly. Studies have shown that roughly 79 percent of online adults (roughly 68 percent of all U.S. adults) use Facebook. [1] That is more than triple the number of online Americans who use Twitter (24 percent) or Instagram (32 percent). [2] In addition, a social media mobile exclusive app that cannot be ignored is Snapchat, where an average of more than 10 billion videos are shared a day. [3] Nextdoor, a hyperlocal social media site, is also coming of age in a social sphere where a majority of internet users are digital natives. 100 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Other websites such as YouTube and Linkedln continue to share space in the ever-expanding social media realm, but they do not possess the juggernaut messaging opportunities that sites like Facebook do. Agencies should, at this point, be well established in their presence on most of these platforms, depending on their community's specific use, and experimenting regularly with messaging efforts to gauge what the public prefers to see and read. But what many agencies are still failing to accomplish are effective messaging strategies on platforms that not only encourage engagement, they are increasingly demanding it For successful engagement, understand that social media is the language and digital platforms are dialects. Fluency in both matters. - Captain Chris Hsiung, Mountain View Police Department Today, social media platforms should not be utilized to merely blast information to the public. Rather, they should be considered places where agencies and the residents alike can converse and engage. Two-way engagement is critical in building trust and transparency with the public as well as creating effective social listening options for agencies to understand their communities and what their communities are discussing both online and off. [4] Two-way engagement has been statistically proven to be an asset to agencies. Captain Zach Perron of the Palo Alto, California, Police Department definitely proved this in "Beyond the Digital Bullhorn: The Benefits of Two -Way Engagement Strategy." The study was conducted over several months. It conclusively proved that the more an agency actively responded to inquiries and commentary on social media platforms, the agency not only attracted more followers - a benefit to spreading critical information when needed by your department - it also suggested that an agency would be viewed more favorably and as being more willing to be more "transparent" than those who did not utilize this communication tactic. [5] Such efforts can directly correspond to traffic safety messaging. The public is far more willing to appreciate notifications on traffic alerts, enforcement efforts, and educational opportunities if you 1) communicate to them in their preferred space - online and 2) if you show a concerted effort to engage with them. Your message dies with you if you are not sharable online. For example: an agency planning on conducting enforcement targeted specifically at speeding vehicles in school zones can capitalize on photos of officers looking out for children as they cross the street to their school. A clever reminder on social media that you are out protecting the youngest citizens in your area will overwhelmingly elicit positive feedback and responses versus zero notifications at all. To not alert residents that you will be conducting some type of traffic enforcement, for example, often leads to speculation and can result in rumors and false information being spread. It also denies you a great opportunity to positively showcase your department. Social media truly allows you to take control of your narrative, particularly on a topic that at times can be divisive. Utilization of digital messaging allows you to get your message across to not only your residents, but to a much wider audience. It also gives you more power to effectively resonate and relate to your community that will help build much -needed trust and support over time. Media Relations Media relations is no longer the most important tool at your disposal in your quest for a good public affairs program, but it is still an important one. The majority of the public should have the ability to directly have contact with you through various social media channels, be it Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, Instagram, or Snapchat. But even with all of these free communication tools at our fingertips, nearly 90 percent of messages (these can be comments, questions, direct messages, etc.) are ignored by "brands." [6] A brand is essentially a name, symbol, or design that identifies and differentiates a product from other products. [7] As such, this can mean that those who are feeling ignored will turn to media personnel to try and have them get the answers they seek. On average, people who pose a question on Twitter, for example, expect a response within 60 minutes. [8] Perceptions of police have also been strongly influenced by portrayals on television, in movies, or in books. But remember, every opportunity for positive publicity can create positive opinions, but conversely, one negative experience can destroy every effort you have made to encourage your public to trust and confide in you. And more often than not, your residents include media professionals who witness your behavior both as a private citizen and as a public personality. "Antagonistic relationships between the police and the traditional media need to become a relic of the past." - Captain Zachary Perron, Palo Alto Police Department. Fear of close contact with the media, either because of an incident in which your agency received unfair treatment, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 101 or as a result of a "horror story" from a fellow officer, are debilitating to your public relations efforts. By cutting off contact or refusing to meet with reporters - who rotate so quickly now from role to role at their respective outlets - you jeopardize your ability to not only have that news outlet's followers, viewers, or readers at your disposal for eyes and ears when it comes to your messaging campaigns, but you also risk creating a greater amount of work for your agency when it comes to establishing and maintaining public trust. The more you shy away from interacting with the press, the more likely they are to report on your agency in a biased manner or ignore you completely. Because of the continuing decline of the journalism industry, reporters are often pulled in a multitude of directions, attempting to cover several stories in the span of a day. They often have less than eight hours to cover a story, so it can be difficult to contact them or get to know them in a greater capacity than just their byline. The quickest way to combat that is to follow them on social media. Most major news outlets now require their reporters to be on Twitter, for example. Follow them, and interact with them online. Invite them to your events, and suggest meeting in person in a neutral space, such as a coffee shop in your town. While you can't change how past interactions dictated a reporter's relationship with someone in your department, your proactive efforts to engage with them can often identify a potential problem and manage its outcome. Make every effort to maintain a dialogue with media personnel in your public relations role, because the more reachable you are and the more relatable you are, your department's messaging efforts will become a higher priority for them to cover and subsequently, your message will reach potentially millions more. Community Programs Community programs are formal services that serve a demonstrated need within a particular community or area. They are sponsored totally or partially by the law enforcement agency and are aimed at mitigating a particular problem, or at advising a segment of the population about a specific program. These activities can include both crime prevention programs and traffic safety projects. Examples are Neighborhood Watch, Operation Identification, DARE, rape and assault prevention, child molestation prevention, bicycle safety programs, Halloween safety, departmental appearances, tours, speaking presentations, and ride -along programs. All can be documented and promoted on social media in an effort to enhance the public's awareness of efforts your department or agency is undertaking. They can simultaneously serve as a marketing tool for your agency to showcase and highlight your officers and the multifaceted approach they take with their jobs. Working with the Media In your role as a public information officer, you must recognize and understand the needs and requirements of journalists and in turn, work to help them try to understand the methods, policies, and constraints under which law enforcement personnel operate. By doing so, you increase the likelihood that journalists will give you a fair opportunity to have your voice heard in their stories and even more so, that the best possible image of the department can be conveyed to the public. News happens around the clock, and as such, it oftentimes can impact your agency, either directly or indirectly. Media outlets operate on a nearly 24-hour news cycle, with most television, radio and newspaper reporters beginning their first segments or stories of the day at 4 am and continuing well into the evening. As employment numbers in journalism continue to decline, more news organizations are being spread thinner, requiring journalists to cover several stories or topics on a given day, requiring them to become "experts" on any topic in mere hours. [9] While different states operate under different requirements with how much information can be released on any given incident, journalists believe, and more often, so does the public, that they should report on as much detail as possible on a story they consider to be newsworthy. In this news cycle, you have minutes to jump to the front of the narrative opportunity and control the story and the dissemination of information. When news initially breaks, something called the "newsjack" occurs. [10] The "newsjack" is a period of time where you have all the incipient, relevant information you can release, and everyone else, including the media, are scrambling for it. This period of time is vital for a public information officer. It gives them the ability to push out initial but critical information and as much safety messaging as possible, which will then in turn be shared by media professionals and public alike. As such, this period of time is particularly vital for law enforcement agencies' use of social media. Every journalist will be looking to quickly share as much as news as possible - being first is vitally important among journalists when it comes to breaking news - and then getting ahead of the story to continue to maintain dominance. As a public information officer, you must then retain control of the narrative and storytelling as much as possible until what is known as the "archival process" - or when the story is more commonly known to be "put to bed" - is completed. Leaks will inevitably happen, and with more and more journalists using scanners as sources of information to stay ahead in the story -telling game, this can be difficult. 102 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE If an event provokes media interest, particularly on a regional, national or international scale, a story will go out, with or without your help. Law enforcement needs the media as an ally, but the media do not need us to do a story —their ability to do a story doesn't depend on us. They do, however, depend on us to keep providing timely and updated information. To fail at doing this not only sours your agency's reputation, it removes the control of the story from your hands. Print media publications often have more space to go into finer details of a story, but they too have deadlines. Again, as the journalism industry continues to try and grapple with the ever-expanding digital sphere of available news, their deadlines have been pushed up to increasingly unreasonable times, often in the afternoon. Because of these deadlines, you can have very little time to provide information, or commentary, on a situation. Nothing looks worse for an agency than having a news source state that you either refused to comment or could not be made available for comment. Help out journalists by not only providing relevant information, but as you update them, provide quotes and images that they can use in their stories. These can be shared oftentimes through social media in things like a livestream, or as part of an update or in a press release. The more visuals and quotes a journalist can have from your agency, the less likely they are to call you or email you to ask for them. When you do provide comment in -person, especially for television or radio reporters, think in 10-second sound bites. You want to minimize editing by a station as much as possible, so make every word count. When you release a breakdown of a major event, do not use law enforcement jargon that could be easily bungled by someone who doesn't understand or know to what you are referring. Updates and releases that require little or no editing on a reporter's or editor's part helps minimize corrections that could potentially need to be issued if they didn't understand what was being communicated by your agency. If you are being interviewed over the phone, which is fairly common particularly for radio stations, make sure you know you are being recorded. Only 11 states in the United States require for interviewees to be notified that they are being recorded in a phone conversation. [11] Federal law states that at least one party must be aware the phone call is being recorded for it to be legal. [12] As such, it is always acceptable to ask if you are being recorded. If you can, also take time before the official recording begins to ask what questions may be put forth by the journalist. The same can be said for on -camera interviews. If the interview is planned, ask questions ahead of time so you know what you may need to research and so you can make sure that what you have said is accurate. When speaking with journalists in any setting, avoid as much as possible providing a personal opinion and if you realize you said something in error, rectify it. Avoid going "off the record," either in a recorded setting or otherwise, at all costs. Also, remember that television crews also have deadlines, and are just as willing to move forward with a story, with or without you. As the hunt for breaking news continues to rise, more televisions crews are becoming mobile and working from the field. As such, on -the -spot interviews have become commonplace for public information officers. Be sure you are trained to respond to live requests. National News Media Be aware that any incident in your town could potentially become regional, national, or international coverage, particularly situations such as protests or storm damage. If a traffic incident is extremely severe, that can also rouse attention of reporters out of your area. Always anticipate that the more severe an incident, the more likely it will be that you will be speaking to national media representatives. If you are the sole public information officer for your agency, coordinate efficiently when speaking with national or international journalists. Their time zones will play a big role in their deadlines and their need to speak with you. If you have a public relations team, make sure someone is designated to speak with any journalists on -camera or on the phone is the same person who speaks with international news media. This will ensure accurate and equal sharing of information to all reporters. If your team is working together to coordinate release of information to the press, make sure the process is streamlined between those who are working on compiling information and those who are working to share it with others. This streamlining process should be practiced several times throughout the year in table -top exercises, both for teams and for sole public information officers, to make sure that when an incident does occur, you are ready and the process is as seamless as possible. As a public information officer, you should always be included in the decision -making process of what can and cannot be released. Public Service Announcements Public Service Announcements can be extremely effective if done in such a way that captures viewers' attention through creativity and impact. It is becoming increasingly crucial to find new and inventive ways to share the same safety announcement, be it for drunk driving, using your seatbelt or to not text and drive. Find ways that can translate across traditional and social media channels that will resonate with your community. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 103 Messages can be effective without always being serious; injecting humor into a PSA is oftentimes allows viewers to relate and to be entertained. It also allows them to want to listen, which should be the goal of your objective, every time. Messages should be anywhere between 30 seconds and 60 seconds. This allows them to be played across traditional and social media platforms without any issues of needing to be trimmed down. But remember, if a viewer's attention is not captured within the first 10 seconds, they will most likely not continue to watch the remainder of the message. [13] Managing the Media Despite what the current climate may suggest, a majority of journalists want to provide and publish accurate information to their followers. They operate in an extremely high -stress environment, and often work long shifts and often for very low pay. To date, there are roughly 40,000 journalists employed full-time in the United States. [14] That number is expected to continue to decline as reporters seek higher paying jobs or as the burnout rate continues to intensify because of working conditions. With these numbers declining, and with the turnover rate continuing to rise in newsrooms across the country, it is vitally important that you meet with journalists, and always exchange contact information so that the journalist knows the best way to reach you and vice versa. If possible, instruct the journalist to follow you on social media, so that they can have access to information as quickly as possible when an incident occurs. This will relieve some of the stress on you so that you do not have to remember to individually email or call each person that requests updates on an incident. If you must send out a news release, first make it available online on your social media channels and then send one email that encompasses all the journalists who are covering or who could potentially cover the event. It is imperative that you also have a formal department policy on handling news media, on what information can and cannot be released, and on department use of social media. Most journalists have press credentials issued to them by their respective news agency, but if your department does issue separate credentials, let journalists know as soon as possible so that if they arrive at a scene, they will have the closest possible access without disrupting any investigations or destroying evidence. Finally, have regular meetings - twice a year at least - to have check -ins with journalists and to make sure that any questions or concerns they may have are addressed. This will also encourage additional goodwill between your department and any media representatives. Notes: 1. "Social Media Update 2016;' Pew Research Center, accessed June 14, 2017, http:// www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/l1/Social-media-update-2016/ 2. Ibid. 3. "Snapchat by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts;' Omnicore, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/ 4. "Mountain View Police Department's Social Media Strategy 2.0 in the Heart of Silicon Valley;' California Police Chiefs Association, accessed June 14, 2017, http://www. californiapolicechiefs.org/index.php?option=com dai lyplanetblog&view=entry&year =2013&month=03&day=24&id=26:mountai n-view-pol ice-department-s-socia I-media- strategy-2-O-i n-the-heart-of-si I icon-val ley 5. Becoming More Than a Digital Bullhorn: Two -Way Engagement on Twitter for Law Enforcement, Homeland Security Digital Library, accessed June 14, 2017, https:// www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=792227 6. "47 Social Media Statistics to Bookmark for 2017;' Sprout social, accessed June 14, 2017, https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-statistics/ 7. "Branding," Entrepreneur, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.entrepreneur.com/ encyclopedia/branding# 8. "Can you afford to lose half your customers?" Digital CX Conversations by Eptica, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.eptica.com/blog/can-you-afford-lose-half-your- customers 9. "Employment trends in newspaper publishing and other media,1990-2016," Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/ employment-trends-in-newspaper-publ ishing-and-other-media-1990-2016.htm 10. "The Inbound Marketer's Complete Guide to Newsjacking;' Hubspot, accessed June 14, 2017, https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/ bid/32983/The-I nbound-Marketer-s-Complete-Gu ide-to-Newsjacking. aspx#sm.0000g I kzj3tuOdyvyjzldxteywi n k 11. "Recording Phone Calls and Conversations;' Digital Media Law Project, accessed June 14, 2017, http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and- conversations 12. "Scope of 18 U.S.0 2511 Prohibitions;' Office of the United States Attorneys, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1050-scope- 18-usc-2511-proh i bitions 13. "Our 8 second attention span and the future of news media," Venture Beat, accessed June 14, 2017, https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/04/0ur-8-second-attention-span- a nd-the-futu re -of -news -media/ 14. "Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2016;' Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed June 14, 2017, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/0es273022.htm 104 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Traffic Incident Management (TIM) By: Annjanette Kremer, P.E., Traffic rm Incident Management Engineer, Michigan J , Department of Transportation Traffic incident management (TIM) is the planned and coordinated multi -disciplinary processes used to detect, respond, and clear traffic incidents as quickly as possible while protecting the safety of on -scene responders and the traveling public. Safe, quick clearance is necessary so that traffic flow may be restored to pre -incident levels as safely and quickly as possible. An incident is defined as any non -recurring event that causes a reduction in roadway capacity. Such events include but are not limited to traffic crashes, debris in the roadway, disabled vehicles, spilled cargo, floods, and other unplanned natural or man- made events. Given the wide range of issues involved with incidents, close coordination is required among a diverse range of traffic safety stakeholders. These stakeholders include professionals from fields that include law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and recovery, transportation, dispatch and hazardous materials, as well as the media. One of the principal concerns related to incident management is secondary crashes, which occur after the initial incident due to issues such as unexpected slowed or stopped traffic. Many times, a secondary crash is more severe than the primary crash or incident, and all incidents represent inherent dangers -to responding personnel at the scene. Other side effects of incidents include: Increased response time by first responders such as emergency medical services, police, fire, towing & recovery, medical examiners, etc. Lost time and a reduction in productivity. For each minute a freeway lane is blocked during peak use, an estimated 4 minutes of delay result after the incident is cleared accounting for 4.2 billion hours/year in delays. [1] ■ Increased cost of goods and services transported by highways ■ Increased fuel consumption ■ Reduced air quality and other adverse environmental impacts ■ Reduced quality of life for those sitting in traffic. Photo credit. Michigan Department of Transportation Prior to the development of TIM practices, traffic incidents were handled with minimal inter -agency coordination or communication. Emergency responders were dispatched to or arrived on scenes of traffic incidents to handle the duties of their specific area of expertise, including crash investigation, emergency medical services, fire services, tow and recovery, etc. What often ensued, particularly at larger scale incidents, was a chaotic response where essential responders were hampered by other responders and their parked vehicles from reaching the scene. Ambulances with injured patients could not leave the scene efficiently. TIM was developed to organize that chaos by extending the principles of the Incident Command System to the highway environment, and thereby improving coordination, efficiency, effectiveness, and safety. Managed response means overlapping as many tasks of the many responding groups as possible without compromising the integrity of any task or safety on the scene. This can only be achieved by extensive planning involving the responding organizations, agreements on procedures and policies, and mutual program action to identify and obtain personnel and equipment resources to accomplish planned tasks. The keys to effective traffic incident management are quick and accurate incident detection and notification; rapid response of available resources, including traffic control; safe and quick removal of the incident; effective inter -agency communications supported by integrated communications systems; and provision of accurate and reliable information to travelers in the area about the location, nature, impact, and expected duration of an incident. The components of a proper traffic incident management program include planning, detection and notification, verification and response, site management, clearance, recovery, and motorist information. Many documents on traffic incident management are available on the Internet at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/ about/tim.htm. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE TIM Law and Guidance Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 61 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains information on the types of temporary signs, barriers and other traffic control devices that are approved for use in traffic incident management areas. This MUTCD is available online at http://mutcd.fhwa. dot.gov/. Laws to Promote Safe, (wick Clearance Three general types of laws have been enacted in support of TIM Move Over: These require drivers approaching a scene where emergency responders are present to either change lanes when possible and/or reduce vehicle speed. Move Over Laws have been enacted in every state, most Canadian Provinces, and in nations worldwide. The laws vary jurisdiction -to -jurisdiction, and law enforcement officers should be intimately familiar with the law in their jurisdiction and should be encouraged to enforce the law in earnest to improve public compliance. 2. Driver Removal: Also known as the "Steer It, Clear It" law, "Move It" law or "Fender Bender" law, it requires that vehicles in minor property damage crashes, be moved out of the travel lanes to a safe location where drivers can exchange information and/or wait for law enforcement assistance. By moving the vehicles from the roadway, traffic flow is restored and secondary crashes can be avoided and reduces the officer's exposure. 3. Authority Removal: Also known as "Hold Harmless" law, clarifies the authority and responsibility of pre - designated public agencies to clear damaged or disabled vehicles and spilled cargo from the roadway to allow normal traffic flow to resume and prevent the occurrence of secondary incidents. Authority Removal laws typically provide indemnification for these agencies if removal duties are performed in good faith and without gross negligence. [2] The Safe, Quick Clearance Laws enhance motorist and responder safety, and reduce congestion and delay. Although a number of states, provinces and nations currently have one or more of these laws in place, observed variability in the existence, wording, and coverage of Safe, Quick Clearance Laws challenges further implementation. [3] For more information on best practices in Safe, Quick Clearance Laws see: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/ publications/fhwahop09OO5/quick_ clear_laws.pdf. TIM Performance Measures Evaluation metrics provide the necessary feedback to TIM responders to allow them to improve performance. Equally important, they provide decision makers with the data to demonstrate the value of TIM activities and justify their related expenditures. The most used TIM performance measures are: Roadway clearance time: The time between first recordable awareness of incident by a responsible agency and the first confirmation that all lanes are available for traffic flow. 2. Incident clearance time: The time between first recordable awareness of incident by a responsible agency and time at which the last responder has left the scene. 3. The number of secondary crashes: Incidents for which a response or intervention is taken, where a collision occurs either a) within the incident scene or b) within the queue (which could include opposite direction) resulting from the original incident. [4] TIM Training and Resources SHRP2 TIM Training The National Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Responder Training program also known as the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) TIM Training was developed to improve the coordination of all traffic incident responders from the moment the first emergency call is made through conclusion of the incident and return of normal traffic flow. The curriculum is based on extensive and detailed research conducted with TIM responders across the country and is based on a train -the -trainer approach. The FHWA-led 8-hour train the trainer course builds a team of instructors within each state, region, or agency. They, in turn, train their colleagues using this innovative curriculum. Shorter, four-hour courses and one -hour training modules are also available. Training modules are flexible and can be modified to fit state and local regulations or practices. A web -based training program is also available. For more information on the program or to contact the lead person in your state see: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/ Solutions/Rel iabi1ity/L12_L32A_L32B/National_Traffic_ Incident _Management_Responder_Training_Program. TIM Network The TIM Network is comprised of individuals representing various TIM disciplines with the goal of facilitating practical INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE and results -oriented communication. A key facet is continuous, specific, and relevant outreach. The goal of the TIM Network is to connect traffic incident management (TIM) professionals from across all disciplines to discuss developing issues of national interest, keep practitioners apprised of the latest industry information, and garner important input. There is no cost to join. [5] To find more information go to http://timnetwork.org/. Responder Safety.com Responder Safety.com is the website of the Emergency Responder Safety Institute, which is an advisory group of public safety leaders and transportation experts committed to reducing deaths and injuries to America's emergency responders. The site is a clearinghouse of information related to TIM and first responder safety issues and includes data, news, training opportunities, PSAs, and links to other first responder organizations. [6] Free online training, videos, and more can be found at http://www.respondersafety.com/About-Us/Default.aspx- Notes: 1. U.S Department of Transportation, "National Support Needed to Improve Highway Safety and Reduce Congestion," http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ fhwahop12007/index.htm 2. (accessed April 21, 2017) 3. U.S Department of Transportation, "Traffic Incident Management Quick Clearance Laws: A National Review of Best Practices,"https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ fhwahoP09005/quick_clear_laws.pdf (accessed April 21, 2017) 4. Ibid. 5. U.S Department of Transportation, "Performance Measures," http://www.ops.fhwa. dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/preparedness/tim/pm.htm (accessed April 21, 2017) 6. TIM Network, "About the Network," http://timnetwork.org/about-the-network/ The Incident Command System (ICS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Complex incident scenes require effective coordination of multiple resources who may bring varied training, equipment, resources, procedures and protocols. In an effort to promote standardization and more effective management of incidents, the federal government, through FEMA, has adopted the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS). According to FEMA, NIMS is a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together seamlessly and manage incidents involving all threats and hazards —regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity —in order to reduce loss of life, property and harm to the environment. NIMS is the essential foundation to the National Preparedness System (NPS) and provides the template for the management of incidents and operations in support of all five National Planning Frameworks. [1] ICS is a systematic tool used for the command, control and coordination of an emergency response. ICS allows agencies to work together using common terminology and operating procedures for controlling personnel, facilities, equipment and communications at a single incident scene. [2] Federal, state and local authorities should take advantage of free training to ensure they have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities for successful emergency management and incident response. This can vary from the investigation of a traffic crash to managing a large scale hurricane event, such as Hurricane Harvey which impacted Texas in 2017. FEMA has made NIMS and ICS training available on the FEMA website. The Federal Highway Administration has significant information available regarding NIMS and ICS concepts and how they apply to managing traffic incidents. Law enforcement leaders are encouraged to review this information and be sure that their first responder community have been trained on these concepts. [3] Additionally, the Respond erSafety. corn Learning Network provides numerous training programs including "Traffic Incident Management: Incident Command & Management" which delve into ICS concepts as they relate to a highway incident. [4] Law Enforcement Application NIMS and ICS is readily adaptable to law enforcement and other emergency response disciplines. Since the 198O's, law enforcement agencies have adopted the principles and continue expand the training and daily use application of NIMS and ICS in managing police emergencies. The effectiveness of ICS training increases when an integrated approach involves regional law enforcement agencies and representatives of other emergency disciplines. This enhances closer working relationships and on -scene coordination and cooperation. Whereas perhaps in the past, training occurred more in a vacuum and was limited to law enforcement or the fire service only, now, through new partnerships, police, fire and EMS are able to train together. Enhanced communications and understanding of how ICS can work for all first responders is a key take -away of this training which can then be applied in the field. Interagency relations have been improved; and the concept of teamwork, vital to the management of complex incidents, has been established and reinforced. Response to the natural and technological disasters, civil disturbances, security and crowd control details, and the entire gamut of law enforcement activities can be managed through ICS implementation and use. ICS is a widely accepted tool among law enforcement agencies because it is logical and easy to implement yet still compatible with ICS utilized by fire and other primary emergency response disciplines. It has been accepted and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 107 endorsed by the IACP's Highway Safety Committee as the efforts to detect vehicle equipment violations are one step in preferred method of handling major highway emergencies. helping to identify and remove unsafe vehicles from the road. Notes: 1. "National Incident Management System," FEMA, accessed September 1, 2017, https://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system 2. "Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation Professionals;' U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, accessed September 1, 2017, https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/ publications/ics_guide/ 3. Ibid. 4. "Traffic Incident Management: Incident Command & Management," ResponderSafety.com, accessed September 1, 2017, http://learn ing. respondersafety.com/Training_Programs/Traffic_lncident_Management_Incident_ Command_Management.aspx Enforcement, Engineering, Education and Evaluation The basics of an effective traffic safety program has always involved the "three E's + Y—enforcement, engineering, and education, along with evaluation — working in conjunction for safer roads and drivers. Today, it is recognized that it involves the "four E's, plus OER"— enforcement, engineering, education, evaluation, and other emergency responders, all working together to reduce crashes and to mitigate and manage incidents, particularly at complex crash scenes. Public safety officials, state and local engineering departments, federal and state DOTs, traffic safety advocacy groups, community groups and local citizens can collaborate on initiatives to bring solutions to identified problems. Some crashes are caused by vehicle defects. Adopting mandated federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as safety belts, supplemental restraint systems and rollover and side impact protection, have reduced the number of injuries in traffic collisions. NHTSA is also working to promote new vehicle technologies that will further increase the potential to reduce the number of crashes. [1] NHTSA has maintained a robust vehicle safety program. The program includes the issuance of vehicle safety standards and requires manufacturers to recall vehicles and equipment that have safety -related defects. [2] You can learn more about this important NHTSA initiative on the NHTSA website. State motor vehicle safety inspection programs help to ensure that vehicles are maintained in safe operating condition and these programs identify potential vehicle failure on highways. Enforcement As has been mentioned in previous chapters of this Resource Guide, enforcement is also a key component to any traffic safety programs. Targeted traffic enforcement programs by law enforcement deter unsafe drivers by causing the suspension or revocation of driver's licenses for hazardous moving violations. In addition, enforcement Education Public information campaigns conducted by the NHTSA, the GHSA, state highway safety representatives, state and local law enforcement agencies and licensing authorities, and public traffic safety advocacy agencies, along with high school and commercial driver education programs, and driver improvement programs, help educate drivers with the traffic laws and instill in them proper driving attitudes. Engineering Engineering is an important consideration in any effort to enhance traffic safety. Design, construction, and maintenance of highways and traffic control devices can be instrumental in reducing collisions. Enforcement and engineering are encouraged to work in concert with one another to promote highway safety. Law enforcement officers on patrol are able to proactively help engineers in identifying potential hazards that can either be eliminated or mitigated. By reporting obscured or nonfunctioning traffic control devices and dangerous highway conditions and by providing feed- back from citizen complaints and the study of traffic congestion problems, officers can offer important input to traffic engineers. Engineers can work with officers by making highway improvements, such as changing speed zones; erecting new types of traffic control devices; and placing roadside objects, such as utility and sign poles and guard rails, so that out -of -control vehicles are slowed or stopped without causing injury to occupants. Engineers at state highway departments utilize data from traffic crash reports to assess and improve traffic safety problems. It is important that this collaboration between law enforcement and engineers continues so potential causal factors can be identified early and funding can be allocated for traffic safety projects. A good example of a cost-effective traffic safety improvement project was detailed in an article titled "Engineering Solutions to Enhance Traffic Safety Performance on Two - Lane Highways" [3] Evaluation The final E stands for evaluation. Every time you make a change or adopt a new or revised strategy, you should have in mind how you will measure the results. There are many ways to evaluate your results. Pre- and post -surveys of the attitudes of motorists or the public, pre- and post - traffic or speed surveys, pre- and post -crash statistics, comparisons of citations issued for specific periods, and interviews of officers involved in a project are but a few of the methods of evaluation that can be used. 108 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) One important organization that has played an integral role in promoting highway safety through a variety of efforts is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Representing the highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, AASHTO's primary goal is foster "the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national transportation system" [4] AASTO has a Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety that was developed in 1976 with representatives from state DOTs, NHTSA, GHSA, FHWA, AAMVA and others who are able to bring solutions to complex traffic safety and engineering -related issues. While not having a role in enforcement per se, AASHTO provides advocacy and research while raising awareness in education, engineering and evaluation efforts. On an annual basis through AASHTO's Safety Management Meeting, a Safety Leadership Award is awarded to a state "that has made significant improvements in safety by showing leadership in safety, strong safety partnerships and strategic planning, and innovation in safety." As an example, the 2016 Safety Leadership Award winners were the State of Minnesota and the State of Tennessee. Minnesota was recognized for developing new safety countermeasures and methods for moving toward zero, including alternative designs for intersections, warning strips in pavement and vendor contracts to install safety infrastructure treatments quickly." [5] AASHTO is an excellent resource for law enforcement leaders. With regular meetings and opportunities to share best practices at the national and regional levels, AASHTO continues to work with federal and state DOTs, engineering officials, representatives from state, county and local law enforcement agencies, traffic safety advocates and others to support national efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. Annual meetings and conferences held by organizations such as the IACP's Highway Safety Committee, NHTSA and AASHTO provide opportunities for law enforcement leaders to learn more about emerging best practices in the traffic safety discipline. Notes: 1. "Safety Technologies;' NHTSA, accessed September 1, 2017, https://www.nhtsa. gov/equipment/safety-technologies 2. "Safety Issues & Recalls;' NHTSA, accessed September 1, 2017, https://www.nhtsa. gov/recalls 3. "Engineering Solutions to Enhance Traffic Safety Performance on Two -Lane Highways;' Hindawi, accessed September 1, 2017, https://www.hindawi.com/ journals/m p e/2 015/762379/ 4. "AASHTO Overview;' AASHTO, accessed September 1, 2017, https://www. transportation.org/home/organization/ 5. "Committee on Safety," AASHTO, accessed September 1, 2017, https://safety. transportation.org/ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 109 CHAPTER 10: LEGAL ISSUES IN TRAFFIC SAFETY Legal Issues in Traffic Safety By: M. Kimberly Brown, National Traffic Law Center, National District Attorneys Association DISCLAIMER This Section is intended to provide a general overview of some of the legal cases related to traffic safety but is not intended to provide legal advice. A law enforcement officer needs to understand that many state courts renounce U.S. Constitutional law claiming that their particular state constitution provides greater protections to individuals than the Federal Constitution. The cases included represent the federal rules and usually the majority rule on these issues. Do not rely on these cases until you check with your state prosecutor and/or your state Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor. Additionally, a law enforcement officer must be familiarized with the applicable laws for his enforcement jurisdiction, strategies and tactics for detecting offenders, and the elements that must be established for a successful adjudication. Further, a law enforcement officer should be knowledgeable on the legal decisions and current trends in his own locality. Lastly, a law enforcement officer may find it helpful to review the legal section of his state DUI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test course in addition to this document. Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause The standard for a traffic stop requires objective justification, also known as reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) and is based on the totality of the circumstances. Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. An officer cannot pull a single driver from the stream of traffic without at least an articulable, reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). A court must consider the totality of the circumstances (e.g., the whole picture) in determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S 411 (1981). If a reasonable suspicion stop lasts too long, it turns into an arrest and an arrest requires probable cause. Florida v Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). The standard is satisfied by some minimal level of objective justification. The officer must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. The 4th Amendment requires some minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. That level is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. U.S. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989). For the purposes of determining whether an encounter between police and an individual constitutes a seizure for purposes of the Federal Constitution's 4th Amendment, where the encounter takes place is one factor, but it is not the only one. The "reasonable person" test --under which the appropriate inquiry, in determining whether an encounter between an individual and the police is consensual for the purposes of the 4th Amendment, is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter- -presupposes an innocent person. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors, quantity and quality, are considered in the totality of the circumstances, the whole picture, that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion. Alabama v. White, 496 US 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412 (1990). The process of making a reasonable suspicion determination allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that "might well elude an untrained person." United States v Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002). Traffic Stop - General Not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves "seizures" of persons within the meaning of the 4th Amendment; only where the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen is the inference that a "seizure" has occurred justifiable. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). A traffic stop is a seizure of the driver even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention is quite brief. See Delaware v Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). A driver is not "seized" simply because the police have chosen to follow his or her vehicle. In order to constitute a seizure under the 4th Amendment, there must be either the 110 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE application of physical force, however slight, or submission to an officer's show of authority to restrain a subject's liberty. While a pursuit may be a show of authority —if the defendant runs away —s/he has not submitted to the authority, and no seizure therefore has occurred. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991). NOTE: Some state courts, however, have expressly refused to adopt the holding of Hodari D. and, instead, rely on a totality of the circumstances standard in determining whether a person has been seized, e.g., State v. Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330 (2002). Whether or not a police officer normally stops vehicles for minor traffic violations and uses the evidence of such violations as a pretext to stop vehicles for some other purpose is immaterial, as long as articulable, reasonable suspicion of some sort of law violation is present. It is not necessary to probe into the officer's mind to further justify the stop. Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996). NOTE: Some state courts, however, under their state constitutions have rejected the Whren rule, e.g., State v. Ladson, 138 Wash. 2d. 343, 979 P2d. 833 (1999). Presence in a high crime area alone is not sufficient to justify a stop, but is one factor in the totality of the circumstances. Nervous, evasive behavior is also a pertinent factor in determining articulable, reasonable suspicion for a stop. Headlong flight on the approach of a police officer is "the consummate act of evasion" and not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but certainly suggestive of such. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Passenger in automobile stopped by police officer held to be seized within meaning of 41h Amendment and thus allowed to challenge constitutionality of the stop. The relevant question is whether a reasonable person in defendant's position after the car was stopped would have believed himself free to terminate the encounter between the police and himself Bredlin v California,127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007). Traffic Stop — Length/Duration If a reasonable suspicion stop lasts too long, it turns into an arrest and an arrest requires probable cause. Florida v Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). A routine traffic stop is a relatively brief encounter and is more analogous to a Terry stop than a formal arrest. A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. Illinois v Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop ... do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. Arizona v Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the United States Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police -observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation. Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. _, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015). Traffic Stop —Ordering Driver/Passengers Out of Vehicle An officer may order a driver out of the car as a matter of course. Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). An officer may order a passenger out of the car as a precautionary measure, without reasonable suspicion that the passenger poses a safety risk. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). If traffic stop is valid, police can order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle. Officer can pat down driver and/or passengers if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver and/or passenger might be armed and dangerous. Can only pat down those individuals whom the officer believes to be armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009). Traffic Stop —Questions at Traffic Stop (Miranda?) Roadside questioning of motorist detained pursuant to routine traffic stop did not constitute "custodial interrogation" for purposes of Miranda rule, so that pre - arrest statements motorist made in answering such questioning were admissible against motorist. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). NOTE: In other words, as part of a traffic stop, an officer may engage in a limited amount general, on -the -scene questioning without giving the Miranda warnings, if the subject is not yet in custody. For instance, a DUI suspect could be asked what drugs he had been taking and how much alcohol he had consumed prior to driving and prior to being arrested. NOTE: Where a DUI driver is transported to the police station and held, he is in custody for purposes of Miranda. Questioning in custody requires Miranda warnings in misdemeanor cases. Berkemer v McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). Before custodial interrogation, defendant must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can be used against him, and he must be told he has the right to a lawyer; he may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE ill Traffic Stop Arrest If a reasonable suspicion stop lasts too long, it turns into an arrest and an arrest requires probable cause. Florida v Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). The 411 Amendment does not prohibit a warrantless arrest for a minor motor vehicle offense, such as a safety belt violation, as long as the arresting officer had probable cause for the arrest. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). Traffic Stop Anonymous Tip / Citizen Informant Informant's tip may carry "sufficient indicia of reliability" to justify an investigative stop, even though it may be insufficient to support an arrest or search warrant. For purposes of determining the validity of an investigatory stop of a person's automobile based on an anonymous caller's tip that the person is engaged in criminal activity, it is not unreasonable to conclude that (1) the independent corroboration by the police of significant aspects of the caller's predictions about some facts imparts some degree of reliability to the other allegations made by the caller, including the claim that the person is engaged in criminal activity, (2) if the anonymous tip contains a range of details relating not just to easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip, but also to future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted, someone with access to such information is likely also to have access to reliable information about the person's illegal activities, and (3) where significant aspects of the caller's predictions are verified, the caller is honest and at least well enough informed to justify the stop. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) In the context of information supporting an investigatory stop, the citizen -informant category of cases is treated quite differently than those involving anonymous tips. Information from ordinary citizens who have personally observed what appears to be criminal conduct carries with it an indicia of reliability and is presumed to be reliable. State v. Ramsey, 129 Ohio App. 3d 409,717 N.E. 2d 1158 (1998). While acknowledging that an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates an informant's basis of knowledge or veracity, under appropriate circumstances, an anonymous tip can demonstrate sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. Navarette v California, 572 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014). Traffic Stop—Pretextual Stop The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the 41h Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective. Detention of a motorist is reasonable where reasonable articulable suspicion exists that a traffic violation has occurred. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). The subjective intentions of individual police officers play no role in ordinary, probable cause 4th Amendment analysis. A traffic violation arrest will not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was a mere pretext for a narcotics search. Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769 (2001). Traffic Stop —Flight under Suspicious Circumstances The defendant's flight from officers in area of heavy narcotics trafficking supported reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal activity and justified stop. The individual's presence in area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime, but officers are not required to ignore relevant characteristics of location in determining whether circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000). Traffic Stop —Hit and Run Requiring a driver involved in a collision to stop at the scene and provide name and address does not violate the driver's constitutional rights. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971). Traffic Stop —Parking The government may create parking districts and prohibit non- residents from parking on public streets in such areas. It does not violate equal protection of the law, since classifying parkers into residents and nonresidents is a reasonable classification. County Board of Arlington County v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977). Traffic Stop —Roadblocks /Sobriety Check Points As long as law enforcement officers conduct a non - discretionary roadblock, it does not violate the 4th Amendment. How many impaired drivers are arrested is not relevant. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). NOTE: Some state supreme courts, however, have ruled otherwise under their state constitutions, see State v. Koppel and Forrest, 127 N.H. 286, 499 A2d. 977 (1985). A checkpoint whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (e.g., to interdict illegal drugs) was rejected by Supreme Court because it lacked individualized suspicion and because its primary purpose was ultimately indistinguishable from the general 112 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE interest in crime control. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). NOTE: The Court specifically differentiated such roadblocks from sobriety checkpoints, also indicated that its holding "does not affect the validity of ... searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute[;] ..." and noted that it would in all likelihood sustain "an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route...." In judging reasonableness of a brief, information -seeking stop (checkpoint), the Court looks to the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004). NOTE: In Lidster, the reasonableness of a brief, information -seeking stop [checkpoint] was upheld where vehicle occupants, as members of the public, were asked for their assistance in providing information about a fatal hit-and-run crash which had occurred a week earlier at the same location and time of night and which in all likelihood had been committed by others. Vehicle Searches —Incident to Arrest Incident to and contemporaneous with a valid arrest, officers may search the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle, including any closed container(s) therein to discover instruments of a crime, contraband, evidence of a crime, or dangerous weapons. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Search incident to an arrest exception does not apply to an offense for which a person would normally be only issued a traffic citation, even if the officer may have probable cause to make the arrest. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998). In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). Search Incident to Arrest only authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). Officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting a search of data on cell phones. The United States Supreme Court's holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest. The United States Supreme Court's answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014). Vehicle Searches —Exigency A police officer can search a motor vehicle and any container therein capable of carrying the object of the search without a warrant, if the officer has probable cause to believe that it is carrying contraband. This is based on the inherent mobility of a vehicle that can allow it to quickly travel outside the jurisdiction of the officers. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The Carroll automobile exception does not require a separate finding of exigency in addition to a finding of probable cause; in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle, a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify issuing a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U. S. 465 (1999). NOTE: This may hold true even if the owner of the vehicle is in police custody at the time of the search; it is noteworthy, however, that the search in this case involved only an examination of the exterior of arrestee's vehicle. Cardwell, Warden v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974). NOTE: It does not matter if a container belongs to the driver or a passenger, as long as it is capable of containing the object of the search. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999). NOTE: Some states interpret their state constitutions to require probable cause and also exigent circumstances or another exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Sterndale, 139 N.H. 445 (1995). Vehicle Searches —Inventory When officers tow or otherwise take a vehicle into custody, if the police department has a policy requiring it, they may make a complete inventory of the contents of the vehicle in order to protect the owner's property and protect the police from accusations of theft. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976). The search may include any open or closed containers in the vehicle, if the department's policy specifically calls for this action. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 113 Vehicle Searches —Consent Searches Consent for a search is valid only if it is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given. Officers are not required to inform the person that he has the right to refuse consent. Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). When deciding whether consent was voluntary or not, courts will consider three factors —the proximity in time between any illegal police conduct and the consent to search, the presence of any intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of any official misconduct. Brown v Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975). Police officers are permitted to ask a person in custody or control of a motor vehicle for consent to search the vehicle and the individual's person; if the person is illegally detained, however, when he consents to the search, the consent is tainted by the illegality and is ineffective to justify the search. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). NOTE: Articulable, reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing is not required in most jurisdictions in order to ask a person for consent to search, but New Jersey follows a more stringent rule under its state constitution, State v. Carty, 322 NJ Super 200, 753 A2d. 149 (2000). NOTE: A growing body of state case law favors written waivers that contain a notice of the right of refusal. Some states have ruled that if a police officer is still holding the person's license and registration when asking for consent to search, the consent will be invalid unless the person was told of his right to refuse, State v Hight, 146 N.H. 746, 781 A2d. 11 (2001). Computer Checks of Registration Plate Numbers The supreme courts in some states have held that random computer checks of passing vehicle's license plate numbers are not searches under the 41h Amendment or the state constitution. If check reveals the registered owner has a suspended license that provides reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. State v. Richter, 145 N.H. 640, 765 A.2d. 687 (2000). Community Caretaking Whether a search and seizure is unreasonable within the meaning of the 41h Amendment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is permissible to search a vehicle pursuant to the police community caretaking functions, those that are totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. Cady v Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). NOTE: In Dombrowski, police removed defendant's car to a tow yard following a crash and defendant's DUI arrest. Defendant was a police officer in another jurisdiction; arresting police searched defendant's vehicle for his department -issued weapon to protect public safety to prevent the weapon from falling into untrained or malicious hands (e.g., community care taking). Search found to be reasonable. Some states recognize a "community caretaking exception" to the requirement of articulable, reasonable suspicion to justify a motor vehicle stop. Seizure of property by the police is justified by the community caretaking exception when it constitutes no more than a routine and good faith attempt, in the exercise of reasonable caution, to safeguard the defendant's own property. State v. Psomiades, 139 N.H. 480 (1995). NOTE: Police officer's actions in removing valuables without a warrant from a car left by the side of the road at 3 a.m. constituted a legitimate caretaking function, and therefore did not violate the New Hampshire Constitution. Driver's License A driver's license is an "important interest" and cannot be taken away or denied without affording the person due process of law. Bell v Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971). Licensing authority may summarily suspend or revoke a license based on official records and prior to a preliminary hearing. Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105 (1977). Under implied consent, summary suspension of license based on refusal to submit to breath test upon DUI arrest is permissible; compelling interest in highway safety justifies summary suspension effective pending the outcome of the prompt post -suspension hearing available. Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979). An officer's affidavit for refusal under implied consent does not have to recite the reasonable grounds the officer had that the driver was DWI. Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 U.S. 1112 (1983). NOTE: Some jurisdictions have ruled that Administrative License Suspension hearings are non -criminal in nature, that the Exclusionary Rule does not apply to them, and that the issue of probable cause to stop the vehicle therefore is not to be considered in such hearings. Lopez v Director of Motor Vehicles, 145 N.H. 222, 761 A2d. 448 (2000). Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) It is not required to give the Miranda warnings to a motorist before asking him if he will submit to a chemical test or to a physical balance and coordination test, because you are not asking him to make incriminating statements. South Dakota v Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983). 114 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Need not provide Miranda prior to SFSTs. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). Miranda affords protection against self-incrimination to persons under custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court distinguishes between testimonial and real or physical evidence when invoking the privilege. SFST constitute real or physical evidence; whereas requiring defendant to respond to specific questions is testimonial. A defendant's statements during administration / performance of SFST may not be testimonial and may, therefore, be admissible. In order to be testimonial, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a witness against himself. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990). NOTE: In Muniz, responses made by defendant while officers conducted field sobriety tests were admissible, but after defendant received direct questions that could have been construed as custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings should have been given. Implied Consent and Refusal Where a driver refused a chemical test, this refusal could be admitted into evidence at the trial, and it did not violate his constitutional rights. South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983); Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. _, 733 S. Ct. 7552 (2073). Some jurisdictions have found no due process violation even when a police officer fails to provide to a suspect notice of the consequences of his refusal. Kanikaynar v. Sisneros, 190 F.3d 1115 (loth Cir. 1999). All 50 States have adopted implied consent laws that require motorists, as a condition of operating a motor vehicle within the State, to consent to BAC testing if they are arrested or otherwise detained on suspicion of a drunk -driving offense. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). NOTE: But some states' implied consent laws provide for NO testing if driver refuses (even if SW obtained), see State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825, 740 P. 2d 611 (1987) citing State v Brunner, 211 Kan. 596, 507 P. 2d 233 (1973)). NOTE: Some states have determined that in order for consent to be valid, a driver must have the ability to ultimately refuse when requested to submit to a chemical test. In other words, without the ability to refuse, some states have deemed such consent to be coerced and disallowed the use at trial of subsequent test results. See State v. Won, 136 Haw. 292, 361 P.3d 1195 (2015) and State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (2016). A refusal to submit to a blood test cannot be criminalized; a refusal to submit to breath can be a separate crime. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). NOTE: Some jurisdictions may equate breath test limited intrusion to urine or oral fluid tests. NOTE: Some jurisdictions may charge a refusal offense (or equivalent) if a defendant refuses to submit to a blood test after a search warrant has been obtained. Chemical Testing —Warrantless Searches The natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood does not create a categorical per se exigency that justifies a warrantless search. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). A breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest. Birchfield v North Dakota, 579 U.S. _, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). Chemical Testing —Right to Attorney Prior to Test Courts are split as to whether the taking of a sample of a defendant's blood, breath or urine, even under implied consent, is a "critical stage of a criminal proceeding" at which a 61h Amendment right to counsel is applicable. See Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702, 481 A. 2d 192 (1984) and Heles v. South Dakota, 530 F. Supp. 646 (SD), vacated as moot, 682 F. 2d 201 (CA8 1982). Some courts have found a right to counsel based on state law, e.g., State v. Fitzsimmons, 94 Wash. 2d 858, 620 P. 2d 999 (1980), or on general due process guarantees, see, e.g., State v. Newton, 291 Ore. 788, 636 R 2d 393 (1981) (en banc plurality). Chemical Testing —Saving Breath Sample for Defendant The due process clause of the 14th Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce the results of breath -analysis tests at trial. California v Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984). NOTE: State courts and legislatures, of course, remain free to adopt more rigorous safeguards governing the admissibility of scientific evidence than those imposed by the Federal Constitution. See e. g., Lauderdale v. State, 548 P. 2d 376 (Alaska 1976); City of Lodi v. Hine, 107 Wis. 2d 118,318 N. W. 2d 383 (1982). The U.S. Constitution does not require the prosecution to preserve a breath sample so that a defendant can have it analyzed at a later time. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984). NOTE: In some states, such as New Hampshire, the State Supreme Court has ruled that under the State Constitution, a second sample is required. State v. Cornelius, 122 N.H. 925, 452 A.2d. 464 (1982). INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 115 APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESOURCES Cover Images Credits: Photo Credit #1: Takepart website. This May Be a New Model for Community Policing http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/Styles/large/ public/Camden.jpg (Photo: Andrew Burton/Getty Images). Website: December 23, 2016. Photo Credit #2: Police Officer Holds Baby: https:// stock.adobe.com/nl/search?filters/o5Bcontent_ type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_ type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_ type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_ type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_ type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_ type%3A3d%5D=1&safe_search=l&ca=0&similia_ ir1=144A1GF5 Website: December 23, 2016. Photo Credits: #3 https://unsplash.com/@_th4d_ Thaddaeus Lim; From Unsplash Website. December 23, 2016. Photo Credit: #4 Delaware State Police. Seifert, Personal collection. December 23, 2016. u =. a 419W&L This Bibliography of Resources serves as supplementary information providing current resources available to assist law enforcement officers with further research and additional information. This part of the Resource Guide includes contemporary information available to assist leaders in their efforts to address five main themes of traffic safety. These five themes are divided into four sections: 1. Section One: Reduction of Traffic Crashes 2. Section Two: Officer Safety 3. Section Three: Commercial Vehicles and Transportation of Hazardous Materials 4. Section Four: Emerging and Critical Issues The bibliography encompasses books, academic journals, downloadable archived research materials, websites, webinars, podcasts, magazine articles and more. After reviewing these resources, you are encouraged to look at the bibliography for each item as this will provide additional helpful research materials. The resources serve to point the reader to promising practices, strategies, research, and lessons learned for enhancing traffic safety. 116 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SECTION ONE: REDUCING TRAFFIC CRASHES WW2013 Distracted Driving. Survey of I. the States (Governors Highway Safety DRIVINGAssociation, 2013) Website Link: http://www.ghsa.org/ resources/2013distracted Abstract: The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) provides this website and a downloadable publication which outlines efforts to combat distracted driving. Highlights of the report include the latest information on laws and law enforcement, public education efforts, partnerships with other organizations and data. A New Tool to Assess the Costs • x' _""` and Effectiveness of Traffic Crash J _■ Interventions (Liisa Ecola and Jeanne S. Ringel, 2016) Website Link: http://www.rand. org/b l og/2016/04/a-new-too I-to- assess-the-costs-and-effectiveness-of.html#reductions3 Abstract: This April 2016 blog post from the Rand Corporation provides details about an online tool called Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS) that generates state -specific cost- effectiveness estimates for traffic crash interventions. MV PICCS allows users to compare 14 interventions on cost and effectiveness. The tool is available for free at www.cdc. gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator. Aggressive Driving Enforcement: AggP... :— Evaluation of Two Demonstration � e E.fR Enforcement Programs (Jack Stuster, 2004) Website Link: https://www.nhtsa. p gov/document/aggressive-driving- enforcement Compendium of Traffic Safety Research Projects 1985-2013 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014) Website Link: http://www.nhtsa.gov/stat- icfiles/nti/pdf/CompendiumTrafficSafe- tyResearchProjectsl985-2013.pdf Abstract: The Compendium is a NHTSA summary of research on alcohol -involved driving, drug -involved driving, occupant protection (e.g., seatbelts, and child safety seats), speed and other unsafe driving behaviors, motorcyclist safety, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, older driver safety, novice and young driver safety, fatigue and distraction, and emergency medical services. Costs and Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Motor Vehicle -Related Injuries and Deaths. Project Report and Online - Tool Documentation (Jeanne S. Ringel, Johanna Zmud, Liisa Ecola, Christina Pavis and Gregory S. Jones, 2015) ■ Website Link: http://www.rand.org/pubs/ tools/TL144zl.html Abstract: This report from the Rand Corporation documents the approach, data, and assumptions used to produce an online tool that allows state decision makers to assess the costs and effectiveness of implementing up to 14 interventions and to select those most effective in reducing deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes for a given implementation budget. It also provides examples of how costs and benefits were identified for certain interventions, as well as instructions about using the tool in various modes of analysis. The tool was developed for and is hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Abstract: This report presents the results Countermeasure Strategies of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving. The programs were conducted by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership (a consortium of agencies in the vicinity of Indianapolis, Indiana), and The Tucson, Arizona, Police Department. Study results suggest that limited resources might be better spent on officer labor than on publicity, and that focusing enforcement responsibility on a small team assigned full-time to the special enforcement patrols might be more effective than sharing the responsibility among a large number of officers as occasional overtime duty. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Information Center, 2015) for Pedestrian Safety. (Federal =u ^ m•C5e ^„ro...= Highway Administration and --- _ the Pedestrian and Bicycle Website Link: http:// _.. www.pedbikeinfo.org/ training/webinars_PSAP_ countermeasurestrategies.cfm Abstract: The Federal Highway Administration and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center developed this webinar series. The webinars provide participants with an in-depth exploration of some of the countermeasures and 117 design strategies that can be implemented to improve pedestrian safety. Each of the 12 sessions feature detailed information about countermeasures and design strategies, supporting research and guidance, as well as case studies highlighting examples of implementation from around the United States. Countermeasures that Work. A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices Eighth Edition, 2015. (Arthur Godwin, Libby Thomas, Bevan Kirley, William Hall, Natalie O'Brien and Kate Hill, 2015) Website Link: www.nhtsa.gov/ staticfi les/nti/pdf/812202- CountermeasuresThatWork8th.pdf Abstract: This guide is a basic reference to assist State Highway Safety Officers in selecting effective, science - based traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. Eyes on the Road. Searching for Answers to the Problem of Distracted Driving (Sarah Karush, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2014) Website Link: https://www.iihs.org/ news/detai I/search ing-for-answers-to- the-problem-of-distracted-driving Abstract: This resource from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety details research by the Institute and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI). The Institute found drivers' near -crash and crash risk changes as their cellphone usage patterns change and how cellphone use fits in with other driver behavior and affects attention to the road. The research confirms that frequent cellphone users have more near misses or crashes. Florida's Pedestrian & Bicycle Focused Initiative (State of Florida, 2016) Website Link: http://www. alerttodayflorida.com/ Abstract: In 2011, Florida's Department of Transportation developed a very successful Bicycle/Pedestrian Focused Initiative working towards the goal of increasing awareness and decreasing fatalities of bicyclists and pedestrians. This website has information on significant accomplishments, the outreach and media campaign, education, engineering and enforcement as well as a compendium of resources and research related to pedestrian and bicycle safety information. Graduated Driver Licensing Research Review (AAA Foundation --�.-a- !� -- for Traffic Safety, 2012) Website Link: https:// aaafoundation.org/graduated- driver-licensing-research-review- 2010-present/ Abstract: This research from the AAA foundation is the latest in a series of reviews of research on graduated driver licensing (GDL) published in the Journal of Safety Research. The intent is to keep researchers and policy makers current regarding the existing state of knowledge about GDL, and to identify information gaps and areas where clarification of research findings is needed. High -Visibility Education and Enforcement (HVEE) Pilot Project �� hE. - •��-^ +�EoP a (Brad Wentlandt, 2016) Website Link: http://www. policechiefmagazine.org/ high-visibility-education- and-enforcement-hvee-pi lot- project/#sthash.dY6w0hlv.dpuf Abstract: This resource details the high -visibility education and enforcement project. Four U.S. states participated in the IACP-led effort with programs addressing specific local safety concerns. The HVEE approach offers an evidence - based, data -driven problem -solving approach by using proactive public education campaigns to raise awareness of the identified safety issue, followed by targeted enforcement involving multiple law enforcement agencies. --- Impact of the Legalization and -Fmt Decriminalization of Marijuana on C"tl" owl"" the DWI System; Highlights from the Expert Panel Meeting (NHTSA FRIA and Governor's Highway Safety Association, 2017) .,yivt i•:rn Website Link: http://bit.ly/ ncrep062617#sthash.EFgskPlh.dpuf Abstract: The legalization of marijuana for medicinal or recreational use at the state level has the potential to have downstream effects on the entire impaired driving system. In its first completed research project, the National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program (NCREP) convened a group of national experts, representing states that had enacted such laws, to discuss these consequences and identify issues for consideration by other states that may be considering the adoption of these laws. Impact of the Legalization and Decriminalization of Marijuana on the DWI System is the culmination of these deliberations. It outlines key factors for consideration in seven topic areas: law enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, forensics, data, State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) and public outreach. 118 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Implementing DDACTS in Baltimore i County. Using Geographic Incident _ — Patterns to Deploy Enforcement (Howard Hall and Emily N. Puls, 2010) Abstract: In 2008, the Baltimore County Police Department began implementation of Phase I of its - DDACTS (Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety) initiative. This article examines in detail how and why the Baltimore County Police Department chose to incorporate and implement the DDACTS model as part of its overall data -driven policing strategy. Results from the evaluation of Baltimore County's use of DDACTS are encouraging and show that DDACTS can be used to efficiently and effectively deploy scarce police resources. Increasing Impaired -Driving Enforcement Visibility., Six Case _-_ Studies (James Fell. A. Scott McKnight _ and Amy Auld -Owens, 2013) siYtl. Website Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811716.pdf Abstract: This report presents six case studies of "high - visibility enforcement" (HVE) which are law enforcement efforts aimed at deterring unsafe driving behavior by increasing the public's perception of being caught, arrested, and prosecuted. The report is intended to provide information on impaired driving HVE programs for regional, State and local agencies considering incorporating HVE strategies into their efforts to curb impaired driving or to modify existing HVE programs. Law Enforcement Executive's Guide to High Visibility Enforcement (Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, 2016) Website Link: http://www.nleip.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LE_ Exec Guide.pdf Abstract: The Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, Maryland Sheriff's Association, and the Maryland Highway Safety Office recently collaborated on the publication of the "Law Enforcement Executive's Guide to High Visibility Enforcement," which can be found here: http://www.nielp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/LE_ Exec_Guide.pdf Marijuana, Other Drugs, and Alcohol u.-r„a� J*04,.°°`'..; Use by Drivers in Washington State (Anthony Ramirez, Amy Berning, Katherine Carr, Michael Scherer, _ John H. Lacey, Tara Kelley -Baker, and Deborah A. Fisher, 2016) o� Website Link: https://www.nhtsa. gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812299- WashingtonStatedrugstudy.pdf Abstract: In Washington State legal sales of marijuana began July 8, 2014. A voluntary, anonymous roadside study was conducted to assess the prevalence of drivers testing positive for alcohol and other drugs, including marijuana, on Washington's roads. Data was collected in three waves, before implementation of legal sales, about 6 months after implementation, and 1 year after implementation. This research provides important information on the impact of data on marijuana use by drivers. •:::-^� a Older Drivers Safety Program (Georgia Department of Public ® ... :.., ,. Health, 2017) Website Link: https://dph. — " - georgia.gov/ODS Abstract: Funded by the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety, this website provides information for law enforcement regarding several initiatives to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities experienced by older drivers. II Pedestrians and bicyclists (The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2017) Website Link: http://www.iihs. org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians- and-bicyclists/qanda and-bicyclists/qanda Abstract: This resource from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety provides important information on fatality facts, public presentations, research and policy related information regarding pedestrians and bicyclists. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 119 ftkelnidGE15310MOM me Police Training to Spot Marijuana Use (Oriana Durand, 2017) -_ Website Link: http://www. telegram.com/news/20170101/ police -training -to -spot- - =- _ marijuana -use Abstract: This January 2017 article which was published in the Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, Massachusetts) described the challenges faced by law enforcement with the detection of impaired drivers. The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program was described and police officers detailed how it can be used to help determine if a motorist was under the influence of drugs. �s Progress in Teenage Crash Risk During the Last Decade. (Susan Safety A. Ferguson; Eric R. Teoh; Anne T Research —Ad McCartt, 2007) Journal of Safety Research, v38 n2 Website Link: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/ jou rna 1/00224375/38/2 Abstract: This research examined the most recent data on teenagers' fatal and nonfatal crashes in the United States to determine current crash rates as well as changes in crash rates during the past decade for calendar years 1996 and 2005 were extracted for fatal crashes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and for police -reported crashes. Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of wig Drug -impaired Driving and - W- _--- -. Motor Vehicle Fatalities (Barry K. p Logan, et al, 2013) Website Link: https://academic. oup-com/jat/article-lookup/ -•---_--- doi/10.1093/jat/bkt059 Abstract: This research is presented in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology. The report describes the review and update of a set of minimum recommendations for the toxicological investigation of suspected alcohol and drug -impaired driving cases and motor vehicle fatalities involving drugs or alcohol. The recommendations have the goal of ensuring that a consistent set of data regarding the most frequently encountered drugs linked to driving impairment is collected for practical application in the investigation of these cases and to allow epidemiological monitoring and the development of evidence -based public policy on this important public safety issue. Seatbelt Use in 2016 - Overall -"' Smart Policing and Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic . ' Safety (DDACTS) Webinar. (Chief Howard Hall and Chip Coldren, et al, 2014) Website Link: http://www. strategiesforpolicinginnovation. com/tta/webinars/spi-data- driven-approaches-cri me -and -traffic -safety �- - Results ((National Highway Traffic ��'��-�_�•= v= =�� =` Safety Administration, 2016) �_' —� �-� •`'�'�--"�- Website Link: https://crashstats. nhtsa.dot.gov/#/ Abstract: This NHTSA Traffic Safety I- Facts bulletin reports on seatbelt use ____•_____ -_._• �:__ _ in the United States where use has reached its highest level since the federal government began regular surveys in 1994. Abstract: The Smart Policing Initiative hosted a webinar on Data -Driven Approaches to Traffic and Crime Safety (DDACTS). This was an online, interactive seminar aimed at engaging the SPI community in a focused discussion around recent evidence regarding the effectiveness of DDACTS, how DDACTS reflects Smart Policing Principles, and DDACTS information resources available to police agencies. Four police agencies also discussed their experiences with DDACTS, including Roanoke County (VA), Metro Nashville (TN), Mesa (AZ), and Shawnee (KS). State of Know/edge of Alcohol - Impaired Driving: Research on sau of Knw.dcdgr of Repeat DWI Offenders (John H. Alcohol -I DFIVIIRg Lacey and Ralph K. Jones, 2000) Research an Repeat DWI off Offenders Website Link: https://one.nhtsa. gov/people/injury/research/pub/ Alcohol-ImpairedDriving.html Abstract: This study reviews the scientific literature since 1990 relating to drivers who have been convicted more than once of driving while impaired by alcohol (DWI). It covers the role of such drivers in alcohol -related crashes, their characteristics, and the nature and effectiveness of countermeasures designed to reduce their alcohol -crash involvement. The review was performed as part of a larger review of the state of knowledge of alcohol -impaired driving at the millennium. 120 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Strategies to Increase Seatbelt Use: An Analysis of Levels of Fines 9hof.p W ,0 1ncr.ow S.ol B.N llw: An Arwfyah of L-4, of Fln and the Type of Law (James L. And Ih. 1yp..1 Law Nichols, A. Scott Tippetts, James C. Fell, Amy Auld -Owens, Connie H. Wiliszowski, Philip W. Haseltine, and Angela Eichelberger, 2070) Website Link: www.nhtsa.gov/ staticfiles/nti/occupant_protection/ pdf/811413.pdf Abstract: The main objectives of this study were to determine the relationships between seatbelt use in the States and (1) the type of seatbelt law enforcement (primary versus secondary), and (2) seatbelt fine levels. The study examined law type and levels of fines as predictors of seatbelt use for two time periods (1997 to 2002 and 2003 to 2008) using panel regression analyses. Two outcome measures were examined: seatbelt use among front -seat occupants over age 8 killed in passenger vehicle crashes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the observed statewide seatbelt use of front -seat occupants in passenger vehicles. Teenagers: Driving Carries Extra Risk for Them (The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2016) Website Link: http://www.iihs. org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/ hldi-research Abstract: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute maintains this website with links to state laws; fatality facts; public presentations; regulatory and legislative policy; HLDI research and Q & A's. The Roadway Safety Guide: A Primer for Community Leaders (Roadway Safety Foundation, 2014) Website Link: https://www. roadwaysafety.org/programs/ roadway -safety -guide Abstract: The Roadway Safety Foundation is a non-profit educational organization charted in 1995 by the American Highway Users Alliance working with private and public sector safety partners to reduce fatalities attributed to roadway conditions. The Roadway Safety Guide is designed to provide community leaders and elected officials with basic information to improve roadway safety in their communities. Traffic Safety Initiatives: Motorcycle Safety (Samuel -- Capogrossi, 2017) Website Link: https://www. Y�__ •__._ policechiefmagazine.org/traffic- safety-i n itiatives-motorcyc I e- safety/ Abstract: This 2017 article from the Police Chief magazine highlights key statistics related to motorcyclists on U.S. roadways. It summarizes ongoing research findings of NHTSA, GHSA, FHWA and best practices to improve motorcycle safety. The article reports that some of the key findings are the need to ensure motorcycle riders are properly trained and licensed; the need to remove alcohol - impaired operators from the roads; the need to increase other motorists' awareness of motorcyclists by increasing visibility and the need to educate motorcyclists on the importance of wearing approved helmets and clothing. Traffic Crash Investigation (J. Stannard Baker and Lynn B. Fricke, 2014) Website Link: https://sps. northwestern.edu/center-for- public-safety/shop/product. asp?intProdlD=431 Abstract: Traffic Crash Investigation, 77th Edition is a comprehensive collection of the most important techniques and definitions essential for developing an accurate picture of motor vehicle crashes. Crash investigators who practice these techniques provide information that ultimately saves lives and reduces monetary losses. Considered the definitive standard by attorneys, prosecutors and judges, law enforcement officers, engineers and other safety groups, the 11t1edition is a major update of the text. Traffic Safety Innovations: How hAfir Safe[v inriwa[ionsIwnisanrw-i Ilse the swEnforcemen[Chancn¢em2ervMmTrafRc Agencies Use the National Law Saletr�rs.w Enforcement Challenge to Zero In s on Traffic Safety issues (Bethany Peterson and Matt Alderton, 2016) Website Link: http://www. policechiefmagazine.org/traffic- safety-innovations-how-agencies- use-the-national-law-enforcement-challenge-to-zero-in- on-traffic-safety-issues/ Abstract: This resource provides a summary of the National Law Enforcement Challenge a traffic safety recognition program aimed at the issues of impaired driving, occupant protection, and speeding. The article describes law INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 121 enforcement programs which serve as a collection of success stories and recommendations from agencies that have implemented best practices to address a traffic safety problem specific to their community or in support of the state's highway safety strategic plan. Traffic safety initiatives in nine police departments were described. Traveling the Three Lanes on the Road to Zero (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016) Website Link: https://www.nhtsa. gov/press-releases/traveling-three- lanes-road-zero lanes -road -zero Abstract: This resource briefly introduces the new strategic plan of NHTSA. NHTSA has adopted "three lanes to zero to help deliver a future free of motor vehicle fatalities: Proactive Vehicle Safety; Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies and addressing Human Factors like drunk, drugged, distracted and drowsy driving. Using Cost -Effectiveness Analysis to Prioritize Spending on Traffic Safety (Liisa Ecola, Benjamin Saul Batorsky and Jeanne S. Ringel, 2015) Website Link: http://www.rand.org/pubs/ tools/TL144zl.html ■ Abstract: This report examines how traffic safety funding could be spent to reduce motor vehicle crash -related injuries and deaths. Specifically, it assesses three issues: the most cost-effective interventions at the national and state levels, whether to allocate incremental funding increases to all states or spend the funds in targeted states, and how best to allocate funds that target drunk driving. 122 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SECTION TWO: OFFICER SAFETY IACP Officer Safety and Wellness Website Website Link: http://www.theiacp. org/COSW Abstract: Comprehensive website hosted by the IACP which offers tools, model policies, reports and publications, and articles and blog posts related to officer safety and wellness. Is Today Your Day? (IACP and the New York State Police, 2010) Website Link: https://youtu.be/ Lv_viNAylgc Abstract: This YouTube video was produced by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the IACP. It is a twenty-two minute video promoting officer safety to reduce police officer deaths and injuries. It is suitable for roll call training Law Enforcement Officer - -� - Safety and Wellness (Elizabeth w A. Mumford, Bruce G. Taylor v� and Bruce Kubu, 2014) Website Link: https://journals. sagepub.com/dol/abs/10.1177/ 1098611114559037?journal- Code=pqxa Abstract: Officers in law enforcement agencies (LEAS) experience long-term health morbidity and mortality at rates exceeding other occupations and the general population. The purpose of this study was to pilot a survey of officer safety and wellness to demonstrate feasibility, assess the need for further research, and lay the groundwork for policies and additional support for officer wellbeing. Law Enforcement Stops and Safety Subcommittee Staff Study (IACP and NHTSA, 2004) Website Link: http:// dnn9ciwm8.azurewebsites.net/ TrafficOfficerSafetySubcommittee Abstract: This 2004 Staff Study Keporr aocumenis ine worK to date of the IACP Law Enforcement Stops and Safety Subcommittee. It includes technology, practices, and research related to improving officer safety and preventing police vehicle crashes. Recommendations are included at the end of each section of the report as benchmarks against which to measure future successes to improve the safety of police vehicles, highway environment and design, and traffic stop practices. Officer Safety. Reducing injuries and Fatalities for the Law Enforcement Officer on the Front -- ---�u ----- -- Lines of Traffic Safety (Sheriff =- _--- _-- _- John Whetsel and Ed a - Hutchison, 2015) Podcast from the National Law Enforcement Liaison Program Website Link: http://www.nielp.org/podcast-sheriff-john- whetsel-and-ed-hutchison-on-officer-safety/ Abstract: During the GHSA 2015 Annual Meeting, the National Law Enforcement Liaison Program (NLELP) sat down with Sheriff John Whetsel, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and chair of the National Sheriffs Association Traffic Safety Committee, and Ed Hutchinson, Director of Traffic Safety for the National Sheriffs Association, to talk about ways to reduce injuries and fatalities for the law enforcement officers who are on the front lines of traffic safety. This podcast, as well as the NLELP website, offers information on officer safety concerns, best practices, case law, occupant protection, and multi -state and regional initiatives related to traffic safety. The influence of Officer .Y--- Positioning on Movement During a Threatening Traffic Stop Scenario (William J. Lewinski, PhD, Jennifer L. Dysterheft, Dawn A. Seefeldt, - - MA, Robert W. Pettitt, PhD, 2013) Website Link: https://www. forcescience.org/2013/03/the- mfluence-of-officer-positioning-on- movement-during-a-threatening-traffic-stop-scenario/ Abstract: This research study uses science to evaluate officer responses to deadly threats encountered during traffic stops. Topics covered in the study include passenger -side approaches; mitigation of hazards on traffic stops; officer position relative to the B-Pillar of a vehicle on tactical responses to a lethal threat and origination of threats from within the stopped vehicle. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 123 They Don't See You (IACP and Ohio State Highway Patrol, 2014) Website Link: http://dnn9ciwm8. azurewebsites.net/TrafficOfficer- SafetySubcommittee Abstract: This YouTube video was produced by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the IACP. It is a ten minute video highlighting officer safety considerations and is suitable for roll call training. Solutions for Safer Traffic Stops (Richard J. Ashton, 2004) Website Link: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ solutions -for -safer -traffic -stops/ ! Pnlice0iief -_ Abstract: This Police Chief magazine article reports on the findings and recommendations - to date of the International '""' Association of Chiefs of Police's Law Enforcement Stops and Safety Subcommittee (LESSS), which has been assigned the task of improving officer safety during traffic stops and other roadside contacts. 124 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SECTION THREE: COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Commercial Vehicle Enforcement. A Perspective from - the Ohio State Highway Patrol -w. (Colonel Paul A. Pride, 2015) _._._ ----- - - Website Link: https://www. T - theiacp.org/news/blog-post/ best-practices-and-lessons- learned-in-commercial-vehicle-enforcement-a- perspective-1 Abstract: This IACP Blog article details the efforts of the Ohio State Highway Patrol in addressing commercial vehicle enforcement safety. Colonel Paul Pride, Superintendent of the Highway Patrol, provides best practices around the Road Watch 100 campaign and lessons learned. Best Practices and Lessons Learned in Commercial Vehicle Enforcement. A Perspective from the Tennessee Highway Patrol (IACP, 2015) Website Link: https:// theiacpblog.org/2015/03/23/ best -practices -and -lessons - learned-in-commercial-vehicle-enforcement-a- perspective-from-the-tennessee-highway-patrol/ Abstract: The IACP recognized the Tennessee Highway Patrol with the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Award in 2005 and 2014. The Highway Patrol has been a leader in innovative commercial vehicle enforcement strategies. In this article, Colonel Tracy Trott, head of the Highway Patrol, provided best practices and lessons learned. Commercial Motor Vehicle �_- Awareness Training Guide rW..- _.. _ (Federal Motor Carrier Safety 0080 Administration, 2011) Website Link: https://www.fmcsa. --_ dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/ d o cs/C M V-Awareness -Training - Guide.pdf Abstract: The FMCSA provides this Training Guide to provide law enforcement officers with the safety and enforcement information for handling crashes and traffic enforcement involving commercial vehicles and buses. The Guide also provides information on the FMCSA training course available from officers from state, local and county law enforcement agencies. Fast Five Checklist for Large Truck and Bus Enforcement (FMCSA and IACP, undated) Website Link: http://dnn9ciwm8. azurewebsites.net/large-trucks- and-buses Abstract: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the IACP collaborated on this checklist to assist police officers when conducting enforcement on large trucks and buses. Large Truck and Bus Traffic Enforcement Training (FMCSA, 2016) - - —_- Website Link: https://www.fmcsa. '_- `-- dot.gov/national-training-center/ - - large -truck -and -bus -traffic - enforcement - Abstract: This FMCSA website ® provides information on the Large Truck and Bus Traffic Enforcement Training program. Developed by the National Training Center in collaboration with law enforcement, the training is designed to enhance officers' knowledge about the dangers of unsafe driving by large trucks and buses. The training is available free to all law enforcement agencies and officer, and formatted to be delivered either on line, as a one hour, instructor -led training or divided into short segments for delivery during roll -call. o1N Regular Traffic Enforcement Can Play a Crucial Role in Defining Commercial Vehicle Safety (Jack e-- - Van Steenburg, 2014) Website Link: https://www. policechiefmagazine.org/ regu lar-traffic-enforcement-can- play-a-crucial-role-in-defining- commercial-vehicle-safety/ Abstract: In this article, Jack Van Steenburg, Assistant Administrator and Chief Safety Officer, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, provides information on the importance of daily traffic enforcement by police officers. The importance of changing commercial vehicle driver behavior is linked to the reduction of crashes and saving lives. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 125 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2016) Website Link: http://nti.bts.gov/ lib/59000/59100/59189/2016_ Pocket _Guide _to_Large Truc and Bus_Statistics.pdf Abstract: The FMCSA Pocket Guide is a compilation of statistics from the overall state of the industry to enforcement activity. It also provides details on traffic violations and other incidents, the costs of crashes, and more. Saving Lives by Citing Truck and Bus Violations (Stephen A. Keppler, 2011) Website Link: https://www. policechiefmagazine.org/saving- lives-by-citing-truck-and-bus- violations/ Abstract: In this article, Stephen A. Keppler, Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, describes the importance of the importance of traffic enforcement. The article also advocates raising the level of awareness on performance and driving behavior of those driving commercial vehicles and buses. 126 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE SECTION FOUR: EMERGING AND CRITICAL ISSUES De -policing and Crime in the Wake -- of Ferguson: Racialized Changes in the Quantity and Quality of Policing Among Missouri Police Departments (John A. Shjarback, David C. Pyrooz, Scotte E. Wolfe, and Scott H. �., Decker, 2017) Website Link: http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pil/ S0047235217301289 Abstract: This study explored whether police departments have engaged in "de -policing' —withdrawal from active police work—in response to unprecedented levels of negative attention, as well as the correlates of changes in police behavior. Police Behavior During Traffic and T�rc ie:es1.sda;',FStreet Stops, 2011 (Lynn Langton and Matthew Durose, 2011. Revised 2016) _ Website Link: https://www.bjs.gov/ _--- - -_ = content/pub/pdf/pbtssl1.pdf - Abstract: This Bureau of Justice Statistics report examines the characteristics and experiences of persons age 16 or older who were stopped by police during traffic and street stops, and their perceptions of police behavior and response during these encounters. It describes the outcomes of traffic and street stops by the reason for the stop; demographic characteristics of the persons stopped; race or Hispanic origin of the officers; and whether a ticket was issued, a search was conducted, or force was used. It also describes variations in perceptions of the police across characteristics and outcomes of traffic and street stops. !I Preparing for a Future with Autonomous Vehicles (Kevin Davis, 2016) Website Link: http://www. - - --- policechiefmagazine.org/ preparing -for -a -future -with- - --_- autonomous-vehicles/?ref=8d497 --•- -- ---c 9dd5a2e9dff409434b4ad4ldO3e Abstract: This Police Chief magazine article reports on the many evolving issues that a world with autonomous vehicles will bring to society. Kevin Davis, a Captain with the California Highway Patrol, discusses the key issues and the potential impact upon traffic safety and police leaders. e - Procedural Justice: Voice, -�� Neutrality, Respect and Trustworthiness. (California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), 2016) Website Link: https://post.ca-gov/ did -you -know -procedural -justice. aspx Abstract: This three minute California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) training video emphasizes the four tenets of Procedural Justice: Voice, Neutrality, Respect, and Trustworthiness. These tenets are modeled by the officer during a traffic stop and conversation with the driver of the stopped vehicle. This video would serve as an excellent roll call or in-service training video for police officers. Traffic incident Management - TIM Training and Capacity Building Videos and Related Resources (New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2017) Website Link: http://www.njtim. org/NJTIM/ Abstract: This website is hosted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. It provides excellent information on Traffic Incident Management. Law enforcement officers can review the helpful training videos as well as review various resources and sign up for TIM training held in New Jersey. Understanding and Applying Traffic Incident Management (Joseph A. Farrow and Daniel G. Sharp, 2015) Website Link: http://www. policechiefmagazine.org/ --� - understanding -and -applying - traffic -incident -management/ Abstract: This Police Chief magazine article provides an excellent overview of the primary concepts of traffic incident management. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 127 APPENDIX B: ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMITTEES The following is a listing of the associated groups currently active in the traffic safety field, together with a brief description of their administrative organization and relationship. A.L.E.R.T. International Website Link: http://www.alertinternational. com/?s=A.L.E.R.T.+International A.L.E.R.T. International is dedicated to the encouragement and correlation of research and development as well as the sharing of information, ideas and innovations in the area of emergency vehicle response operation. Additionally, A.L.E.R.T.'s mission is to provide assistance to states in establishing effective and defensible standards for employment and training of law enforcement officers in the field of emergency vehicle operations. Another aspect of the mission is the promotion of a positive, professional image of emergency response trainers. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) Website Link: http://www.aamva.org/ Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents the state and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. AAMVA's programs encourage uniformity and reciprocity among the states and provinces. The association also serves as a liaison with other levels of government and the private sector. Its development and research activities provide guidelines for more effective public service. AAMVA's membership includes associations, organizations and businesses that share an interest in the association's goals. AAMVA has the Law Enforcement Standing Committee within the association. This committee inspires collaboration between law enforcement and Driver/Motor Vehicle Administrators to improve highway and public safety. The Committee has the following goals: 1. Increase law enforcement participation in AAMVA conferences, working groups, and other initiatives. 2. Provide and promote uniformity and consistency through the development of standards, model programs and best practices. 3. Promote the exchange of challenges and successes in implementing technologies, sharing information, and with other contemporary law enforcement issues. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Website Link: http://www.transportation.org/ The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is a standards setting body which publishes specifications, test protocols and guidelines which are used in highway design and construction throughout the United States. AASHTO has the Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety within the Association. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) Website Link: http://www.calea.org The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., (CALEA) was created in 1979 as a credentialing authority through the joint efforts of law enforcement's major executive associations the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE); National Sheriffs' Association (NSA); and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The purpose of CALEA's Accreditation Programs is to improve the delivery of public safety services, primarily by: maintaining a body of standards, developed by public safety practitioners, covering a wide range of up-to-date public safety initiatives; establishing and administering an accreditation process; and recognizing professional excellence. Council of State Governments (CSG) Website Link: http://www.csg.org/ Founded in 1933, The Council of State Governments is our nation's only organization serving all three branches of state government. CSG is a region -based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate and create problem - solving partnerships. The mission of the CSG is to champion excellence in state governments to advance the common good. Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Website Link: http://cvsa.org/ The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) is a nonprofit association comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal commercial motor vehicle safety officials and industry representatives. The Alliance aims 128 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE to achieve uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial motor vehicle inspections and enforcement by certified inspectors dedicated to driver and vehicle safety. The CVSA mission is to improve commercial motor vehicle safety and uniformity throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico by providing guidance and education to enforcement, industry and policy makers. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Website Link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation's highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program) and various federally and tribal owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program). Through financial and technical assistance to State and local governments, the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for ensuring that America's roads and highways continue to be among the safest and most technologically sound in the world. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Website Link: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's primary mission is to prevent commercial motor vehicle -related fatalities and injuries. Activities of the Administration contribute to ensuring safety in motor carrier operations through strong enforcement of safety regulations; targeting high -risk carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers; improving safety information systems and commercial motor vehicle technologies; strengthening commercial motor vehicle equipment and operating standards; and increasing safety awareness. To accomplish these activities, the Administration works with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, labor and safety interest groups, and others. Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) Website Link: www.ghsa.org GHSA is a nonprofit organization representing the state and territorial highway safety offices that implement federal grant programs to address behavioral highway safety issues. GHSA provides leadership and advocacy for the States and Territories to improve traffic safety, influence national policy, enhance program management and promote best practices. Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) Website Link: http://www.iihs.org/ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses - deaths, injuries and property damage - from crashes on the nation's roads. The Highway Loss Data Institute share and supports the IIHS mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Website Link: http://www.iacp.org/ The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is a professional association for law enforcement worldwide, representing more than 30,000 members in more than ISO countries. The IACP provides members with the opportunities to connect, participate, learn, advocate, and succeed. The IACP has divisions, specific sections and policy councils, and committees. Some of these are focused upon traffic safety issues, such as the following: ■ Drug Recognition Expert Section (DRE). The DRE section provides a unique opportunity for those professionals associated with drug recognition to share common management, training, administrative and practicing concerns. Highway Safety Committee. This committee studies and evaluates all matters pertaining to policies, practices, and standards of state and municipal policy organizations relating to traffic crash investigation, traffic records, traffic patrol, traffic law enforcement, organization and administration, and other highway safety functions that may be the responsibility of the membership of the IACP. Other key roles include making recommendations for the improvement of police traffic management and the promotion of highway safety; making recommendations to the Traffic Institute of Northwestern University relating to its traffic police training programs; and making recommendations of needed research projects essential to the optimum highway safety programs by police agencies. Within the Highway Safety Committee are several Programs and Subcommittees including the: • Enforcement Technologies Advisory Technical Subcommittee (ETATS); • Traffic Incident Management Subcommittee (TIMS) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 129 • Traffic Officer Safety Subcommittee (TOPS) • Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) State and Provincial Police Directorate (S&P). The IACP's Division of State & Provincial Police (S&P) has the responsibility of organizing, directing, coordinating, and promoting IACP programs relating to the needs of state and provincial police agencies. The division is a membership organization comprised of the 49 state law enforcement agencies and three provincial police agencies; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Ontario Provincial Police, and Surete du Quebec. State and Provincial Police Academy Directors (SPPADS). SPPADS consists of the commanders and managers of the state and provincial police academies in the United States and Canadian provinces who operate training academies. SPPADS is committed to advancing the principles and competency of professional law enforcement instructors. State and Provincial Police Planning Officers (SPPPOS). This section consists of planners from the state and provincial agencies, including state police, highway patrols, and departments of public safety, comprising the IACP S&P Directorate. The group meets annually to discuss mutual issues affecting their agencies. State Associations of Chiefs of Police (SACOP). SACOP serves as the organizing body for the individual state associations of chiefs of police. SACOP also functions as the coordinating body between the state associations and the IACP membership as a whole, facilitating the exchange and dissemination of information related to a host of important topics in law enforcement. Vehicle Crimes Committee. This committee studies, considers, and determines the various methods and means by which vehicle crimes are committed, including the make and type of vehicles most commonly stolen; surveys, investigates, and evaluates the techniques and methods employed by the police and other agencies in solving and reducing the incidence of vehicle crimes cases; and disseminates pertinent that will reduce the incidence of this major crime. Institute of Police Technology and Management (IPTM) Website Link: http://iptm.unf.edu/ Established in 1980, the Institute of Police Technology and Management (IPTM) is a Direct Support Organization (DSO) of the University of North Florida. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, IPTM is a self-supporting, not - for -profit organization. IPTM was created to provide management and traffic training to municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers. International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) Website Link: http://www.iadiest.org. The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) is an international organization of training managers and executives dedicated to the improvement of public safety personnel. IADLEST serves as the national forum of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) agencies, boards, and commissions as well as statewide training academies throughout the United States. Within the Association there are specific projects related to traffic safety. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) Website Link: http://www.madd.org/ Founded by a mother whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving° (MADD) is the nation's largest nonprofit working to protect families from drunk driving, drugged driving and underage drinking. MADD also supports drunk and drugged driving victims and survivors at no charge through local MADD victim advocates and a 24-Hour Victim Helpline 1-877-MADD-HELP. National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) Website Link: http://www.ncsi.org/ NCSL is a bipartisan organization that provides state legislators and staffs with independent tools, information and resources to craft the best solutions to challenging problems, including traffic safety issues. The organization promotes policy innovation and communication among state legislatures and ensures representation in the federal system. NCSL has the Standing Committee on Law, Criminal Justice and Public Safety which concentrates on law enforcement and traffic safety concerns. National District Attorneys Association's National Traffic Law Center (NTLC) Website Link: http://www.ndaa.org/ntic_home.html# The National District Attorneys Association's National Traffic Law Center (NTLC) is a resource designed to benefit prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers and others in the justice system. The mission of NTLC is to improve the quality of justice in traffic safety adjudications by increasing the awareness of highway safety issues through the compilation, creation and dissemination of legal and technical information, and by providing training and reference services. 130 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLETC) Website Link: https://www.justnet.org/law-enforcement/ LE-tech-overview.htm I A program of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), NLETC is the conduit between researchers and criminal justice professionals in the field for technology issues. NLETC works with law enforcement and others to identify urgent and emerging technology needs, test commercially available technologies, and publish results -linking research with practice. NLETC concentrates on law enforcement technology specifically related to traffic safety such as license plate readers, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and body -worn cameras. National Governors' Association (NGA) Website Link: https://www.nga.org/cros/home.htmi This organization consists of the governors of the 50 states, as well as those of the U.S. territories, and the premiers of the Canadian provinces and their top staffs. Members meet periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern among the states, and to support, propose, or endorse legislation in many areas, including criminal laws and highway safety. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Website Link: https://www.nhtsa.gov/ Through enforcing vehicle performance standards and partnerships with state and local governments, NHTSA reduces deaths, injuries and economic losses from motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA sets and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and equipment, identifying safety defects, and through development and delivery of effective highway safety programs for State and local jurisdictions. NHTSA also has a high - visibility law enforcement effort, coordinated through the Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) network, which provides effective and efficient delivery of traffic safety countermeasures. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) Website Link: http://www.noblenational.org The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) serves as the conscience of law enforcement by being committed to Justice by Action. NOBLE has nearly 60 chapters and represents over 3,000 members worldwide that represent chief executive officers and command -level law enforcement officials from federal, state, county, municipal law enforcement agencies, and criminal justice practitioners. Headquartered in the Washington, D.C., area, NOBLE is comprised of African American command officers in law enforcement agencies. National Safety Council (NSC) Website Link: http://www.nsc.org/pages/home.aspx The National Safety Council eliminates preventable deaths at work, in homes and communities, and on the road through leadership, research, education and advocacy. The NSC provides Defensive Driving Safety Training and Defensive Driving for Emergency Vehicle Operators, among other course offerings. The National Safety Council also has the Alcohol, Drugs and Impairment Division. This Division tackles substance abuse and prescription drug issues and makes recommendations to combat the drinking and driving problem through legislation, education and other countermeasures. Refer to this website link: http:// www.nsc.org/join/Pages/division-alcohol-drugs-and- impairment.aspx National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) Website Link: http://www.sheriffs.org/ The National Sheriffs' Association is a professional association dedicated to serving the Office of Sheriff and its affiliates through police education, police training, and general law enforcement information resources. NSA represents thousands of sheriffs, deputies and other law enforcement, public safety professionals, and concerned citizens nationwide. NSA has a Traffic Safety Department serving to perpetuate traffic safety issues, facilitate traffic safety program implementation, provide technical assistance to the office of sheriff and other agencies, and offer general support to the Office of Sheriff and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Northwestern University Center for Public Safety (NUCPS) Website Link: https://sps.northwestern.edu/center-for- public-safety/ The Northwestern University Center for Public Safety has a long history of providing educational programs, advocacy and guidance on traffic safety topics. The IACP's Highway Safety Committee and the University have a cooperative partnership promoting excellence in traffic crash investigation, prevention and police management. The Northwestern University Transportation Library has the largest private collection of transportation, highway traffic control, highway safety and criminal justice literature in the United States. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 131 APPENDIX C: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Abbreviations and Acronyms The following are some of the more prevalent acronyms used in traffic law enforcement, and their meanings: ALR/ALS: Administrative License Revocation or Administrative License Suspension. This is referred to in the context of a state statute that permits a police officer to seize a license of a driver who refuses an alcohol test, or tests over the legal alcohol limit. The driver is given a temporary license and scheduled for a prompt administrative hearing before the state driver license agency. ALR/ALS does not replace criminal court action for driving while intoxicated. The purpose of ALR/ALS is to remove the hazard of the drinking driver from the road in a speedier fashion. AAMVA: The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. AAMVANET: The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' data services network contains the National Driver Register, Commercial Driver License Information Sys- tem, and other information of interest to licensing, title, regulatory, and law enforcement agencies. AASHTO: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ABOC: Alcohol Breath Ignition Controller ADTSEA: American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association ALR: Administrative license revocation ALS: Administrative license suspension AMA: American Medical Association AMBER ALERT: A national protocol for the broadcast of in- formation on children who are suspected of having been kid- napped, including posting information about victims and suspects and their vehicles' descriptions on changeable highway warning signs. BAC: Blood Alcohol Concentration. This is measured in driving- while -intoxicated cases. BNICE: A homeland security response describing the five leading threats: Biological, Nuclear/radiological, Incendiary, Chemical, and Explosive. BAIID: Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices. BAT: Breath alcohol testing. BUA: Buckle Up America BrAC: Breath Alcohol concentration, used in DWI cases and measured in grams per 210 liters of breath (g/210L) CARE: Combined Accident Reduction Effort. Operation CARE, a group of state police and highway patrol agencies which conduct unified and concentrated efforts in traffic law enforcement along interstate highways, particularly on holiday week- ends. CDC: Center for Disease Control and Prevention CDL: A Commercial Driver's License issued by a state entitling a person to operate a commercial motor vehicle which has a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of 26,001 or more pounds; which is designed to carry 16 or more passengers, including the driver; or which carries hazardous materials. CDL holders in most states are subject to a loss of their CDL if, while driving a commercial vehicle, they have a BAC in excess of 0.04, and are subject to being removed from the road for up to 24 hours if found to have any alcohol in their system while operating a commercial vehicle. CDLIS: The nationwide Commercial Driver's License Information System contains all commercial driver's license information, including driving histories of problem commercial drivers. It is typically on-line with Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) agencies in the various states. CHEM-TREK: A 24-hour toll -free telephone service that pro- vides law enforcement and emergency response agencies with information for identifying hazardous materials involved in spills, and that recommends mitigation strategies. Chem -Trek is sponsored by the National Chemical Manufacturers' Association. CLICK -IT -OR -TICKET: A NHTSA program that had its gene- sis in a statewide North Carolina effort and that consists of a concerted, multi -agency safety belt enforcement drive to in- crease safety belt usage through enforcement. Wherever utilized, the program has also resulted in the apprehension of a number of individuals for other serious driving offenses, as well as for criminal offenses, and in the detection of suspended and revoked drivers and persons wanted on criminal warrants. CVSA: The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission. CSS: Child Safety Seats. DARE: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, a copyrighted curriculum. The program, which trains police officers to 132 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE present anti- drug programs in public schools, was started by the Los Ange- les Police Department. DOT: The U.S. Department of Transportation. Also applies to departments of transportation in various states, such as the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT). DRE: A Drug Recognition Expert. Trained and certified in the IACP Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, a DIRE is experienced in administering a battery of physical tests and in making clinical observations to suspected drug impaired drivers. DDMP: Drinking Driver Monitor Program. DEC: Drug Evaluation and Classification. DMV: Department of Motor Vehicles. DUI: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a criminal offense in most states and provinces. Known as DWI, driving while intoxicated or impaired, in some states. DWI: Driving while intoxicated; the same as DUI. DWS: Driving while [license] suspended. EDR: Event Data Recorder. EMS: Emergency Medical Services. ETATS: The Enforcement Technologies Advisory Technical Subcommittee of the IACP's Highway Safety Committee. The Chair of the Highway Safety Committee appoints its members, who include Highway Safety Committee members; persons from the radar, lidar, and automated enforcement industries; a NHTSA representative; technical and scientific ad- visors and representatives of radar certification laboratories. The subcommittee develops standards for the initial testing and ongoing certification of automated enforcement devices such as radar, LIDAR, VASCAR, photo radar, and photo red light running cameras and recommends placement of such de- vices on the CPL (Consumer Products List). EVOC: Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course. A curriculum developed by NHTSA, in cooperation with national police training professionals, to teach proper techniques for driving police and other emergency response vehicles under emergency conditions. FARS: The Fatality Analysis Reporting System maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The system gathers data on all fatal traffic crashes in the United States through reports collected by state -level agencies. FBINA: The Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy located at Quantico, Virginia. The academy offers a command training program for high-level officials of state and local law enforcement agencies, and police officials from foreign countries. FEMA: The Federal Emergency Management Administration, located at Emmitsburg, Maryland, which provides federal emergency assistance at the scenes of catastrophes and national disasters, operates the National Fire Academy, and publishes the national model curriculum for first responders to hazardous materials incidents. FHWA: The Federal Highway Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation, which administers federal highway trust fund expenditures to the individual states, and which sets standards for the construction and maintenance of interstate highways. FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an organizational unit in the U.S. Department of Transportation, the mission of which is to prevent commercial vehicle related fatalities and injuries. FMVSS: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as developed and adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. FOP: The Fraternal Order of Police, a national police organization sometimes involved in labor activities as a collective bargaining agent. FRA: The Federal Railroad Administration, an organizational unit within the U.S. Department of Transportation that monitors the safe operation of railroads. It develops and enforces rail safety regulations, investigates crashes, manages rail safety and highway -rail grade crossing safety programs. GCCI: Grade Crossing Collision Investigation, a highway - railroad grade crossing safety awareness program, coordinated through a national railroad safety program, Operation Lifesaver. GCCI provides one to three-day training classes, at no cost to the agency, tailored to specific law enforcement agency needs. GDL: Graduated driver licensing GHB: Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate. A sedative used both as a prescription sleep -aid and as a recreational intoxicant. GHSA: The Governors' Highway Safety Association (formerly NAGHSR, the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives) consists of the Governor's Highway Safety Representative for each state and U.S. Territory and manages the federal pass -through highway safety grants from NHTSA in each state and territory. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 133 HAZMAT: Hazardous materials, generally used in the context of hazardous materials regulatory enforcement. HGN: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, which uses a phenomenon brought on by alcohol and other substances, to assist in deter- mining the blood alcohol level or drug impairment of suspected drunk drivers by examining the angle of onset of nystagmus, a jerking of the eyeballs. HOS: hours of service HSC: The Highway Safety Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., which reports through the IACP's State and Provincial Police Directorate and takes the lead in researching highway and traffic safety issues for the IACP. HVEE: High -Visibility Education and Enforcement. IACP: The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. IACP NET: A password -protected electronic Web site operated by the IACP for its subscriber members. It facilitates the exchange of information and documents between law enforcement agencies throughout the world, at http://www.iacpnet.com IADLEST: The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (POST). ICS: Incident Command System, the system used by fire departments and police agencies to organize and implement emergency measures to mitigate major incidents. IFTA: The International Fuel Tax Agreement, a compact consisting of states and provinces that recognize one another's fuel tax laws and providing for one -stop collection and uniform enforcement policies. IIHS: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety IMS: Traffic Incident Management System, an adaptation of ICS designed to mitigate the congestion resulting from traffic incidents, to provide prompt treatment of injured persons, and to restore the normal traffic flow as soon as practicable. IPTM: The Institute of Police Technology and Management at the University of South Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, which conducts law enforcement training programs and which operates a radar testing laboratory. ITE: The Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems IVHS: Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, a system of computerized hazard detection and warning, trip routing and other capabilities, which interfaces with on -board computers in vehicles equipped with on -board radar and electronic roadside warning beacons. J. STANNARD BAKER AWARD: An annual award presented by the International Association of the Chiefs of Police and by the National Sheriffs' Association to state, county and local police officers and to private citizens who have made out- standing lifetime contributions to the field of traffic safety. The award is named after the founder of the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University. The IACP's Highway Safety Committee selects the local and state police, as well as the civilian, winners; and the National Sheriffs' Association selects the winners from among County Sheriffs' Offices. LATCH: Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children. MADD: Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MCSAP: The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, a system of federal funding of state agencies to assist the federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in enforcing motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations at the state level. MDMA: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. A stimulant drug that is chemically related to mescaline and amphetamine and is used illicitly for its euphoric and hallucinogenic effects MSF: Motorcycle Safety Foundation MUTCD: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a publication of the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Commit- tee, that lists and describes the state of the art in traffic sign- age, road markings, traffic lights and other traffic control devices. MVC: Motor Vehicle Crash (or Collision). MVOSS: Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey. NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program NDLC: The National Driver License Compact, a program administered by AAMVA in which approximately 43 states participate. NCSDR: National Center for Sleep Disorders Research NCUTLO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances NDR: The National Driver Register, a NHTSA program linked by AAMVANET and maintained by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. NHTSA: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an organizational unit of the U.S. Department of Transportation which provides federal 134 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE grants to state pass -through agencies for the maintenance of innovative traffic safety programs, conducts research, and sets federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). NIAAA: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (a branch of National Institutes of Health) NIH: National Institutes of Health NIST: The National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of Standards. NMSL: National Maximum Speed Limit. NRS: National Roadside Survey NSA: The National Sheriffs' Association. NSC: The National Safety Council. NSF: National Sleep Foundation. NTC: The National Troopers' Coalition. NTSB: The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates major transportation crashes and makes recommendations for improved transportation safety. NUCPS: The Northwestern University Center for Public Safety (formerly the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University) in Evanston, Illinois, which conducts research and offers innovative traffic safety training programs, including courses for commanders of police department traffic bureaus and divisions. ODPR: Office of Driver and Pedestrian Research. OL: Operation Lifesaver, a nationwide, nonprofit public information and education program dedicated to reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities at highway -rail grade crossings OOT: Officer on the Train, a highway -railroad grade crossing safety awareness program coordinated through a national rail- road safety program, Operation Lifesaver. OOT places police officers aboard trains to radio traffic violations to other officers strategically located at or near grade crossings that have a history of traffic violations. OPERATION PIPELINE: An enforcement effort along major highway corridors addressing criminal roadway interdiction of passenger and commercial motor vehicles. OPUE: Occupant Protection Usage and Enforcement. A NHTSA program designed to provide police agencies with a model curriculum and programs to promote and enforce the use of safety belts and child safety seats. OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, which sets standards in many occupational safety areas, including the allowable emissions of police traffic radar devices. OUI: Operating Under the Influence of Intoxicants. OUIL: Operating Under the Influence of Liquor, a criminal charge similar to DWI or DUI. PAS: Passive Alcohol Sensing. PBT: A Preliminary Breath Test, usually accomplished by means of an electronic fuel cell device, or a balloon -style device that determines at roadside whether or not a driver has consumed alcoholic beverages, and to what extent. Various fuel cell devices have been approved by NHTSA according to standards developed by the IACP Highway Safety Committee's Technical Advisory Panel. PI&E: Public Information and Education. PMVI: Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, generally a statewide program for the safety inspection of vehicles either at state- owned inspection stations or licensed private stations. The number of states with PMVI has been decreasing over the years. PSA: Public Service Announcement. PSU: Primary Sampling Unit. PTS: Police Traffic Services. RID: Remove Intoxicated Drivers. RSP: Ride Service Programs. RSPA: The Research and Special Programs Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is responsible for promulgating the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials. SACOP: The State Associations of Chiefs of Police, a division of the IACP, consisting of a designated representative of the Po- lice Chiefs' Association of each state. SADD: Students Against Driving Drunk. SAFETYNET: Computerized nationwide data bank maintained by the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program for tracking commercial driver enforcement. SBUL: Safety Belt Use Law. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 135 SFST: Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, a model curriculum developed by the IACP's Highway Safety Committee and NHTSA for performing uniform and standardized roadside physical tests on suspected drunken drivers, based on medically approved techniques. The standardized tests consist of a walk and turn, one -legged stand, and horizontal gaze nystagmus. STEP: Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs, targeted to the times of day, days of week, locations, and types of violations that cause crashes; an early form of directed patrol, but specifically devised for traffic enforcement. SHSO: State Highway Safety Office. TAP: The Technical Advisory Panel of the IACP that, in conjunction with NHTSA, sets and maintains SFST and DIRE standards. TIRF: Traffic Injury Research Foundation. TITLE 49: Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which contains the regulations on the interstate transportation of hazardous materials. TRB: Transportation Research Board. TSC: Transportation Systems Center. USDOT: U.S. Department of Transportation. UTCD: Uniform Traffic Control Devices Committee, a group of primarily engineers who maintain and revise the National Manua/ on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. UVC: The Uniform Vehicle Code, a model code that is maintained by a standing committee of experts, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. VDP: Violator Directed Patrol. VIN: Vehicle Identification Number VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled 136 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC SAFETY RESOURCE PROSECUTORS Alabama Bill Lindsey Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 515 South Perry St. Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: 334.242.4191 Fax: 334.240.3186 Email: william.lindsey@alabamada.gov Alaska CURRENTLY VACANT Arizona L. Beth Barnes Assistant City Prosecutor, City of Phoenix 300 West Washington, 8th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: 602.262.6461 Email: beth.barnes@phoenix.gov Web: http://phoenix.gov/LAW/tsrp.html Arkansas Mark L. Carpenter Traffic Safety Resource Prosescutor Office of the Prosecutor Coordinator 323 Center St, Ste 750 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone: 501.682.3576 Email: Mark.Carpenter@arkansas.gov California Hoon Chang Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Orange County District Attorneys Office 401 W. Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, Ca 92701 Phone: 714.347.8620 Email: hoon.chang@da.ocgov.com Kate Wagner Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Orange County District Attorneys Office 401 W. Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, Ca 92701 Phone: 714.347.8883 Email: kate.wagner@da.ocgov.com Colorado Jennifer Tibbitts Knudsen Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Colorado District Attorneys' Council 1580 Logan Street, Suite 420 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.957.2547 Email: jen@cdac.state.co.us Web: www.cdacweb.com Connecticut CURRENTLY VACANT Delaware Danielle J. Brennan Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: 302.577.8894 Fax: 302.577.6499 Email: danielle.brennan@state.de.us District of Columbia Melissa G. Shear Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Public Safety Division - Criminal Section 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1060N Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202.724.6633 Fax: 202.730.1478 Email: Melissa.Shear@dc.gov Florida Vincent Petty Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Unit 107 PMB 108 14851 State Road 52 Hudson, FL 34669-4061 Phone: 850-566-9021 Email: VinPetty@FloridaTSRP.com Georgia Gilbert A. Crosby Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia 104 Marietta, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303-2743 Phone: 404.969.4001 Fax: 404.969.4020 Email: gcrosby@pacga.org INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 137 Hawaii Stephen L. Frye Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Office of the Prosecuting Attorney - County of Hawaii 81-980 Haleki'i St., Suite #150 Kealakekua, HI 96750 Phone: 808-322-2552 Fax: 808-322-6584 Email: Stephen.Frye@HawaiiCounty.gov Ramsey Ross Deputy Prosecuting Attorney -County of Kaua'i 3990 Ka'ana Road Lihue, Kaua'i 96766 Phone: 808-241-1911 Email: rross@kauai.gov Idaho Jared Olson Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association Idaho POST Academy 700 S. Stratford Drive Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208.884.7325 Fax: 208.884.7295 Cell: 208.559.1217 Email: Jared.olson@post.idaho.gov Web: www.TSRP-Idaho.org Illinois Jennifer L. Cifaldi Illinois Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Institute For Legal, Legislative and Policy Studies Univ. of Illinois Springfield, Center for State Policy and Leadership One University Plaza, MS PAC 451 Springfield, Illinois 62703-5407 Phone: (217) 257-5050 Email: jcifaldi3@gmail.com Indiana Christopher Daniels Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council 302 W. Washington Street, E-205 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2767 Phone: 317.232.1836 Fax: 317.233.3599 Email: chdaniels@ipac.in.gov Iowa Christine Shockey Assistant Attorney General 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: 515.281.5428 Email: Christine.shockey@iowa.gov Kansas Corey Kenney Assistant Attorney General - Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt 120 SW loth Avenue, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612 Office: (785) 296-3750 Fax: (785) 291-3875 Email: Corey. Kenney@ag.ks.gov Kentucky Bob Stokes Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200 Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: 502.696.5500 Fax: 502.696.5532 Email: bstokes@prosecutors.ky.gov Web: www.kytrafficsafety.com Louisiana Rachel Smith Louisiana District Attorneys Association 1645 Nicholson Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70802-8143 Phone: 225.343.0171 Fax: 225.387.0237 Email: Rachel@LDAA.org Maine Scot Mattox Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 45 Commerce Drive, Suite 1 164 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0164 Phone: 207.458.0913 Email: Scot.Mattox@maine.gov Maryland David Daggett Maryland State's Attorneys Association 3300 North Ridge Road, Ste 185 Ellicott City, MD 21043 Phone: 410.203.9881 Cell: 410.979.3356 Email: ddaggett@mdsaa.org 138 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Massachusetts Andrea Nardone Mass. District Attorneys Association 1 Bulfinch Place, Suite 202 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617.723.0642 Fax: 617.367.1228 Email: Andrea.Nardone@state.ma.us Web: www.mass.gov/mdaa Michigan Ken Stecker Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan 116 West Ottawa, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48913 Phone: 517.334.6060 ext 827 Fax: 517.334.7052 Email: steckerk@michigan.gov Web: https://www.michiganprosecutor.org/ Kinga Gorzelewski Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan 116 West Ottawa, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48913 Phone: 517.334.6060 ext 816 Fax: 517.334.7052 Email: gorzelewskik@michigan.gov Web: https://www.michiganprosecutor.org/ Minnesota Bill Lemons Minnesota County Attorney Association 100 Empire Drive, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651. 289.8451 Email: blemons@mcaa-mn.org Web: www.mcaa-mn.org Mississippi Molly Miller Mississippi Attorney General's Office Walter Sillers Bldg. 550 High Street, P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 Phone: 601.359.4265 Fax: 601.359.4200 Email: mmill@ago.state.ms.us Missouri Susan Glass Missouri Office of Prosecution Services P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573.301.2630 Fax: 573.751.1171 Email: Susan.Glass@prosecutors.mo.gov Stephanie Watson Missouri Office of Prosecution Services P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573.751.2415 Fax: 573.751.1171 Email: Stephanie.Watson@prosecutors.mo.gov Montana CURRENTLY VACANT Nebraska Ed Vierk Attorney General's Office 2115 State Capital Lincoln, NE 68509 Phone: 402.471.1886 Fax: 402.471.3591 Email: Ed.Vierk@nebraska.gov Nevada Bruce Nelson Deputy District Attorney 200 Lewis Ave Box 552212 Las Vegas, NV 89155-2212 Phone: 702.671.2807 Email: bruce.nelson@clarkcountyda.com Chris Halsor Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Office of the Attorney General 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4717 Phone: 775 430-0322 Email: chris.halsor@ag.nv.gov. New Hampshire Scott Chase Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Criminal Justice Bureau Office of the Attorney General 33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 603 2713685 Fax: 603 271 2110 Email: scott.chase@doj.nh.gov INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 139 New Jersey Robyn Mitchell Division of Criminal Justice 25 Market Street PO Box 086 Trenton, NJ 08625-0086 Phone: 609.777-0246 Fax: 609.341.2077 Email: mitchellr@njdcj.org Erin Shamy Deputy Attorney General Division of Criminal Justice 25 Market St. P.O. Box 085 Trenton, NJ 08625-0085 Phone: 609.984.4776 Email: shamye@njdcj.org New Mexico Aaron Baca Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor New Mexico Attorney General's Office Special Prosecutions Division 408 Galisteo Street Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Phone: 505.827.6064 Email: abaca@nmag.gov New York Lauren D. Konsul New York Prosecutors Training Institute 107 Columbia Street Albany, NY 12210 Phone: 518.432.1100 x. 203 Fax: 518.432.1180 Email: lauren.konsul@nypti.org Web: www.nypti.org North Carolina Isaac T. Avery, III The Avery, P.C. P. O. Box 10174 Raleigh, NC 27605-0174 Phone: 919.829.2523 Fax: 919.834.9812 Email: isaac.t.avery@aoc.nccourts.org Sarah Z. Garner NC Conference of District Attorneys P. O. Box 3159 Cary, NC 27519 Phone: 919.890.1500 Fax: 910.641.4502 Email: Sarah.z.garner@nccourts.org North Dakota Aaron Birst 1661 Capitol Way P.O. Box 877 Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-0877 Phone: 701.328.7342 Fax: 701.328.7308 Email: aaron.birst@ndaco.org Kristi Pettit Venhuizen 311 South 41h Street, Suite 103 Grand Forks, ND 58201 Phone: 701.780.9276 Fax: 701.780.0786 Email: kpettit@kalashpettitlaw.com Ohio Holly Reese Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Ohio Traffic Safety Office c/o Stark County Sheriff's Office 4500 Atlantic Blvd., N.E. Canton, Ohio 44705 Phone: 330.904.8971 Email: hreesetsrp@gmail.com Oklahoma Jeff Sifers District Attorneys Council 421 N.W. 131h Street, Ste 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: 405.264.5000 Fax: 405.264.5099 E-mail: jeff.sifers@dac.state.ok.us Oregon Deena Ryerson Oregon District Attorneys Association 610 Hawthorne Ave Ste. 210 Salem, Oregon 97301 Phone: 503.378.6347 Email: Deena.a.ryerson@doj.state.or.us Amy Seely Assistant Attorney General, DUII Resource Prosecutor Oregon Department of Justice 2250 McGilchrist St. SE, Salem, OR 97302 Office: 503.934.2082 Cell: 503.871.9608 Email: amy.seely@doj.state.or.us 140 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Pennsylvania Dave Drumheller Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association 2929 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: 717. 238.5416 Email: ddrumheller@pdaa.org Web: www.pdaa.org Rhode Island John Corrigan Assistant Attorney General RI Attorney General 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (410) 274-4400 ext 2009 E-mail: jcorrigan@riag.ri.gov South Carolina Mattison Gamble Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor S.C. Common Prosecution Coordination P. O. Box 11561 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: 803.343.0765 Fax: 803.343.0766 Email: mgamble@cpc.sc.gov South Dakota Paul Bachand PO Box 1174 Pierre, SD 57501-1174 Phone: 605.224.0461 Email: pbachand@pirlaw.com Tennessee Barry Williams Tenn. District Attorneys General Conf. 226 Capitol Blvd., Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37243-0890 Phone: 615.945.2040 Fax: 615.741.7459 Email: bawilliams@tndagc.org Web: www.dui.tndagc.org Blog: http://tnduiguy.blogspot.com/ Terry Wood Tenn. District Attorneys General Conf. 226 Capitol Blvd., Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37243-0890 Phone: 615 253 6734 Email: tewood@tndagc.org Web: www.dui.tndagc.org Blog: http://tnduiguy.blogspot.com/ Texas W. Clay Abbott Texas District & County Attorneys Association 505 W. 121h, Suite 100 Austin TX, 78701 Phone: 512.474.2436 Email: Clay.Abbott@tdcaa.com Web: www.tdcaa.com Utah Tyson K. Skeen Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Utah Prosecution Council P.O. Box 140841 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0841 Phone: 801.366.0334 Cell: 801.391.9667 Email: tskeen@utah.gov Vermont Heather J. Brochu Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Dept of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs 110 State Street Montpelier, Vt 05633-6401 Phone: 802 828 2891 Fax: 802 828 2881 Email: heather.brochu@vermont.gov Virginia Walter E. Hibbard Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council P.O. Box 3549 Williamsburg, VA 23187-3549 Phone: 757.253.4994 Email: whibbard@wm.edu Web: www.cas.state.va.us John C. Bowers Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council P.O. Box 3549 Williamsburg, VA 23187-3549 Phone: 757.746.5653 Email: jcbowers@wm.edu Web: www.cas.state.va.us INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 141 Washington Moses F. Garcia Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor MRSC 2601 Fourth Ave., Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98121-1280 Phone: 206.625.1300 Email: mgarcia@mrsc.org Courtney Popp Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor King County Sheriff's Office ATTN: CID ATU 500 4t" Ave., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-743-7772 Email: Courtney.popp@kingcounty.gov Miriam Norman Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Phone: 206-684-8526 Cell: 206-850-5260 Fax: 206-684-4648 Email: miriam.norman@seattle.gov Katie McNutly Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Spokane County Prosecutor's Office Spokane, WA 99260-0270 Phone: 509 477 3662 Email: kmcnulty@spokanecounty.org West Virginia Nicole Cofer -Fleming Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Kanawha County Prosecuting Attorney's Office 301 Virginia St. E Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-357-5143 Fax: 304-357-0342 Email: ncofer@kanawhaprosecutor.com Wisconsin Tara Jenswold Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Assistant Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 W. Main Street Madison, WI 53707 Phone: 608.266.8908 Fax: 608.267.2778 Email: jenswtm@doj.state.wi.us Wisconsin (cont'd.) Emily Thompson Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Assistant Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice 17 W. Main Street Madison, WI 53707 Phone: 608.266.8941 Fax: 608.267.2778 Email: thompsonel@doj.state.wi.us Wyoming Ashley C. Schluck Wyoming Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Wyoming Highway Safety Program P.O. Box C Laramie, WY 82073 Phone: 307.721.5321 Fax: 307.721.5318 Email: acastor@cityoflaramie.org National Traffic Law Center Joanne Thomka Director, National Traffic Law Center National District Attorneys Association 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703.519.1678 Fax: 703.836.3195 Email: jthomka@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org M. Kimberly Brown Senior Attorney, NTLC National District Attorneys Association 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703.519.1645 Fax: 703.836.3195 Email: mkbrown@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org Romana Lavalas (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Senior Attorney, NTLC 1400 Crystal Drive Suite 330 Arlington, Va 22202 Phone: 703.519.1674 Fax: 703.836.319 Email: rlavalas@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org 142 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE Stacey Grant (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Staff Attorney, NTLC (part time) National District Attorneys Association 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703.519.1644 Fax: 703.836.319 Email: sgrant@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org Sam Pellegrino Staff Attorney, NTLC National District Attorneys Association 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703.519.1642 Fax: 703.836.3195 Email: spellegrino@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org Peter Grady Senior Attorney, NTLC (part time) 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, Va 22202 Email: pgrady@ntic.org Metria Hernandez Senior Project Coordinator National District Attorneys Association 1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 330 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703.519.1683 Fax: 703.836.3195 Email: mhernandez@ndaajustice.org Web: www.ndaajustice.org NAPC Program Thomas M. Robertson Executive Director 8283 Williams Road Dewitt, MI 48820 Phone: 517-402-8177 Email: Trob@napc.us Web: http://www.napc.us/ INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 143 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the National Highway Ed Hutchison Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The support and National Sheriffs Association contributions of the NHTSA staff were instrumental in the final product. The IACP would like to thank NHTSA for providing this resource to law enforcement officers - the front line leaders making an impact on traffic safety, every hour of every day. Specifically, Keith Williams, NHTSA Division Chief, and Wil Price, NHTSA Highway Safety Specialist, provided timely guidance and leadership to the project team. The IACP would also like to acknowledge the many contributors to the Traffic Safety Resource Guide. Noteworthy assistance was provided by the members of the IACP Highway Safety Committee whose support was invaluable in completing the project. Under the leadership of Commissioner Joseph Farrow, formerly with the California Highway Patrol and now the Chief of Police at the University of California at Davis, the project team was able to consult with the Highway Safety Committee and draw upon the considerable experience of the Committee. The project commenced with the formation of a Traffic Safety Resource Guide Committee. This dedicated group worked tirelessly on a variety of tasks including project management, writing, editing, and ensuring the final product met the high standards embraced by all law enforcement leaders. The following individuals served as members of this Committee: Vernon F. Betkey, Jr. National Law Enforcement Liaison Program Manager Governors Highway Safety Association M. Kimberly Brown National Traffic Law Center, National District Attorneys Association - Virginia Captain Arthur Combest Ohio State Highway Patrol Captain Thomas Didone Montgomery County, Maryland, Police Department Annjanette Kremer, P.E. Michigan Department of Transportation Staff Sergeant Terence J. McDonnell New York State Police Lieutenant Matt Myers Peachtree City, Georgia, Police Department Will Price National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Jack Van Steenburg Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE EXECUTIVE STAFF Vincent Talucci Executive Director/CEO Terrence Cunningham Deputy Executive Director Domingo Herraiz Director, Programs PROJECT STAFF Mike Fergus Project Director, Programs Samuel Capogrossi, Project Manager, Programs Bethany Peterson Project Coordinator, Programs Mark W. Seifert Traffic Safety Resource Guide, Project Manager 144 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE 11 /15123, 6:50 PM Speed III LSD Home 1 Topics / Speed Speed More than 12,000 deaths — 29 percent of all crash fatalities — occurred in speed -related crashes in 2021. High speeds make a crash more likely because drivers have less time to react and because it requires a longer distance to stop or slow down. They also make collisions more deadly because modest increases in speed cause large increases in crash energy. Raising speed limits leads to more deaths. People often drive faster than the speed limit, and if the limit is raised, they will go faster still. Research shows that when speed limits are raised, speeds go up, as do fatal crashes. By the same token, lowering speed limits cuts injury crashes. Speed safety cameras are an important tool. Numerous studies have shown that cameras reduce speeds and crashes on all types of roads. Dangers of speed Speed has a major impact on the number of crashes and the severity of injuries they cause (Elvik, 2005). It influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in four basic ways: It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts. It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once the driver starts to brake. It increases the risk that an evasive steering maneuver will result in loss of control. It increases crash energy disproportionately. For example, when impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent. This additional energy needs to be absorbed and dissipated, challenging the vehicle structure and increasing the likelihood of severe injuries. In a high-speed crash, a passenger vehicle is subjected to forces so severe that the vehicle structure cannot withstand the stress and maintain survival space in the occupant compartment. Likewise, as crash speeds get very high, restraint systems such as airbags and safety belts cannot keep the forces on occupants below severe injury levels. For practical reasons, there are limits to the amount of crash energy that can be managed by vehicles, restraint systems and roadway hardware such as barriers and crash cushions. The higher the speed, the higher the likelihood that these limits will be exceeded in crashes, limiting the protection available for vehicle occupants. Some people contend that speed variation, not speeding, is the real danger. This idea is rooted in research conducted in the 1960s on two-lane rural roads, which found that vehicles traveling much faster or much slower than average were more likely to be involved in crashes (Solomon, 1964). However, that same research found that involvement in severe crashes increased with speed. While less speed variation is associated with fewer crashes because it cuts down on passing maneuvers and lane changes (Garber& Ehrhart, 2000; Transportation Research Board, 1984), the risk of death and severe injury is directly related to the speed at https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 1111 11/15/23, 6:50 PM Speed the time of a crash, not the speed difference between vehicles. Many differences in travel speeds are unavoidable because of the slower speeds of turning or merging vehicles. Higher speeds of other vehicles exacerbate this problem. Besides, many crashes and nearly half of those resulting in occupant deaths are single -vehicle impacts in which differences in speeds between vehicles play no role or only a minor one. By the numbers In 2021, a total of 12,330 deaths, or 29 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities, occurred in speed -related crashes. Based on a nationally representative sample of police -reported crashes, speeding — defined as exceeding the speed limit, driving too fast for conditions or racing — was involved in 9 percent of property -damage -only crashes and 13 percent of crashes with injuries or fatalities in 2021. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the economic cost of speed -related crashes was about $46 billion in 2019 (Blincoe et al., 2023 Speeding has become both more common and more extreme since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. NHTSA reported in 2021 that the difference in speed between the fastest 1 percent of vehicles and the slowest 1 percent significantly narrowed on urban interstate freeways after March 2020 compared with 2019, from approximately 10 mph to less than 5 mph (Office of Behavioral Research, 2021 I_ , ). The speed of the fastest 1 percent of vehicles was higher through the first six months of 2021 than during 2019 on urban and rural interstate freeways and on urban major collectors. Similarly, IIHS researchers found that the percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit by at least 5 and 10 mph increased on Virginia roads during March -June 2020 compared with the same months during the prior year (Wang & Cicchino, 2023). In a 2021 national telephone survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 50 percent of drivers said they had exceeded the speed limit by 15 mph on a freeway in the past month, and 40 percent reported exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph on a residential street (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2022). Who speeds? Drivers who speed tend to be younger than drivers who don't, and male drivers are more likely than female drivers to speed { Freusser at al., 1988; Schroeder et al., 2013 rp",, ; Williams et al., 2006). Crashes and violations of young drivers are much more likely to be related to speeding than those of drivers of other ages (Williams et al., 1995). In a 2011 national telephone survey, the percentage of drivers who reported having at least one speeding -related crash during the past five years was higher for the youngest drivers, those 16-20 years old, than for any other age group, even though the youngest drivers may not have been driving for all of the past five years (Schroederetal., 2013 �._ o, ). These trends hold true for fatal crashes involving speeding. Twenty percent of male drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash, compared with 13 percent of all female drivers in 2021. The proportion of drivers that were speeding in fatal crashes decreased with increasing driver age. Speed limits Speed limit laws, which date to 1901, traditionally have been the responsibility of the states, but the national maximum speed limit in place in the 1970s. and 1980s effectively established maximum speed limits of 55 mph everywhere in the country. Since its complete repeal in 1995, speed limits have trended up. https:l/www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 2111 11/15123, 6:50 P€UI Speed Currently, 22 states have maximum speed limits of 70 mph, and 11 states have maximum speed limits of 75 mph on some portion of their roadway systems. On some sections of interstates in eight states, speed limits are 80 mph. In October 2012, a 41-mile stretch of Texas State Highway 130 opened with a speed limit of 85 mph. Maximum posted daytime speed limits on rural interstates Maximum limit may apply only to specified segments of interstate. Hover over map for more detail. 1 60 mph 65 mph 70 mph 75 mph 80 mph 85 mph Maximum posted speed limits for different road types, by state State laws set maximum speed limits for each type of road (e.g., interstate highway, two-way undivided highway) and land use (urban or rural) (Federal Highway Administration, 2009). Statutory maximum speed limits also can be established for special situations such as school zones. The posted speed limit for a particular road or section of a road can be below the maximum speed limit allowed, however, if the local or state agency in charge of the road decides a lower limit is warranted. To set speed limits for specific roads, traffic engineers for decades relied heavily on the 85th percentile speed, which is the speed that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling at or below in free -flowing conditions. Recent work has highlighted the importance of other factors, such as roadway design and context, as well as the prevalence of pedestrians and bicyclists. The National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends a range of 10 to 25 mph for most city streets, based on reducing crash risk for pedestrians and cyclists (NACTO, 2020). A recent report by the National Cooperative Highway Research https://www.iihs.orgltopicslspeed#speed-safety-cameras 3111 11115123, 6:50 PM Speed Program has suggested a range of criteria, including the 50th and 85th percentile speeds, vehicle and bicycle traffic volumes, geometric considerations, traffic control devices and the presence of parking (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021), The report considers different road types, ranging from local roads to freeways, and different contexts, ranging from rural to urban core. One problem with relying too much on the 85th percentile speed to set limits it that it's a moving target. Numerous studies of travel speeds have shown that 85th percentile speeds on rural interstate highways increased when speed limits were raised and then continued increasing (Najjar et al., 2000; Retting & Cheung, 2008; Reding & Greene, 1997; Rotting & Teoh, 2008). When speed limits are raised to meet the current 85th percentile speed, a new, higher 85th percentile speed usually results. Effects of speed limits on safety The establishment of the national maximum speed limit and its subsequent repeal provided ample opportunity to study the effects of lowering and raising speed limits. Congress established the national maximum speed limit in 1973 in response to oil shortages. The U.S. Department of Transportation was directed to withhold highway funds from states that did not adopt a maximum speed limit of 55 mph. Before that, speed limits on rural interstates in most states ranged from 65 to 75 mph, with the majority of states setting rural interstate speed limits of 70 mph. In urban areas, most states maintained 55 mph speed limits before the national maximum speed limit was established. By March 1974, all states had adopted the 55 mph national maximum speed limit. Concerns about fuel availability and costs faded, however, and Congress in 1987 allowed states to increase speed limits on rural interstates to 65 mph. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 repealed the maximum speed limit, allowing states to set their own limits for the first time since 1974. Many states quickly moved to raise speed limits on both rural and urban interstates and freeways. Although the national maximum speed limit was imposed to conserve oil, its greatest effect was on safety, The National Research Council attributed 4,000 fewer fatalities to the decreased speeds in 1974 compared with 1973 (Transportation Research Board, 1984). Not surprisingly, higher limits established after the 1995 repeal were associated with immediate increases in travel speeds. For example, within one year after speed limits were raised from 55 to 70 mph on three urban freeways in Texas, the percent of passenger vehicles traveling faster than 70 mph increased from 15 to 50 percent; the percent exceeding 75 mph increased from 4 to 17 percent (Resting & Greene, 1997). On California urban freeways where speed limits were raised from 55 to 65 mph, the percent of motorists traveling faster than 70 mph increased from 29 to 41 percent. As limits continued to rise to 70, 75 and 80 mph, travel speeds continued to go up (Hu, 2017; Retting & Teoh, 2008). Fatalities also went up. Deaths on rural interstates increased 25-30 percent when states began increasing speed limits from 55 to 65 mph in 1987 (Baum et al., 1989; Baum et al., 1990; Baum et al., 1991). In 1989, about two-thirds of this increase — 400 deaths — was attributed to increased speed and the rest to increased travel. An IIHS study examined longer -term changes. During 1993-2017, a 5 mph increase in the maximum state speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in fatality rates on interstates and freeways and a 3 percent increase on other roads (Farmer, 2019). In total, there were an estimated 37,000 more traffic fatalities during these years than would have been expected if maximum speed limits in 1993 had remained in place. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1,900 additional deaths. https:liwww.iihs.org/topics/speedttspeed-safety-cameras 4/11 11115123, 6:50 PM Speed The effect of speed limits on crashes and injuries isn't limited to freeways. A 2023 IIHS study found that the risk of crashes with fatal, serious or evident injuries in Seattle dropped between 11 and 20 percent on arterial roads when the city lowered its default speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph on arterial roads (Hu & Cicchino, 2023). Speed safety cameras Speed safety cameras, when used properly, can be an important tool for discouraging drivers from exceeding posted speed limits. Most speed safety cameras measure the speed of a vehicle at a single spot. Fixed cameras use either radar or detectors embedded in the road surface to measure a vehicle's speed. Mobile cameras are placed at the roadside in marked or unmarked police cars, containers, poles, etc., and use radar or laser to measure speeds. Some communities require mobile cameras to be manned. In either fixed or mobile systems, if a vehicle is traveling faster than a predetermined speed, the date, time, location and speed are recorded along with a photo of the vehicle. More recent technology can measure average speeds over a certain distance. In this case, cameras located at two or more points record time -stamped images of all vehicles that pass them. Automatic license -plate recognition is used to match individual vehicles so that average speeds between the two points can be calculated. Time -stamped pictures of speeding vehicles are used as evidence of speeding. Point-to-point speed safety cameras have been used to enforce speed limits in countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Speed safety cameras usually are programmed so they will not be activated unless a vehicle is traveling significantly faster than the posted limit — typically 10 or 11 mph faster, although in certain places such as school zones the tolerance may be lower. Speed safety cameras can substantially reduce speeding on a wide range of roads. IIHS studies of cameras on residential roads in Maryland, on a high-speed roadway in Arizona and on city streets in the District of Columbia found that the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by 70, 88 and 82 percent, respectively, six to eight months after cameras were introduced (Retting et al., 2008; Rotting et al., 2008; Retting & Farmer, 2003). An IIHS study in Montgomery County, Md., found that about 77/z years after the speed camera program began, the cameras were associated with a 10 percent reduction in mean speeds and a 62 percent reduction in the likelihood that a vehicle was traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit on camera -eligible roads, almost all of which had cameras (Hu & McCartt, 2016). A 2010 review published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, examined 35 studies from various countries. The authors concluded that speed safety cameras — including fixed, mobile, overt and covert devices — cut average speeds by 1-15 percent and the percentage of vehicles traveling above the speed limits or designated speed thresholds by 14-65 percent compared with sites without cameras (Wilson et al,. 2010). Speed safety cameras have also been shown to reduce crashes and crash injuries. A 2009 study found that speed safety cameras could reduce injury crashes 47 percent on urban arterial roads (Shin eta[., 2009). A study from Italy estimated that speed safety cameras could reduce fatal and injury crashes by 37 percent on urban expressways, freeways and principal arterials (Montella et al., 2014) Speed safety cameras in Montgomery County, Md., were associated with an 8 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash on a camera -eligible road was speeding -related and a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating or fatal injury (Hu & McCartt, 2016). A corridor approach, in which cameras were periodically moved along the length of a roadway segment, provided an additional 30 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating or fatal injury over and above the effect of the cameras. https://www.iihs.ory/topicslspeed#speed-safety-cameras 5/11 11115123, 6:50 PM Speed In its 2010 review, the Cochrane Coilaboration summarized 28 studies that reported the effect on crashes and found reductions of 8-49 percent for all crashes, 8-50 percent for injury crashes and 1144 percent for crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries, in the vicinity of camera sites (Wilson er a1., 2010), Over wider areas, the review found reductions of 9-35 percent for all crashes, and 17-58 percent for crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries. Reviewed studies with longer duration showed that these trends were either maintained or improved with time. Speed safety cameras were in operation in 183 U.S. communities in 18 states and the District of Columbia during 2022, according to media sources and other public information tracked by IIHS, up from only four Arizona and Utah communities in 1995, Peoria, Ariz., and Paradise Valley, Ariz., were the first two communities to implement speed safety cameras in 1987. Cameras are currently used statewide in highway work zones in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania. Trends in the number of U.S. communities with speed safety cameras 200 150 100 50 u co oo� `L 'L 'L rl• rl. `L L `L rL ri. `b 'L `L `L ti `�. ti hops:/;www.iihs.org/topics/speeci#speed-safety-cameras 6111 11115/23, 6:50 PM Speed States where speed or red light safety cameras are currently used y � -DQj�J1\J�/ ■ Red light and speed Red light Speed Done U.S. communities using speed safety cameras State laws on safety cameras Despite some vocal opposition, telephone surveys in jurisdictions with speed -camera programs show a majority of drivers support them. A 2014 IIHS survey of 900 licensed drivers ages 18 and older residing in Montgomery County, Md., found that 62 percent of drivers favored automated speed enforcement on residential streets about 7'/2 years after camera ticketing began (Hu & McCartt, 2016). A 2021 national survey of drivers ages 16 and older indicated that 45 percent supported the use of speed safety cameras to ticket drivers who travel more than 10 mph over the speed limit on residential streets (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2022). A 2012 IIHS survey of 801 District of Columbia residents found strong support for speed safety cameras (Cicchino et a1., 2014). D.C. has used speed cameras since 2001. In the survey, 88 percent of residents said that speeding was a serious threat to their personal safety. Seventy-one percent of residents who had driven a car in D.C. in the past month and 90 percent of residents who had not driven supported speed safety cameras. https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 7111 11/15/23, 6:50 PM Speed In Scottsdale, Ariz., 63 percent of drivers surveyed prior to the start of automated enforcement said speed safety cameras should be used on an urban freeway where they were planned. After speed safety cameras were operational, 77 percent of drivers supported their use (Rotting et al., 2008). An automated enforcement program checklist ; published in 2021 by IIHS along with AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Governors Highway Safety Association and the National Safety Council provides practical instructions for planning and implementing both red light camera and automated speed enforcement programs. The guide aims to help communities follow best practices and maintain public support for the programs. Traffic calming Traffic calming refers to roadway modifications, typically in urban and residential environments, that are intended to encourage slower speeds or reduce traffic volumes to improve livability and the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic calming interventions often include changes in the geometry of the road so that the desired speed and traffic volume reductions are self -enforced. Chicanes are staggered outcrops that force vehicles to curve around them on an otherwise straight road. Curb extensions reduce crossing distances and narrow the vehicle lane at the intersection, https://www.iihs,org/topicstspeed#speed-safety-cameras 8111 11115/23, 6:50 PM Speed Bollards and paint can be used for lane narrowing, I Speed humps can force vehicles to slow. Planters or landscaping can also be used to narrow the roadway. A recent IIHS evaluation of the effects of a pilot speed management program in Bishopville, Md., found that a combination of traffic calming (specifically, lane narrowing), public outreach and enforcement resulted in substantial reductions in speeding (Hu & Cicchino, 2023). Intelligent speed assistance Intelligent speed assistance (ISA), sometimes also called intelligent speed adaptation, describes a class of in -vehicle systems that provide information to the driver on their speed relative to the posted speed limit. ISA systems work with either GPS https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 9/11 11/15/23, 6:50 PM Speed devices linked to speed limits or on -board sensors or cameras that "read" speed limit signs and then integrate speed limit data with vehicle speed in real time. ISA systems differ in how much control drivers have in deciding whether to speed. The least automated systems provide alerts to drivers (Biding & Lind, 2002). A second approach is to introduce resistance to gas pedals, making it harder but still possible to speed (Varhelyi & Makinen, 2001). The most aggressive automated systems limit power so drivers can accelerate up to but not over the speed limit. Some manufacturers offer built-in top speed limiters that must be set manually, whereas some systems will automatically limit the top speed to the posted speed limit (Carsten et al., 2008 CIF }. A fourth option is to give drivers incentives, such as auto insurance discounts, to slow down (Reagan et ai., 2013). During the past 25 years, field assessments have indicated significant reductions in speeding when driving with ISA. The largest research effort studied several thousand Swedish drivers using systems giving an advisory alert, pedal feedback or throttle constriction for more than a year. Researchers reported a decrease in speeding violations for each system (Biding & Lind, 2002). A U.S. study indicated that the potential to earn a modest monetary incentive while driving with an alerting ISA system increased the percentage of time driving at or below the speed limit from 70 percent to 83 percent (Reagan et al., 2013). European researchers have found large reductions in speeding over periods ranging from months to over a year (Carsten, 2012). The largest technical barriers to ISA are the accuracy and breadth of coverage of digital maps with speed limits for GPS-based systems and the need for frequent speed limit signs for the camera -based systems. Digital maps may not include local roads and aren't always updated with speed limit changes in a timely fashion, and the camera -based systems will not know the speed limit until the vehicle passes a speed limit sign. Currently, new models introduced in Europe must have standard ISA, and all new vehicles sold there will be required to have the technology as of July 2024, Several manufacturers offer optional advisory ISA systems for vehicles sold in the U.S., and ISA systems that limit power are available as options on a limited number of vehicles. Manufacturers have begun to integrate camera -based speed limit recognition with cruise control to adjust the set speed based on the posted limit. Updated July 2023 https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 10/11 11115/23, 6:50 PM Speed Automated enforcement program checklist [or Created by INS and other safety groups, this guide outlines best practices for establishing successful red light and speed safety camera programs with broad public support. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries and property damage from motor vehicle crashes through research and evaluation and through education of consumers, poiicymakers and safety professionals. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model. Both organizations are wholly supported by these auto insurers and insurance associations. ©1996-2023, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute, 501(c)(3) organizations I Copyright information and privacy policy https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed#speed-safety-cameras 111111 Automated enforcement is an effective tool to make roads safer. Research shows that red light cameras reduce violations and injury crashes, especially the violent front -into -side crashes most associat- ed with red light running. Speed cameras have been shown to reduce vehicle speeds, crashes, injuries and fatalities. Both types of programs should be designed, implemented and administered properly. Poorly run programs are less likely to be durable and may undermine support for automated enforcement generally, Speed and red light camera programs augment traditional enforce- ment to improve traffic safety by deterring dangerous driving be- haviors. Automated enforcement does not require traffic stops, and well -designed programs can improve safety for all road users in a neutral manner. Successful programs are transparent and have a strong public infor- mation component. Communities should take into account racial and economic equity when making decisions about camera placement and fines. Automated enforcement programs should be data -driven and should prioritize safety, not revenue. In fact, communities should expect that revenue will decline over time as fewer drivers run red lights or violate speed limits, This checklist assumes your community is already legally authorized to set up a program. It provides a minimum list of considerations to help you follow best practices. The goal is to operate a successful program that reduces crashes and prevents deaths and injuries while maintaining strong public support. Automated enforcement can be in- tegrated into broader efforts to discourage unsafe driving that include optimizing speed limits for safety and improving roadway design. ADVOCATES Y FOR HIGHWAY & AUTO SAFETY ' e' �� S +ISA Gavemors Nighwoy Solely Anouolion. �D The irarei Yoc� �� Hnnwry eoi.y- : nsc National Safely Council FIRST STEPS Identify problem intersections and roadways. • Assess violation and crash data. • Conduct field observations. • Collect resident and roadway user input. j .) Consider what role automated enforcement should play as part of a comprehensive traffic safety strategy. l Make any engineering or signage changes needed to improve drivers' compliance with the law, • Ensure the road geometry conforms with guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, National Association of City Transportation Officials guidance or state road design manuals, as appropriate. • Remove sightline obstructions of signals and signage. For red light cameras: • Ensure that yellow light timing conforms to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines. For automated speed enforcement; • Ensure the speed limit is appropriate and accounts for ail road users. Follow guidance and use tools from the Federal Highway Administration, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the National Association of City Transportation Officials. • Ensure the speed limit is appropriate for special conditions, such as work zones and school zones. • Assess whether engineering changes could be made to promote compliance with the speed limit. • Ensure adequate posting of speed limits. !1- j Establish an advisory committee comprised of stakeholders. • Consider including law enforcement, transportation department employees, victim advocates, equity and civil rights advocates, school officials, community residents, first responders, health officials and the courts. Outline the committee's role. This may include developing guiding principles related to safety, equity, and transparency, as well as other aspects of the program. Ensure committee meetings are open to the public and deliberations are transparent. Meet with the media, including newspaper editorial boards, to build support and educate the public. ...3 Make program design decisions, consulting with the advisory committee as appropriate. Program design considerations Target violations with the greatest safety consequences. For example, you might decide not to ticket for right -turn -on -red violations when pedestrians, bicyclists, and oncoming vehicles are not present or to limit violations in work zones to when workers are present, provided the road configuration has not also been altered for construction. Establish a reasonable fine structure. Create options for indigent violators such as payment plans or other alternatives. Establish a threshold that must be crossed before a vehicle is photographed for a violation of red light running or speeding (i.e., a period after a light turns red or a certain mph over the posted speed). The point is to target flagrant, rather than marginal, infractions. Programs should include a process for evidence review by appropriately trained personnel to determine if a violation occurred and issue a citation if warranted. Establish clear procedures for contesting an alleged violation. Consider options to contest online or by mail. When possible, red light camera violations should be recorded in real time video, and videos of the offense should be made available to the vehicle owner for review via the Internet. Fines in excess of program costs should be allocated to transportation safety programs. Use safety data gathered in the first steps to determine camera locations, ensuring that particular neighborhoods are neither overlooked nor overrepresented. ..,:_I Publicize the extent of the safety problem and the need for innovative solutions. Secure a vendor and establish payment based on the vendor's actual costs, not the number of citations. Publicize procedures for contesting an alleged violation. Create a website and social media plan to publicize program de- tails, such as how to pay and dispute tickets. Establish a method for answering questions accurately and in a timely manner. I Develop an emergency action plan for handling problems, such as system malfunctions. [j Hold a kickoff event with advisory committee members. Introduce a well -developed and sustained public education campaign focused on improving safety by changing driver attitudes and behavior. O Connect the program to overall roadway safety in the community and identity the goal of zero tickets resulting from changes in driver behaviors. [u] Install prominent warning signs. [ .) Start with a probationary period during which only warnings are issued. j J Follow current guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation for implementation and operation of automated enforcement devices. 1 Allow for due process. Minimize the number of days between the violation and citation issuance. I' LONG TEh l Publicize changes, including new camera locations, Reinstate the probationary period before ticketing begins at new locations, Monitor program operation and publicize results. Undertake peri- odic reviews and ensure racial, economic and other equity issues and public concerns are addressed, .j Require regular field reviews. Verify monthly camera calibration and synchronization with signals. E a Require regular evaluations of the traffic safety benefits of the program by collecting crash and infraction data. Before -and -after comparisons must use control intersections and roadways. Include control intersections and roadways that are not subject to spillover effects. �Ww) Regularly meet with the advisory committee and media to review program status and sustain public support. „I Continue to improve programs based on new and updated guidance and best practices and look for opportunities to expand automated enforcement use. Consider other changes, including roadway design improvements, in order to reduce opportunities for unsafe driving. AAA i Advocates for Highway Safety i Governors Highway Safety Association IIHS-HLflf i National Safety Council Mav 2021 11/16/23, 8:55 AM What Is It About Traffic Cameras? I ACLU of Iowa ACLU of Iowa Menu Donate WHAT IS IT ABOUT TRAFFIC CAMERAS? FEBRUARY 22, 2021-12:30PM Many Iowans support traffic cameras because of the claim that they will improve traffic safety. But for folks all across the state -and country -who have lived under the daily scrutiny of traffic cameras, it quickly becomes a different story. A number of states have banned the use of traffic cameras. Here's why the ACLU of Iowa would like to see traffic cameras go: Dubious Safety Data The safety data that is often cited is actually conflicting. In some places, for example, traffic cameras have led to an increase in rear -end accidents as drivers rush to slam on the brakes to avoid an automatically generated ticket. Just as a matter of common sense, traffic cameras are unlikely to protect against many of the most dangerous drivers. A traffic camera is far less likely to stop a drunk driver than flesh -and -blood police. Also, because the citation information collected by cameras doesn't get reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation (unlike speeding tickets issued by officers), it isn't effective in flagging repeat high -speeders. What we do know for sure is that traffic cameras are revenue generators. They can bring in millions of dollars every year for the municipalities that set them up —with little to no indication that they are doing anything to promote public safety. They become like an involuntary, confusing, unfair tax on car owners and drivers. Traffic https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/news/what-it-about-traffic-cameras 1/2 11116123, 8:55 AM What Is It About Traffic Cameras? I ACLU of Iowa cameras are more about making money for cities than they are about safety. Due Process Issues We're concerned that car owners get ticketed, rather than the actual driver (a child, a spouse, etc.). There is also a problem of insufficient notice when cities fail to post signs in areas where drivers are approaching traffic cameras.It seems unfair that traffic cameras ticket small offenses, such as stopping slightly over the white line —offenses officers are unlikely to ticket. We're troubled by the potential for localities to become reliant on the revenue the cameras generate. Such reliance has led to misuse in other states, where some cities have shortened yellow lights to increase violations and increase revenue. Creating a Surveillance Camera Culture Perhaps more than anything, we oppose the "Big Brother" approach to governing that traffic cameras embody. Traffic cameras allow for government monitoring of our driving behaviors at a scale that exceeds what is possible when using traditional traffic enforcement methods. Some key legislators have described them as a step toward a "surveillance camera culture" that should give us all pause. hltps://www.aclu-ia.org/en/news/what-it-about-trafficcameras 2/2 T H E C 1 T Y OF 1;,i #A911i I OWA I USA ISSUE PAPER 23-05 1 Automated Traffic Enforcement Cameras December 1, 2022 (S. Ott) STATEMENT OF ISSUE & BACKGROUND In past legislative sessions, there have been several bills proposed in the Iowa Senate aiming to prohibit or regulate the placement and use of all automated traffic enforcement (ATE) systems throughout the State. It is expected that these legislative proposals will continue to be made during the 2023 legislative session. The City of Davenport would be directly affected by ATE prohibition legislation as the City utilizes this technology along its primary highway system for both red light enforcement at three signalized intersections and speed enforcement along two urban arterials. Red light citations are issued to drivers who are completely behind the stop bar when the signal turns red and still proceed through the intersection. Speed violation citations are issued to drivers who exceed the speed limit by 12 mph or more. All infractions are reviewed by a Davenport Police Department sworn officer or by a trained Community Services Specialist prior to the issuance of a citation. Additionally, it should be noted that all camera placement locations are clearly marked with signage, and all cameras are calibrated once per month to ensure measurement accuracy. The City's use of ATE cameras has shown to reduce the annual number of crashes where these cameras are located. In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court issued multiple rulings in regards to ATE cameras. First, the court ruled that the Iowa DOT lacked authority to turn off or remove camera, which opened the door for cities to operate ATE programs under their own rules. Then, the court ruled that cities could not impose liability for ATE camera violation without filing a municipal infraction. Davenport and other Iowa ATE communities do not use the municipal infraction process for ATE violations because of the significant impact that tens of thousands of tickets would have on county courts. Iowa Code already carves out an exception for a comparable ticket type: parking tickets. Iowa Code 321.236 permits liability to be imposed on parking violations outside of the municipal infraction process. The City of Davenport asserts that it is in the best interest of efficient police departments, city governments, county governments, and ATE violators to have similar language authorizing the collection of uncontested ATE fines by city clerks. Rather than banning the use of ATE cameras, or undermining the financial penalty or deterrent with the municipal infraction process, the City of Davenport supports legislation that will create uniformity in the use of ATE cameras and the collection of fines across the State. The City supports enabling legislation that includes the following: • A prohibition of placement of ATEs on interstates • Uniform threshold requirements, including a minimum speed in excess of 12 mph over the posted speed limit and uniform seconds delay after a light change • A uniform violation process that includes the ability for ATE violations to be handled outside the municipal infraction process RELEVANT DATA EXHIBIT 1: Exhibit 1 illustrates the average annual crashes for ATE camera intersections. Comparison of Average Annual Crashes 10 v 8 L v 6 4 ■ 2001-2003 Q 2 ■ 2011-2018 o 1 Q Kimberly at Harrison at 35th Kimberly at Welcome Way Brady EXHIBIT 2: Exhibit 2 illustrates the average speed at ATE camera locations. Speed Camera Location Brady Street (Near Columbia) Speed Limit 35 mph Median Speed 35.1 mph River Drive (Near College) 40 mph 38.8 mph Kimberly & Brady 35 mph 38.2 mph Kimberly & Welcome Way 35 mph 34.6 mph Harrison & 35th 35 mph 36.2 mph OPERATIONAL/FISCAL IMPACTS If ATEs are prohibited, it would have substantial operational and fiscal impacts. Operationally, enforcement in the current ATE areas would need to substantially increased, and fewer resources would be available to increase the enforcement. Statistically, crashes would increase and require an increased response and investigation by other public safety entities such as Davenport Fire and MEDIC EMS. Financially, ATEs generate a portion of revenue that goes directly to the City's General Fund which directly supports the public safety budget. REQUESTED ACTIONS Support legislation that creates uniformity in the use of ATE cameras. Support legislation that enables a change to impose liability for failure to contest citations within a specified window. Oppose any bills that are presented as complete bans on all automated traffic enforcement systems due to their connection with reducing crashes and speeds. Enforcement CAMERA S Operational Guidelines ej U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NHTSA www nhtsa.gov FORWARD Speeding is one of the major causes of crashes, deaths, and injuries on the Nation's roadways. Speeding has consistently been a contributing cause in approximately 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes over the last 10 years. The primary reason for managing traffic speeds is safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) support a comprehensive approach to speed management. Speed management involves engineering, enforcement, and education as components in a compre- hensive approach to controlling excessive speeds. Speed management requires applying road design elements and engineering measures to obtain appropriate speeds; setting speed limits that are ra- tional, safe, and reasonable; and applying highly visible and well publicized enforcement efforts that focus on crash producing violators. Reducing speeding -related crashes, injuries and deaths is the goal of speed management. Research has shown that free flow travel speeds within 5 to 10 mph of the posted speed limit has the potential to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes and produces even greater benefits when the most egregious speeders are targeted. Automated speed enforcement (ASE) systems are an important element in speed management and can be a very effective countermeasure to prevent speeding -related crashes. However, when used, ASE is a supplement to, not a replacement for, traditional enforcement operations. Advantages of ASE include: the ability to increase safety for law enforcement officers by implementing ASE in ar- eas where traditional traffic stops are dangerous or infeasible due to roadway design, the ability to continuously enforce the speed limit, and reductions in traffic congestion sometimes caused by driver distraction at traffic stops. The ASE guidelines are intended to serve program managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individuals responsible for the strategic vision and daily op- erations of the program. The guidelines are written from a U.S. perspective and emphasize U.S. con- texts and best practices. However, they are also drawn from the experiences of exemplary programs internationally. Though international differences in law, history, and culture might influence best prac- tices for ASE, the majority of these guidelines are relevant to ASE programs worldwide. The guidelines are intended to be accessible and inclusive, with an emphasis on presenting options and describing the advantages, particularly in increased traffic flow and reduced congestion, and dis- advantages of each, so that an ASE program can be tailored to the needs of a particular jurisdiction. The technological state of the practice in ASE is developing rapidly. Some specific technologies are described, but rather than focus on the capabilities of current technologies, the emphasis is on identi- fying the functional requirements that technologies must meet so that the guidelines remain relevant as technologies evolve. It is important to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program through communica- tions and marketing programs, public meetings, and hearings. ASE should be described as a tool that can enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than re- place, traffic stops by law enforcement officers. The public should be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose "big brother" surveillance. Saying this will not nec- essarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system. Table of Contents Chapter1: Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 Background..................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and scope of the guidelines...........................................................................................3 Chapter 2: General Considerations and Planning............................................................................5 Ensure legal and policy authority for ASE....................................................................................5 Identify speeding -related safety problems...................................................................................7 Developa strategic plan...............................................................................................................7 Identify countermeasures.............................................................................................................8 Obtain interagency and community support................................................................................9 Seek experience and lessons from managers of existing programs.........................................10 Determine nature of violation and penalty.................................................................................10 Identify enforcement equipment alternatives.............................................................................12 Systemcomponents..............................................................................................................12 ASEsystem platforms............................................................................................................13 Identify requirements and resources needed for ASE program................................................16 Chapter 3: Program Startup..................................................................................................17 Siteselection..............................................................................................................................17 Selectionfactors....................................................................................................................17 Roadtypes.............................................................................................................................18 Evaluation of candidate sites.................................................................................................19 Systemprocurement..................................................................................................................20 Coordination with courts.............................................................................................................20 Information management: compatibility, flow, and security.......................................................20 Program evaluation plan............................................................................................................21 Marketing and media activities (initial).......................................................................................21 Promote awareness of ASE program....................................................................................21 Promote acceptance of ASE program...................................................................................22 Informationoutlets.................................................................................................................23 Publicinput............................................................................................................................25 Continuing public information and education after startup....................................................26 Program rollout and warning period...........................................................................................26 Chapter4: Operations....................................................................................................................27 Enforcementplan.......................................................................................................................27 Enforcement speed threshold................................................................................................27 Overt versus covert enforcement...........................................................................................28 i Signage..................................................................................................................................28 Days and hours of operation..................................................................................................29 ASE strategy and scheduling.................................................................................................31 Immediate driver feedback.....................................................................................................33 Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts.........................................................33 Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan.........................................................................34 Fieldoperations..........................................................................................................................34 Operator staffing and training................................................................................................34 Unit location and setup procedures.......................................................................................35 Eventdocumentation.............................................................................................................35 Datatransfer..........................................................................................................................36 Equipment maintenance and calibration................................................................................36 Chapter 5: Violation Notice Processing and Delivery.....................................................................37 Distribution of responsibilities....................................................................................................37 Violationvalidation.....................................................................................................................37 Matching violation information to driver and vehicle records.....................................................37 Deliveryto recipients..................................................................................................................38 Review and quality control procedures......................................................................................38 Statustracking...........................................................................................................................38 Timeliness of processing............................................................................................................39 Chapter 6: Violation Notice Receipt and Adjudication....................................................................40 Information on violation notice...................................................................................................40 Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice...........................................................40 Options for violation notice recipient..........................................................................................41 Acceptresponsibility..............................................................................................................41 Denyresponsibility.................................................................................................................41 Contestviolation....................................................................................................................41 Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice.....................................................42 Violation notices issued to government and business vehicles.................................................42 Accessibility of violation notice...................................................................................................43 Additional help and support.......................................................................................................43 Chapter 7: Program Evaluation......................................................................................................44 Basic program monitoring..........................................................................................................44 Statistical evaluation of crash effects and speed effects...........................................................44 Crasheffects..........................................................................................................................46 Speedeffects.........................................................................................................................46 ii Evaluation of public awareness and acceptance...........................................................................46 References.....................................................................................................................................48 AppendixA: Further Reading.......................................................................................................A-1 Appendix B: Summary of ASE Practice in the United States.......................................................A-5 Appendix C. Photo Red Light Enforcement Legal Considerations....................................A-5 Appendix D: ASE Unit Setup Checklist for Beaverton, Oregon.................................................A-16 Appendix E: Sample Citation for Charlotte, North Carolina.......................................................A-27 Appendix F: List of Jurisdictions Using ASE Programs..............................................................A-19 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Mobile ASE units in Portland, OR, (top), Scottsdale, AZ, (center), andSan Jose, CA, (bottom).................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2. Pole -mounted ASE system in Washington, DC..................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Advertisement on rear of city buses in Washington, DC ........................................................ 25 Figure 4. Optional regulatory signs specified in the MUTCD................................................................ 29 Figure 5. General signage in Scottsdale, AZ, (left) and Washington, DC (right) .................................. 29 Figure 6. Fixed advance signage (clockwise from upper left): Boulder, CO; Washington, DC; San Jose, CA; San Jose, CA (again); Scottsdale, AZ; Portland, OR ................................... 30 Figure 7. Temporary advance signage in Charlotte, NC, (left) and Scottsdale, AZ, (right) .................. 30 Figure 8. Mobile ASE unit with speed display board in Portland, OR ................................................... 33 Figure 9. Portable speed display board List of Tables 34 Table 1. Common arguments against ASE and appropriate responses ............................................... 23 Table 2. Ways to achieve site -specific and jurisdiction -wide speeding reductions .........................38 1V CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Excessive speed is one of the leading factors that contribute to traffic crashes. Speeding -related crashes are responsible for an estimated $40.4 billion in economic losses each year and were associ- ated with the loss of 13,543' lives (31 % of all highway fatalities) in 2006 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007). Law enforcement agencies fulfill a crucial role in speed management through the deterrent effects of well -publicized speed enforcement programs. Highly visible, sustained speed enforcement reduces the incidence of speeding -related crashes (Povey, Frith, & Deall, 2003), and heightened levels of enforcement can further improve speed limit compliance and extend compli- ance for a greater period of time after heightened enforcement ends (Elliot & Broughton, 2004). An automated speed enforcement (ASE) program can be an effective supplement to traditional speed enforcement operations as widespread knowledge of its use amplifies the enforcement program's abil- ity to reduce speeds and speeding -related crashes. ASE programs worldwide have demonstrated the ability to reduce speeding and crashes beyond the effects observed with traditional speed enforce- ment alone (e.g., Pilkington & Kinra, 2005; Cunningham, Hummer, & Moon, 2005). The "Speed - Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines" have been prepared to assist program man- agers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and others responsible for the operations of ASE programs in planning and operating ASE systems as a component of a comprehensive speed management program. BACKGROUND ASE is a method of traffic speed enforcement that is used to detect speeding violations and record identifying information about the vehicle and/or driver. Violation evidence is processed and reviewed in an office environment and violation notices are delivered to the registered owners of identified vehicles after the alleged violation occurs. ASE, if used, is one technology available to law enforcement as a supplement and not a replacement for traditional enforcement operations. Evaluations2 of ASE, both internationally and in the United States have identified some advantages over traditional speed enforcement methods. These include: • High rate of violation detection. ASE units can detect and record multiple violations per min- ute. This can provide a strong deterrent effect by increasing drivers' perceived likelihood of be- ing cited for speeding. • Physical safety of ASE operators and motorists. ASE can operate at locations where roadside traffic stops are dangerous or infeasible, and where traffic conditions are unsafe for police ve- hicles to enter the traffic stream and stop suspected violators. With ASE there is normally no vehicle pursuit or confrontation with motorists. ASE might also reduce the occurrence of traffic congestion due to driver distraction caused by traffic stops on the roadside. • Fairness of operation. Violations are recorded for all vehicles traveling in excess of the en- forcement speed threshold. • Efficient use of resources. ASE can act as a "force multiplier," enhancing the influence of lim- ited traffic enforcement staff and resources. Although ASE has some advantages, the aforementioned evaluations of ASE systems have also iden- tified some limitations. These include: ' NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding -related if any driver involved in the crash is charged with a speeding -related offense or if a police officer indicates that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash. (Analysis of Speeding -Related Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes. Technical Report, DOT HS 809 839, August 2005. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.) z Refer to Appendix A: Further Reading • ASE does not immediately stop speeding drivers. Unlike traditional enforcement, ASE does not intercept speeding drivers. This allows the driver to possibly continue at unsafe speeds. • Limited scope of enforcement and lack of direct contact with motorists. ASE units typically only enforce speeding violations; other illegal activities are not enforced simultaneously. Although photo enforcement has the potential to enforce certain violations such as driving without a seatbelt as a secondary offense, the lack of direct contact between police and motorists means that police may not have the opportunity to observe suspicious activities and identify additional offenses such as impaired driving. • Specialization of ASE services. In many jurisdictions where ASE is used, ASE operators and vehicles cannot perform any task other than ASE. Often the person monitoring the system is a civilian, or the vehicle used is not suitable for enforcement activities. This restricts the ability to conduct other law enforcement duties and respond to emergencies. • Time lag between violation and penalty. When an ASE violation is recorded, the alleged viola- tor might not be aware of the violation until the violation notice arrives in the mail days or weeks later, which may dissociate the violating behavior from the penalty. The immediate specific deterrence effect on the violator is therefore lost. ASE is currently used in dozens of countries around the world and in about 30 U.S. jurisdictions, rang- ing in size from small towns to large cities. Appendix B lists many of the jurisdictions that conduct ASE and provides some basic information about the programs, including whether the vehicle owner or the driver is responsible for the citation (see Chapter 2: Determine nature of violation and penalty) and whether the jurisdiction uses mobile ASE units, fixed ASE units, or both (see Chapter 2: Identify enforcement equipment alternatives), their practices, evaluations of their effectiveness, and public reactions. The effects of ASE operations on traffic speeds and crashes have been studied for more than two decades. Pilkington and Kinra (2005) conducted a systematic review of 14 major studies published between 1992 and 2003 on the effects of ASE on traffic crashes. Most of the reviewed studies were conducted in the United Kingdom and Australia, two countries with substantial and long -running ASE programs; Pilkington and Kinra did not include U.S. studies in this evaluation. All of the studies re- ported positive effects of ASE on crashes, injuries, and fatalities, although the magnitude of the effects varied widely between studies. The results of the review indicate that ASE, when properly used, does lead to a reduction in crashes, though the authors note that the actual magnitude of the effects are unclear due to methodological limitations in all of the reviewed studies. In the United States, ASE was adopted later than in Europe and Australia. However, in recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of communities that use ASE as a part of their speed management and traffic law enforcement strategy. Like their European counterparts, ASE pro- grams in the United States have been evaluated and have been responsible for reductions in speed- ing and speeding -related crashes. In Oregon, Senate Bill 382, which passed in 1995, authorized a two-year demonstration of ASE and mandated an evaluation of the program (Cities of Beaverton and Portland, 1997). Both cities collected speed data before and after the ASE program began at enforced sites and at control sites. During the four months of focused enforcement of five problematic sites, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased from 18 percent to 13 percent. During the same time there was a slight increase in speeding at control sites in Beaverton. In Beaverton, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 5 mph above the speed limit decreased from 19 percent to 13 percent at enforced sites. During the same period there was a slight increase in speeding at control sites, which reinforces the conclusion that the benefit was real. The project team also evaluated public awareness and acceptance of ASE. Approximately eight months after ASE began, 85 percent of Beaverton residents and 88 percent of Portland residents were aware of the demonstration project and public approval of photo radar in school zones increased to 88 percent in Beaverton and to 89 percent in Portland. Approval for photo radar use in residential neighborhoods also increased during that time period. 2 A 2003 evaluation of the ASE program in Washington, DC, found that six months after enforcement began at seven ASE sites there was an 82-percent decrease in the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph and a 14-percent decrease in mean speed during enforcement hours relative to eight control sites (Retting & Farmer, 2003). Statistics on the Metropolitan Police De- partment Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov) indicate that, in 2006, about 2 percent of vehicles observed by ASE units were speeding above the enforcement threshold. A 2003 telephone survey found that about 50 percent of WashingtonDC, residents approved of the ASE program and 36 percent disapproved (Retting, 2003). To evaluate the ASE program in Charlotte, NC, speed data were collected at 14 enforcement sites on corridors known for frequent crashes and at 11 comparison sites (Cunningham et al., 2005) before and after the start of ASE. The proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased 55 percent at enforced sites, relative to control sites, and crashes were reduced an esti- mated 12 percent at enforced sites compared to expectations based upon crash statistics from 2000 through 2003. In focus groups with representatives from neighborhood associations, traffic engineers, and police officers, attitudes toward ASE were generally positive, but all the participants had a preex- isting interest in ASE and therefore may not have fully represented the population of Charlotte. An independent evaluation of ASE was conducted on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, AZ (Wash- ington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). A total of six fixed cameras operated on a 6.5-mile section of freeway with a 65 mph speed limit, with three cameras operating in each direction of travel. Prelimi- nary findings indicate that the ASE units caused a mean speed reduction of more than 9 mph, from 73.5 mph to 64.2 mph during off-peak travel hours, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40- percent reduction in crash -related injuries. Although rear -end crashes actually increased, there was little or no increase in injuries associated with these crashes. The relatively small sample of crashes may limit the reliability of these preliminary findings. The study authors estimate the annual economic benefits of the freeway ASE program at $1.4 to $10.6 million. When enforcement was suspended at the end of the demonstration period, the rate of detected speeding violations (greater than 76 mph) increased by 836 percent. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINES The Speed -Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines provide guidance for the deploy- ment and operation of an ASE program. The guidelines address the crucial components of an ASE program, from planning and startup through field operations, violation processing and adjudication, and program evaluation. Although the guidelines are divided into distinct sections, it is necessary to consider all elements of an ASE program as an interrelated whole; no one aspect of an ASE program can be developed without consideration of the others. For this reason, the guidelines are designed so that readers can easily navigate between sections and find the information they need. The interrelation of the various aspects of an ASE program is emphasized by cross-references throughout the docu- ment that guides readers to additional information on a topic. The Speed -Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines are intended to serve program managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individu- als responsible for the planning and operation of the program. The guidelines are written from a United States perspective and emphasize U.S. contexts and best practices. However, they are also drawn from the experience of exemplary programs internationally. Though international differences in laws, history, cultures, and so forth might influence best practices for ASE, the majority of these guidelines are relevant to ASE programs worldwide. The guidelines are intended to be accessible and inclusive with an emphasis on presenting options and describing the advantages and disadvantages of each so that an ASE program can be tailored to the needs of a particular jurisdiction. The technological state of the practice in ASE is developing rap- idly. Some specific technologies are described, but rather than focus on the capabilities of current technologies, the emphasis is on identifying the functional requirements that technologies must meet so that the guidelines remain relevant as technologies evolve. The Speed -Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines focus specifically on issues that are directly related to ASE. For more general speed enforcement guidance, refer to: • Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (NHTSA, 2008) • Guidelines for Developing a Municipal Speed Enforcement Program (NHTSA, 2000) • Beyond the Limits: A Law Enforcement Guide to Speed Enforcement (NHTSA, 1992) • Managing Speed (Transportation Research Board, 1998) • Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 19: Speed Management (NHTSA, 2006) More general guidance is provided by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (2003), which outlined a vision for effective traffic safety operations with strategies for program management, human resource management, and use of technologies.3 A list of key documents related to ASE is presented in Appendix A. 3 Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement A Planning Guide for Law Enforcement Executives, Administrators and Managers, IACP, 2003 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING ENSURE LEGAL AND POLICY AUTHORITY FOR ASE Legal authority is essential for ASE programs. The courts have consistently rejected the numerous Constitutional challenges that critics of automated enforcement have raised to this type of enforce- ment, by ruling that automated enforcement is consistent with U.S. and State Constitutions (Kendall, 2004). Some jurisdictions, however, have been required to correct operational inconsistencies in their Programs. An overview of legal issues relevant to ASE is provided by Gilbert, Sines, and Bell (1996). A review of case law relevant to automated enforcement is presented in Appendix C. The case law is also available in Appendix A of the Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FWHA & NHTSA, 2005). Kendall (2004) addresses legal challenges that have been brought against automated enforcement programs (both ASE and red light cameras) on Constitutional grounds. Some of these challenges are particular to the practices of individual jurisdictions while others are more broadly relevant: • Due process. "Some critics have alleged that automated enforcement violates the right to due process for a number of reasons: not all drivers photographed receive tickets; an owner is presumed to be the driver at the time of the violation; statutes do not specifically state where a warning sign should be; it is presumed that the driver committed the offense; and the delay in receiving the ticket for the violation is too long." • Equal protection. "Other critics argued that automated enforcement violates the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment. They make this claim because of the different punishments between a ticket from a photographed violation and an on -the -spot officer en- forced ticket..." • Fourth amendment. "Two suits have alleged that issuing a citation to a registered owner of a photographed vehicle amounts to a seizure of the vehicle in violation of the search and seizure clause of the 4th amendment." • "Takings clause" of 5th amendment. "A suit in Denver, Colorado, charged that the city was vio- lating the 5th amendment 'takings clause' by booting vehicles (placing a metal device on a ve- hicle that does not allow the vehicle to move more than a few inches forward or backward) whose owners had not paid their fines from automated enforcement." • Privacy. "Although the issue of invasion of privacy is often raised by opponents of automated enforcement no privacy challenges have been raised in court. This is probably because the is- sue of privacy in a vehicle has been very well defined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Driving is a regulated activity on public roads. By obtaining a license, a motorist agrees to abide by certain rules including, for example, to obey traffic signals." Alcee, Black, Lau, Wendzel, & Lynn (1992) address many of these same potential challenges to automated enforcement, but also address freedom of association. Critics may claim that automated enforcement violates the 1st amendment right to freedom of association by discouraging individuals from riding in the same vehicle with others with whom they would not want to be photographed. The authors claim that this criticism is unfounded because (1) ASE does not infringe upon the freedom of expressive association; (2) the protection of freedom of expressive association is specifically intended to protect "groups organized for the purpose of expressing 1st amendment rights"; and (3) "photo - radar clearly does not prevent individuals from engaging in intimate relationships with family members or any other person..." 4 Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement. May 1,1997, TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Legal Research Digest 36. In some States, specific enabling legislation is required to allow the use of ASE. In other States, ASE can be implemented under existing laws, though in some cases challenges may arise if the original intent of the law did not include ASE. Some States that permit red light camera enforcement have already passed legislation that enables ASE. A few States, including New Jersey, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, passed laws that explicitly forbid ASE. States also have different specific requirements for ASE operations. For instance, California requires the presence of an officer to issue a speeding citation. Oregon requires a speed display board on or near the ASE unit. Numerous ASE programs in the United States have been found by courts to be operating in conflict with State or local laws, so it is critical to ensure that the ASE program is established and operated in strict adherence to applicable laws. Legal experts should review current and proposed laws to ensure that they explicitly permit ASE and to ensure that there is no conflict between local and State laws. The Insurance Institute for High- way Safety maintains a limited list of current State laws that are relevant to automated enforcement on its Web site (www.iihs.org) and the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running maintains a list of pending State legislation that would influence the use of automated enforcement on its Web site (www.stopredlightrunning.com). Even with legislation in place that enables ASE, there may still be hurdles to overcome before ASE can be implemented. Often, local governments must specifically authorize ASE. The National Com- mittee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) has developed a model law for automated enforcement programs. The model law, which is available on the NCUTLO Web site (www.ncutlo.org), conforms to certain assumptions that may not be applicable in all jurisdictions, but it can serve as a guide for the development of enabling legislation and enforcement procedures. An- other ASE model law is provided by Alcee et al. (1992). One of the unique aspects of ASE is the need to match vehicle license plate information to vehicle registration information. There are many challenges in identifying the proper recipient of the violation notice, and the evidentiary requirements to prove guilt vary between States and jurisdictions. These issues are addressed in Chapter 5. When planning an ASE program, it is important to be aware of opposition and to confront challenges when they arise and before committing substantial effort and resources to ASE. It is also important to be aware of the mechanisms that can be used to challenge ASE. These include petitions and refer- enda, introduction of disabling legislative bills, local government legislative bodies, and, indirectly, pub- lic pressure on elected officials. Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support provides guidance on obtaining support from stakeholders, and Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (ini- tial) provide guidance on effective communications with the community. It is also critical to understand all State and local laws relevant to ASE and to consider all possible in- terpretations of these laws. For example, in May 2006, a North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling found that automated enforcement program managers throughout the State improperly interpreted Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution, which states that "the clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures and of all fines collected in the several counties for any breach of the penal laws of the State, shall belong to and remain in the several counties, and shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools" (Lowery, 2006). The city of High Point, which was the defendant in the case, argued that the city's red light cameras imposed a civil penalty rather than a fine, but the court ruled that the nature of the offense was the same, regardless of the method of pay- ment collection. As a result, all jurisdictions in North Carolina using automated enforcement technol- ogy were required to pay 90 percent of revenues to local school systems, plus back payments of pre- viously collected revenues. The drastic reduction in recoupable revenues has led all automated en- forcement programs in North Carolina to cease operations as a result of prohibitive costs. An ASE program can also be rendered ineffective without being eliminated. In some States, legisla- tive bills were introduced that would not explicitly forbid ASE, but would add infeasible operational re- quirements or influence revenue flow in a way that would make programs prohibitively costly. For ex- ample, Sub. H.B. 56 introduced in the Ohio legislature would require a police officer to be present dur- ing ASE operation and to issue citations at the time and location of the alleged offense. Arizona House Bill 2251 would have required all revenues from Scottsdale's freeway ASE deployment to go to a State highway fund. The Ohio bill was passed by the State House and Senate and was awaiting a 6 decision by the Governor at the time of this publication. The Arizona bill failed to pass in the State House of Representatives. From an operational standpoint, it is also important to identify and prevent loopholes or other methods for drivers to circumvent ASE. For instance, procedures should be in place to follow up with alleged violators who do not respond to notices of violation (see Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipi- ent, Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice, and Violation notices issued to gov- ernment and business vehicles for further guidance on violation notice processing). Drivers may also attempt to circumvent ASE by using consumer radar detectors, or by altering, concealing, or falsifying license plates. In the United Kingdom, some in -vehicle global positioning systems (GPS) include a database of ASE locations. These systems warn drivers when they are approaching a location where ASE is known to be used. IDENTIFY SPEEDING -RELATED SAFETY PROBLEMS The first step in planning the operations of an ASE program is to identify the speeding -related safety problems and attitudes that the ASE program will be designed to address. Measures that re- flect a speeding problem include speeding -related crashes, excessive speeds, speed variance, and citizen complaints. Speeding -related crashes are the most direct indicator of a safety problem at a particular location. When assessing the crash problem, it is important to distinguish between crashes in which speeding was the primary factor, a contributing factor, or not a factor. Crashes that involve fatalities or serious injuries deserve particular attention. It is also important to identify trends and contributing factors in crash data. For example, the number and severity of speeding -related crashes might be influenced by weather conditions, time of day, traffic volume, alcohol -impaired driving, aggressive driving, the presence of enforcement, or other conditions. Excessive speed is also an indicator of a potential safety problem because there are direct relation- ships between speed and crash probability (Aarts & van Schagen, 2006) and between speed and level of injury in a crash (Bowie & Walz, 1994). Like crash history, speeding may be influenced by factors such as weather conditions, traffic volume, time of day, and the presence of enforcement. Locations where excessive speeding is prevalent are normally identified through speed surveys, review of the history of speeding -related crashes, and anecdotal reports from police officers or citizens. Speeding can also have a negative impact on quality of life and perceived safety. Citizen complaints can help to identify such locations, though a speed survey should be conducted to confirm the presence of unsafe speeding before ASE is introduced. Speed variance is a measure of the consistency of speeds among drivers on a road at a given time. The link between speed variance and crashes has not been fully resolved; numerous studies have linked speed variance to crash probability (e.g., Garber & Gadiraju, 1988; Harkey, Robertson, & Davis, 1990) but others have found that speed variance does not increase crash probability (e.g., Davis, 2002; Kockelman & Ma, 2004). It is possible that the inconsistency of results is due to methodological differences between analyses, or that speed variance might only influence crashes in particular situations. Davis (2002) suggests that very fast drivers and very slow drivers may be at elevated risk for crashes, but that speed variance itself does not cause crashes. Considering these findings, speed variance data may help to understand the nature of the speeding problem, but crash history and excessive speeding are the primary indicators of a speeding -related safety problem. With data on crash history and excessive speeds, it is possible to determine where the speeding - related safety problem is located. Problems may be clustered at specific sites (e.g., a particular intersection or horizontal curve), general areas or road types (e.g., an arterial corridor or school zones), or problems might be broadly distributed across areas and road types. ASE site selection issues are addressed in detail in Chapter 3: Site selection. DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN A strategic plan for ASE should provide the link between the ASE program's overarching objectives (e.g., to reduce the occurrence of speeding and speeding -related crashes) and the short-term and long-term benchmarks that indicate the degree of success in achieving objectives (e.g., the amount of 7 reduction in speeding and crashes at each deployment location). Although program objectives should be tailored to the specific speeding -related safety problem in the community, there are general objec- tives that all ASE programs should strive to achieve: • Reduce the frequency and severity of speeding -related crashes. • Reduce the frequency of excessive speeding, with an emphasis on the most extreme speeders. • Maximize safety improvements with the most efficient use of resources. • Maximize public awareness and approval of ASE. • Maximize perceived likelihood that speeders will be caught. • Use ASE as a tool to enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. • Emphasize deterrence rather than punishment. • Emphasize safety rather than revenue generation. • Maintain program integrity by ensuring that all program employees and partners operate ac- cording to program rules and regulations. • Maintain program transparency by educating the public about program operations and be pre- pared to explain and justify decisions that affect program operations. Additional objectives might be more specific to the needs or restrictions of the jurisdiction (e.g., "Re- duce speeding in school zones"). Everyone involved in the ASE program must share these objectives and work to achieve them for the program to be fully successful. The strategic plan should emphasize that it is important to avoid rushing to begin enforcement. Some jurisdictions took more than one year to plan their programs before implementation. It is also important to chart the level of success in achieving objectives. Information on program evaluation is presented in Chapter 7. Finally, the stra- tegic plan should consider the long-term direction of the program, including contingencies for future expansion and improvement. Most successful ASE programs started with a minimal ASE presence and expanded their programs as the public came to accept the technology and as program partici- pants gained experience and improved operations. IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES There are three categories of countermeasures that can mitigate a speeding -related safety problem: • Engineering countermeasures can be used to improve the roadway infrastructure itself. Coun- termeasures can include improved signage, pavement markings, and traffic signals; improved roadway hardware and design features such as guardrails or shoulders and removal of dan- gerous roadside obstacles to mitigate the effects of road departure crashes; pavement resur- facing; installations of traffic -calming devices such as speed humps and rumble strips; and geometric alterations such as roundabouts and roadway realignment. Speed limits must be appropriate for the road. Engineering evaluations at problem locations can help to identify po- tential improvements. • Education countermeasures can change public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to speeding. The goal of education is to promote a culture of safety -consciousness in which speeding is understood to be hazardous and socially unacceptable. Appropriate messages and information outlets are addressed in Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (initial). • Enforcement countermeasures can deter speeding and penalize violators. There are many methods to conduct enforcement. Detailed guidelines for conducting a comprehensive speed enforcement program are available in Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). As discussed in Chapter 1, ASE has advan- tages and disadvantages relative to non -automated enforcement that should be considered before beginning an ASE program. To operate effectively and efficiently, ASE should be deployed as part of a comprehensive plan that includes engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures tailored to address specific speeding -related safety problems. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly delineated, and the purpose of each countermeasure should be explained to achieve buy -in from everyone who is in- volved in confronting the problems caused by speeding. OBTAIN INTERAGENCY AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT ASE is an inherently cooperative venture. A committee or advisory panel of stakeholder representa- tives should be formed during the planning process to guide program development and ensure that stakeholders can provide input from their unique perspectives. A successful ASE program requires the input and support of many stakeholders: Law enforcement officials and officers are at the center of ASE operations in most jurisdic- tions. Police resources are limited and there are competing demands for officers' time. Dedi- cated leadership, staff, and resources can help to ensure that ASE is fully staffed and oper- ated consistently. Leadership must view ASE as a priority to achieve staff level buy -in. Law enforcement officers might be skeptical that ASE is as effective as traditional traffic enforce- ment and that ASE will supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. It is impor- tant to emphasize the benefits of ASE to officers. Emphasis should be directed at proven benefits of ASE, such as increased officer safety, crash reduction, increased traffic flow, and decreased traffic congestion. Support should also be sought from police associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and State associations of both chiefs and sheriffs. Traffic engineers and department of transportation officials are responsible for posting speed limits to maximize efficient traffic flow and alleviate congestion. Input from traffic engineers can help ensure that speed limits at proposed sites are appropriate and comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a national standard for all roads. Engineers are also often responsible for the collection and dissemination of data and statistics relevant to traffic safety, as well as the planning and implementation of safety countermeasures. Input from traffic engineers can guide ASE program goals and prioritization of enforcement sites. Traffic engineering data can also be used for program evaluation. The legal community must accept that the ASE program is legal, fair, and defensible in court. Stakeholders in the legal community include judges, civilian adjudicators (in jurisdictions where civilians preside over ASE hearings), and prosecuting attorneys. The most important consideration is assurance that sufficient evidence is recorded and presented to prove guilt. This means the legal community must accept that the ASE technology and evidence handling procedures are accurate, unbiased, and safeguarded against errors and tampering. The evi- dence must meet the standard required to uphold a speeding conviction. To that end, verifica- tion of ASE equipment accuracy through equipment testing should be conducted before each enforcement session; or if a fixed site, at appropriate and regularly established intervals. Proper configurations, focus, computer equipment, flash, and image capture processes should be checked according to established standards, local law, and manufacturers' specifications. Furthermore, the evidence presented in a hearing must be sufficient to show that the defen- dant is guilty of the violation. Judges must be familiar with ASE technology and informed about its accuracy and safeguards against errors and improper use. Court personnel and administrators must also commit to any increased caseload expected to be caused by ASE and the additional staff and space that this increase may require. Elected officials at the State and local levels have the power to enact legislation or regulations that affect ASE. In some cases, new legislation may be required to enable ASE. In other cases, elected officials may pass legislation that forbids or severely curtails the use of ASE. In most jurisdictions where ASE has been used, elected officials have had differences of opinion regarding ASE. The result is usually a compromise that allows ASE, but with certain restric- tions and requirements. 9 Motor vehicle department personnel are usually responsible for matching violation data with motor vehicle records and providing registration information to violation processors. Vendors may often perform this operation with the cooperation of the motor vehicle agency. ASE may impose a significant additional workload on the motor vehicle department. Program managers must work with the motor vehicle department to determine the payment structure for services, information flow, processing time, and other requirements. • Communications or media relations personnel are often responsible for working with program managers to develop and disseminate marketing and media material to the public and the media. Members of the public might not have a direct role in an ASE program, but a successful ASE program must have the support of the community. Community residents do recognize the safety benefits of ASE and the majority of people support it (Freedman, Williams, & Lund, 1990; Royal, 2003). Although local residents are of primary importance, non-residents who visit or drive through the jurisdiction may also have influence. Dialogue with the community should begin during the planning stages of ASE, even before the beginning of an official public information and education campaign. People should be informed of decisions regarding the program and key aspects of operations and adjudication. They should have outlets to voice their opinions and suggestions. The public can also help to identify locations where ASE should be used. Communication with residents should always emphasize the proven benefits of ASE, including increased officer safety, crash reduction, increased traffic flow, decreased traffic congestion, and that safety is the sole motivation for the use of ASE. Representatives of citizen advocacy groups might act as intermediaries for their constituencies and have some role in program planning (see Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (initial) for more in- formation on interactions with the public). Depending upon the structure of the ASE program, there may be other people or organizations in- volved in ASE planning and operations, such as experts in technology, information systems, finance, and contracting. A vendor representative may be involved after a vendor is selected. A representative from the department of public works or public safety may participate as well. Although stakeholders may have their own unique concerns about ASE, it is essential that all details of program operations are effectively communicated as early as possible to earn their trust and support. Program managers should work with all stakeholders to ensure they understand how ASE works, what safeguards are in place to ensure proper operation, and to convince them the program is designed in the interest of pub- lic safety. In -person demonstrations of the technology can help to demystify ASE and convince stake- holders it is reliable. A stakeholder committee can also provide valuable guidance for an ASE pro- gram beyond the planning and startup stages. Periodic meetings should be held throughout the dura- tion of the program. SEEK EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS FROM MANAGERS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS No matter how well it is planned and managed, running an ASE program is a learning experience. All successful programs have adapted to changing situations and all successful managers have modified elements of their programs that needed improvement. A major purpose of these guidelines is to com- pile the wisdom and experience of successful program managers. Direct contact, however, with these managers can shed additional light on important topics and can assist in staying abreast of current events and trends relevant to ASE. A list of experienced ASE program offices is provided in Appendix F. Many informative research reports and articles are listed in the References section of these guide- lines and in Appendix A. DETERMINE NATURE OF VIOLATION AND PENALTY Depending on State and local law, ASE violations can either be considered "point" offenses that are punishable by fines and license sanctions or non -point offenses that are only punishable by fines. In some jurisdictions, the nature of the violation and penalty might be determined by preexisting law or as a condition in enabling legislation. If possible, policies should be consistent among neighboring juris- dictions that use ASE to avoid public confusion. Many factors influence the choice of violation and penalty, and each option has its own implications, advantages, and disadvantages. 10 The nature of the violation and penalty can have a substantial influence on the requirements of field operations, violation notice processing, and adjudication. If violations are considered point offenses, the driver of the vehicle must be identified in the ASE violation photo. This normally requires multiple cameras and additional office labor, and increases the burden of proof upon the jurisdiction to prove that an alleged violator is guilty. A vehicle owner charged with a violation may rebut the charge by stating that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation. If violations are considered non - point offenses, driver identification is typically not required, and the penalty for a violation is a fine is- sued to the vehicle's registered owner. The adjudication process for non -point offenses is typically equivalent to the process used for non-moving violations such as parking tickets. ASE programs that require driver identification do not necessarily have to issue both fines and license sanctions. In juris- dictions in Colorado that use ASE, drivers are identified, but the only penalty for a violation is a fine. Driver identification allows ASE to function more like traditional enforcement methods. Driver identifi- cation ensures that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation is held liable for the violation. Driver identification is necessary to impose license demerits or points. A combination of fines and li- cense sanctions is consistent with traditional enforcement penalties and the U.S. DOT Speed Man- agement Strategic Initiative (U.S. DOT, 2005) recommends this combination as the most effective way to deter speeding. The National Committee of Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances also recom- mends this approach in its Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Model Law (NCUTLO, 2001). The imposition of sanctions enables identification of drivers who have previous sanctions on their licenses and face restrictions or loss of license if they receive further sanctions. Identifying the driver is consistent with laws regulating traditional speed enforcement. This type of pro- gram may require less substantial changes to traffic laws in allowing the use of ASE. Programs that use driver identification may also have a stronger legal basis in the case of legal challenges. For in- stance, Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota found that the Minneapolis red light camera pro- gram, which held registered vehicle owners responsible for violations, did not presume the defendant's innocence, in violation of the due process requirements of State law (State of Minnesota and City of Minneapolis v. Kuhlman, 2006). Although the automated enforcement program was permitted by a city ordinance, the court found that State law, which superseded the city ordinance, required a higher standard of due process than the automated enforcement program provided. Minneapolis's red light camera program was suspended immediately following this ruling. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a decision rendered April 5, 2007, upheld the district court and court of appeals decisions finding that the procedures used in the automated enforcement program violated State law. Another advantage of driver identification and license sanctions is perceived credibility. Driver identifi- cation may be viewed as fairer and more safety -oriented than vehicle identification. Driver identifica- tion ensures that the actual driver of the vehicle is held responsible. License sanctions emphasize that penalties are meant to deter speeding rather than raise revenue. Although driver identification has many advantages, there are some limitations. First, it might be diffi- cult to issue a citation to someone driving a vehicle not registered in that driver's name. Some jurisdic- tions that require driver identification cannot require registered vehicle owners to identify the driver at the time of the violation, if the driver was someone other than the registered owner (see Chapter 5: Matching violation information to driver and vehicle records). This can establish a system of unequal treatment where some drivers are essentially impervious to ASE. Although it might not be feasible to pursue all violators, there are procedures that can help to minimize the number of dismissed viola- tions (see Chapter 5: Violation notice processing and delivery and Chapter 6: Violation notice receipt and adjudication). Although traditional speed enforcement traffic stops may result in a higher rate of citation issuance per violation detected, ASE can record multiple violations in a short period of time. The high rate of ASE detection is likely to increase drivers' perceived risk of being caught, and therefore increase the deter- rence of speeding behavior. Driver identification is also likely to raise concerns about individual privacy. Although some people believe that photographing the driver's face is an invasion of privacy, the general opinion of the courts has been that driving is a regulated activity in a public space, and therefore photographing drivers is 11 not an invasion of privacy (Kendall, 2004). Still, negative perceptions are likely to persist so it is impor- tant to confront misperceptions early and explain the benefits of driver identification. IDENTIFY ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES System components All ASE systems have three basic components: a speed measuring component, a data processing and storage component, and an image capture component. Each of these components is discussed below (see Chapter 4: Field operations for further discussion of these components and their setup and op- eration in the field). Speed -Measuring Speed -measuring requires the ability to detect and discriminate individual vehicles on a roadway and measure their speeds in real time. This can be achieved using above -ground equipment aimed at traf- fic (e.g., radar or lidar) or in -ground sensors (e.g., piezo/loop detection). Speed -measuring using above -ground equipment requires a view of the target vehicle with limited obstructions such as road- side vegetation or other vehicles in the line of sight. In -ground sensors overcome many of the chal- lenges of line of sight, but are immobile and likely require road closures for installation and mainte- nance. The accuracy of speed -measuring devices is crucial. Most speed -measuring devices are equally accurate measuring approaching or receding traffic speeds and are accurate to within 1 mph when used properly. Target vehicle discrimination is especially important on roads with high volumes and multiple lanes of traffic. Emerging technologies are expanding the versatility of speed -measuring devices and target vehicle discrimination. For instance, scanning lidar, which has been used in Akron, Ohio, allows lidar to be used on multiple lanes and two directions of travel simultaneously. Device stability with lidar speed -measuring devices is important to ensure accurate measurement, so care must be taken to prevent above -ground measurement equipment from movement due to wind and other factors. NHTSA provides performance specifications for across -the -road radar (2004a), down - the -road radar (2004b), and lidar (2004c). A performance specification for ASE equipment is expected to be released in 2008 (NHTSA, in press). The IACP maintains a "conforming products list" on its Web site (www.iacp.org). The use of conforming products, however, is not sufficient to ensure accuracy. Speed measurement devices must be calibrated and tested before their first use and then retested on a regular basis, preferably by an independent laboratory. Data processing and storage The data processing and storage component is a computer that receives data from the speed - measuring unit and compares the speed data against the threshold that was set to define violations in real time. If a vehicle's speed exceeds the threshold, the unit identifies the vehicle as a violator and triggers the camera to photograph the vehicle. Additional information such as time, date, and opera- tor -entered information is also recorded with the speed data. Information about non -speeding vehicles may also be recorded for broader data collection purposes (e.g., to compare a violator's speed to the average or 851h percentile speed of traffic at the location). The information recorded by the ASE unit must be compatible with "back end" functions for violation processing and adjudication (see Chapter 5). Image capture The image capture component includes one or more cameras that photograph the speed violation in progress when they are triggered by the computer. The photographs must include a legible image of the license plate and, if driver identification is required, a clear image of the driver's face. A fast shut- ter speed and high image resolution are essential features. ASE cameras can use either "wet" film or digital imaging. Both types of cameras are currently used in ASE programs in the U.S. Digital photographs are easy to transfer and reproduce electronically, which can save time and effort during violation processing. However, extra care is necessary to en- sure the integrity of photographic evidence. Electronic encryption can prevent unauthorized individu- als from tampering with or accessing photographs (see Chapter 3: Information management: Com- patibility, flow, and security for more information on data security). 12 A flash might be necessary to capture images in low -light conditions. Although some people have ex- pressed concerns about the effects of flashes on drivers, no evidence shows that frontal flashes at normal levels have caused crashes or unsafe behavior. Still, as an alternative, some ASE programs outside the United States use red -filtered flashes or infrared flashes that can flash with little or no visi- ble light emission (Roberts & Brown-Esplain, 2005). Although these alternative flashes minimize the potential for driver distraction, image quality and effective range tend to suffer. The intensity of a flash diminishes over distance and therefore may not be as effective at long range, but some jurisdictions have used white -light flashes across four or more lanes of traffic (Roberts & Brown-Esplain, 2005). In recent years, some jurisdictions have begun to supplement photographic evidence with a video re- cord of speeding violations. Video resolution and frame rate are not currently at a level where video could replace photographs for driver and vehicle identification. ASE system platforms Mobile ASE systems Mobile ASE systems can be transported to conduct ASE in any geometrically feasible location. Most mobile ASE units are based in vans or other vehicles that contain a full suite of system components. Figure 1 shows this type of unit operating in Portland, Oregon. This setup allows operators to easily transport all equipment and provides a safe and comfortable environment for the operator. An alterna- tive is to use ground -based mobile ASE equipment that is transported in a vehicle, but removed and set up on the roadside to operate. Ground -based systems might be more feasible at locations where there is not enough room to safely park a vehicle or where both front and rear photographs of offend- ing vehicles are required. An operator is typically present to monitor a mobile ASE unit while it oper- ates and often keeps a log of information about the session and recorded violations (see Chapter 4: Event documentation). When deployed according to a systematic enforcement plan, mobile ASE can provide the broadest deterrent effect because it can be moved between many locations. The number of mobile units needed to achieve an optimal deterrent effect depends upon the size of the jurisdiction; the number of enforceable sites (see Chapter 3: Site selection); the presence of other engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures (see Chapter 2: Identify countermeasures and Chapter 3: Marketing and media activities (initial); and other elements of the enforcement plan). 13 Figure 1. Mobile ASE units in Portland, OR (top), Scottsdale, AZ (center), and San Jose, CA (bottom) v 14 Fixed ASE systems Fixed ASE systems are installed at locations where they can operate for up to 24 hours per day with- out an operator present. Fixed units are typically pole -mounted on the roadside and can use either above -ground or in -ground speed -measuring equipment. Some fixed units are installed at intersec- tions to conduct both ASE and red light camera enforcement simultaneously. Figure 2 shows a pole - mounted ASE system at a mid -block location in Washington, DC. A fixed ASE system can provide a very substantial deterrent effect, but the effect is generally restricted to a limited area upstream and downstream of the unit. Fixed units should only be installed at locations where dangerous speeding and speeding -related crashes are especially frequent, and locations where it is unsafe or infeasible to use a mobile unit. (See Chapter 3 Program Startup, Site Selection). Fixed ASE may not be legal in jurisdictions where a human operator is required to be present with the ASE equipment. Figure 2. Pole -mounted ASE system in Washington, DC Public reaction to fixed ASE may be more negative than reaction to mobile ASE. First, fixed units are often derided as "speed traps" or "revenue machines" installed in locations where speed limits are per- ceived to be unreasonably low. In this case it is important to explain the site selection process and support site selection with safety statistics. Field operations oversight by a human operator during enforcement can lead to charges that alleged violators are unable to "face their accuser" at a hearing. Courts typically have not found this charge to be valid, given that a reliable process produced the pho- tographic evidence. However, not all courts accept this so-called "silent witness" theory of photo- graphic evidence (Alcee et al., 1992). To confirm the accuracy of fixed ASE speed measurements, law enforcement agencies often place hash marks on the pavement within the camera's field of view and take two pictures of each violation, separated by a set amount of time (see Figure 2). The vehi- cle's approximate speed can be determined by measuring the distance it traveled in the time between the two photos. 15 Summary It is possible to use a combination of different types of ASE units, but to achieve the broadest possible effect of ASE; mobile units should be the cornerstones of an ASE program under most circumstances. Combination units that conduct both ASE and red light enforcement can be used at intersections, but the effectiveness of these units has not yet been evaluated in a controlled study. Although each type of ASE system has the potential to reduce speeds and improve safety, the actual effectiveness of these systems is dependent upon how they are used. Chapter 4: Enforcement Plan describes strate- gies to maximize the effectiveness of ASE. IDENTIFY REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES NEEDED FOR ASE PROGRAM The final step in the ASE planning phase is to identify the functional requirements, equipment re- quirements, and personnel requirements for the ASE program, as well as additional resources that will be needed to support the enforcement effort. A list of requirements should be developed as a precur- sor to program start-up and developing a request for proposal to solicit responses from potential ven- dors. Requirements should be defined in as much detail as possible, with prioritization according to level of need. Although some requirements might remain unknown until the final arrangements are made with the vendor, it is important to begin to identify requirements early to be able to effectively communicate needs to potential system vendors. 16 CHAPTER 3: PROGRAM STARTUP Startup of an ASE program should only commence if the program has a strong legal basis and stake- holder support, and careful planning has been conducted to develop a strategic plan with identification of program requirements (see Chapter 2). Startup of an ASE system involves: • site selection; • system procurement; • resource and personnel management; • revenue management; • planning for program evaluation; • marketing and media relations; and • program rollout. SITE SELECTION Selection factors Site selection should be the first step in system startup and should be done collaboratively with the traffic engineering or transportation department. It should be done before system procurement to en- sure that the vendors are not involved to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest. Appropriate site selection is essential to achieve the highest level of safety benefits and to ensure the public that safety is the top priority of the program. The highest priority enforcement sites should be located where there is the greatest risk for speeding -related crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Candidate sites may have been identified during the problem identification phase (see Chapter 2: Identify speed- ing -related safety problems). Crash risk can be determined from reliable data on crash history, crash patterns (e.g., seasonal or time of day) and other factors such as the percentage of vehicles that are speeding, traffic volume, and influence of other countermeasures and roadway alterations. It is gen- erally unwise to select sites where speeding is common and crashes are rare because the public is likely to perceive these locations as "speed traps." However, exceptions may be made in locations with many pedestrians and in neighborhoods where speeding adversely affects quality of life. The equip- ment vendor should not have any role in site selection, but may advise on the technical feasibility of conducting ASE at particular sites. Citizen complaints can also help to identify locations with speeding -related safety problems. Respon- siveness to citizen complaints is important because citizens may be the first to notice a developing safety problem and because the ASE program is ultimately for the benefit of the public. Site evalua- tions and speed surveys should be conducted to determine whether sites identified by citizens warrant speed enforcement. Research shows that speed reductions attributed to ASE are most substantial at the location of an active ASE unit and deteriorate as distance from the unit increases (Champness, Sheehan, & Folk - man, 2005; Hess, 2004; Keenan, 2004; Winnett, 2003). Although the length of this distance halo ef- fect varies in different studies, meaningful speed reductions tend to be limited to a range of less than one mile downstream and shorter distances upstream. In a review of studies that measured halo ef- fects, Elliott and Broughton (2004) concluded that halo effects for ASE are typically smaller than halo effects for enforcement conducted by police officers in marked patrol cars, though the authors do not distinguish between different methods of ASE. A site should be defined either as one specific location or as a corridor with multiple enforceable loca- tions. In general, defining a site as a corridor can be expected to result in a more widespread deter- rent effect because enforcement locations are less predictable. If the speeding -related safety problem extends for more than one mile, the presence of numerous enforceable sites on the problematic corri- dor can have the greatest overall deterrent effect. If the problem is limited to a stretch of roadway less 17 than one mile long and if the safety problem is due to a roadway feature that cannot be readily re- solved through engineering measures, enforcing just one specific location might be sufficient to curtail speeding in the area. Chapter 4: Enforcement Plan further discusses ways to maximize the deterrent effect of ASE. Distribution of enforcement sites throughout the jurisdiction can increase the overall deterrent effect of the ASE program by increasing the perceived likelihood that drivers can be caught speeding any- where. Sites clustered in particular neighborhoods can provoke charges of biased operations or tar- geting of particular groups. Site selection should also avoid the perception of prejudice toward particu- lar groups, such as out-of-town commuters. Road types Distribution of enforcement between various road types can help to maximize safety benefits through- out the jurisdiction, but there are important factors to consider for each road type: Schoolzones School zones are frequently selected as locations for ASE. In a national survey, Royal (2003) found that 78 percent of participants believed that it is appropriate to use ASE in school zones. This high level of support makes school zone enforcement a good way to introduce ASE in a jurisdiction. When conducting ASE in school zones, it is important to clearly display the school zone speed limit and the hours during which it applies. Focused enforcement when classes resume after summer and winter breaks combined with a child safety campaign may be an effective way to modify driver behavior in school zones. Because school zones encompass a small percentage of a jurisdiction's roadways, it is easy to sustain a reasonably high level of enforcement with a small number of ASE units. Residential neighborhoods Residential neighborhoods typically have low traffic volumes and low speed limits. ASE should only be conducted at locations where speeding creates a safety problem or has a negative impact on qual- ity of life, but within this constraint, public demand for speed management can influence site selection. It is important to have support from the residents of neighborhoods where ASE is used. For example, San Jose, California, established an effective model for conducting enforcement in residential areas; where ASE is only conducted in neighborhoods if a majority of residents or a neighborhood associa- tion requests it. After ASE is requested by a neighborhood, a speed study is conducted to confirm that the speeding problem warrants enforcement. This model has generated strong public support for the ASE program. Major roads Major roads or arterials are often among the most dangerous roads in a jurisdiction, with high traffic volumes, high traffic speeds, and complex roadway geometries and traffic patterns. Nationally, major roads account for many more speeding -related fatalities than any other roadway functional class (Liu, Chen, Subramanian, & Utter, 2005). ASE can have a significant impact on major roads, but factors such as multiple lanes of traffic and close proximity of vehicles can make it more difficult for ASE to single out speeding vehicles. Highway work zones Highway work zones often feature complex and transitory traffic patterns that increase the level of risk for motorists and work crews. Voluntary compliance with reduced work zone speed limits is often low. ASE may be especially helpful in work zones because it can be used in places where traditional en- forcement methods are infeasible or hazardous. Precise documentation of site features, such as loca- tion, number of lanes, presence of work crews, and speed limit are essential because of the transitory nature of work zones. Law enforcement presence in work zones has long been recognized as one of the most effective speed reduction methods available to transportation officials (Fontaine, Schrock & Ullman, 2002). IN Limited -access highways Limited -access highways provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest un- interrupted distance, with some degree of access control. Nationally, the fewest number of speeding - related crashes occur on this class of road. Special care must be taken before implementing ASE on these roadways. As an example, an ASE freeway program in Scottsdale, Arizona, led to a mean speed decrease of more than 9 mph, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40-percent reduction in crash -related injuries (Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). Limited access highways also often carry a substantial number of out-of-town motorists who are less likely to be aware of the use of ASE, and therefore harder to deter. Substantial signage might be necessary to warn all drivers on limited -access highways of the presence of ASE. A feasibility study by the Arizona Department of Transportation identified many of the implementation issues related to freeway ASE (Roberts & Brown-Esplain, 2005). Evaluation of candidate sites A speed survey should be conducted at each candidate site to assess speeds and the potential of various countermeasures to mitigate excessive speeds. If possible, the survey should be con- ducted by engineers or an independent agency. Data should be analyzed to determine the factors associated with the safety problem, and enforcement should be adapted according to these factors. For example, if speeding -related crashes occur primarily during evening rush hour, then enforcement can be focused on that particular time of day. If countermeasures other than ASE are deemed more appropriate and feasible, they should be implemented and the site should be reevaluated before im- plementing ASE. It is also important to consider whether the geometry of the roadway supports the feasibility of ASE at each candidate site. There must be enough space on the roadside to place the ASE equipment with- out creating a safety hazard for equipment operators or motorists. Power must be available to ASE units that are not self -powered. The lines -of -sight for speed -measuring equipment and cameras must be uninterrupted. Distances and angles between the ASE unit and observed vehicles must be appro- priate to ensure accurate speed measurement and clear photographs. Ideally, traffic engineers should evaluate each potential site to ensure that ASE will not have any adverse effects on safety. In some cases, fixed ASE units might be able to operate in locations where use of mobile units is infeasible. ASE equipment should be tested at each potential site to ensure that data is not compromised by electromagnetic interference, background motion, or other factors. See Chapter 4: Field operations for more information on ASE location and setup. At a minimum, traffic authorities should confirm that the posted speed limit is appropriate and complies with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and State or local guidelines. This includes the size, location, and spacing of speed limit signs and "reduced speed ahead" signs. The review should ensure that the speed limit signs are clearly visible and not obscured by vegetation. The review should ensure that the speed limit is set legally. Speed limits are usually legally implemented by means of an ordinance or resolution. Speed limits that differ from the statutory limits usually require an engineering study. SYSTEM PROCUREMENT Once all the requirements for the ASE program have been identified, the next step is to procure the equipment required for the program. Jurisdictions have various procurement options ranging from purchasing ASE equipment to contracting for ASE equipment and related services. System procure- ment requires the input of experts in technology, finance, and legal issues. Procurement and contract- ing experts in particular should be involved in this process. A committee of ASE stakeholders should also be involved to ensure that the ASE system and contract are acceptable to all stakeholders (see Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support). The system procurement process should not begin unless the legal authority of ASE is assured. Vendors are likely to be wary of providing ASE to a jurisdiction where the legal authority of ASE is uncertain. 19 COORDINATION WITH COURTS The support of the judiciary and other court personnel is essential to the success and continued op- eration of an ASE program. Without judicial support, courts may refuse to uphold the validity of ASE citations or even rule that the ASE program itself is not valid. Depending upon legal requirements, ASE cases may be heard by a judge or a civilian adjudicator such as a magistrate or a hearing officer. Civilian adjudicators can rule on ASE cases if the infraction is considered civil, but cannot rule on criminal cases or issues of constitutionality. ASE involves processes and technologies that are probably unfamiliar to many adjudicators, so it is important to provide adequate information to adjudicators, district attorneys, and other prosecutorial staff on how the ASE technology works and the safeguards that are in place to ensure proper opera- tion. Adjudicators should be encouraged to develop a common consensus for ruling on ASE violations to avoid inconsistent rulings. Provide adjudicators with an informative demonstration and evidence of system reliability, but not to ask adjudicators what evidence should be presented at hearings to secure a verdict of guilt. Support for ASE is also required from court administrators and personnel. ASE is likely to increase the courts' case management workload and may require additional staff or work space to meet this demand. Workload demands may be variable and unpredictable, particularly in the first months of ASE operation. Customer service workload may be mitigated by an effective marketing and media campaign, and by providing additional information, such as a list of common questions and answers, to citation recipients (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice). Work- load analyses during the early months of the ASE program may help to reevaluate staffing needs and identify potential improvements to efficiency. A report by the Scottsdale City Court administrator on the court's experience with an ASE demonstration project provides valuable insight and advice for adapting courts to handle increased workload and new challenges posed by ASE (Cornell, in press). Program managers should coordinate closely with court administrators. A shared vision and mutual understanding of the other's roles, responsibilities, and procedures are critical to program success. Summary statistics provided by the court can provide valuable information on program outcomes and can identify inefficiencies, errors, and aspects of the program that can be improved. Program manag- ers should keep track of the dispositions of ASE cases and review cases in which defendants were found not guilty to determine the reasons for the dispositions. Rulings of "not guilty" may reveal flaws in program operations, insufficiency of evidence presented at the hearing, or the considerations under- lying adjudicators' reasoning, among other potential reasons. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: COMPATIBILITY, FLOW, AND SECURITY System compatibility is essential to ensure that violation data, motor vehicle records, photographs, court records, and other information can be accessed by all authorized individuals. Compatibility can be a challenge because data may exist in a variety of forms within multiple databases that were not designed to be compatible. Incompatible systems may increase the workload and time required to process violations, and may increase the potential for processing errors to occur. Furthermore, ven- dor -provided processing systems may be designed for efficient violation processing, but they may not be fully compatible with existing systems within the jurisdiction. Proprietary vendor systems may also limit the jurisdiction's ability to select a different vendor. For example, violation records produced by a vendor's ASE units may be uniquely compatible with that vendor's violation processing system. The vendor contract should require a minimum level of compatibility to ensure that the jurisdiction has ownership of ASE records and that the vendor's systems do not inhibit the jurisdiction from selecting another alternative for ASE services in the future (see Chapter 3: Contracting issues). ASE records should also be maintained in a format that allows statistics and summary data to be generated for pro- gram analysis (see Chapter 7). ASE requires efficient data flow between various systems, locations, and people. At a minimum, ASE data must flow from the enforcement unit to violation processing, violation validation, vehicle registra- tion confirmation, and delivery to recipient. Violation status tracking, record -keeping and statistical summaries, court procedures, and other factors are likely to add further data flow requirements (see Chapter 5). Many tasks and data transfers can be conducted more efficiently in electronic format 20 rather than using paper forms. Where possible, processes may be automated to reduce staff work- load, processing time, and potential for errors. Program managers should observe data flow proce- dures to identify inefficiencies or sources of error that can be remedied. Information security is essential for an ASE program and should be emphasized to everyone with ac- cess to violation data and information that identifies individuals. All individuals with access to sensitive information should receive specific training on information security and confidentiality. ASE violation evidence must be managed according to standard rules for the security and preservation of legal evi- dence. Computer and network security experts should be involved in the implementation of security procedures and technologies. Violation data and photographs should be electronically encrypted at the time of their capture to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Access to violation material should be restricted to individuals who require access, and should require secure passwords. Elec- tronic signatures may be used to keep track of who has accessed particular records. Electronic data transfer should only be conducted over direct connections and secure networks and controls should be put in place to prevent information from being transferred to insecure locations. Sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers should not be used or linked with names unless it is necessary, and should never be printed on violation notices mailed to recipients. Once a violation notice has been settled and is no longer outstanding, the record should be processed according to jurisdiction policies. If data is retained for statistical or analysis purposes, personal identi- fying information should be removed from records. PROGRAM EVALUATION PLAN Program evaluation activities should begin long before ASE is implemented. It is important to get baseline speed and crash data that represent the time before driver behavior was influenced by ASE. It is helpful to collect data before the marketing and media campaign begins because the cam- paign can influence driver behavior. Chapter 7 provides a detailed discussion of issues relevant to program evaluation. COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA ACTIVITIES (INITIAL) It is important to use a strong communications campaign including marketing and media to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program. ASE should be described as a tool that can en- hance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement rather than replace traf- fic stops by officers. The public should also be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose "big brother" surveillance. Saying this will not necessarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system. A comprehensive communications campaign is essential to maintain positive public relations and to ensure that the public understands how ASE works and why it will improve safety as a supplement to traditional enforcement. The campaign should begin several months to a year in advance of ASE im- plementation. The two most important goals of the communications plan are to maximize public awareness and acceptance of the ASE program. Data should be evaluated to identify at -risk drivers in the community. Special attention should focus on males and young drivers. Studies conducted in the United States and abroad have consistently found that support for ASE is weakest among young driv- ers and males (e.g., Behavior Research Center, Inc., 2007; Blincoe, Jones, Sauerzapf, & Haynes, 2006; Corbett & Simon, 1999; Retting, 2003), so these groups may warrant particular attention. Promote awareness of ASE program To achieve speeding deterrence, the public must be aware of the ASE program and how it works. The public should be educated about the speeding problem and how it affects their community. Current efforts in traditional enforcement should be highlighted, including an explanation of how ASE will sup- plement the effort to make the community safer, decrease traffic congestion, and improve quality of life. An explanation of how the technology functions, successes in other communities, and how it is implemented should be included. The number of enforcement units in use, whether they are mobile or fixed, the types of sites that are enforceable, and the total number of enforceable sites should be ex- 21 plained. It is also possible to make public the specific locations of sites, though it would be unwise to reveal the schedule in advance of their deployment. Identifying all potential locations may have a positive effect on deterrence at problem locations if drivers know where enforcement is frequently lo- cated. Revealing enforcement locations also contributes to the goal of program transparency and might appease some critics of the program, though public awareness of enforceable sites may reduce the general deterrent effect of ASE. It is also important to inform the public about the procedures for violation processing, payment, and adjudication. It is not necessary to reveal exactly what speed threshold is used to define a violation, but drivers should be made aware that the program targets dangerous speeding and they will not be ticketed by ASE for traveling 2 or 3 mph above the limit. It is not appropriate to tell drivers that the threshold is in place to allow for inaccuracy of measurement, because a threshold of 6 or 11 mph above the speed limit is substantially greater than the small potential inaccuracy of speed measure- ment equipment. The public should be made aware of the penalties for ASE violations and their rights and options if they receive a violation notice. Promote acceptance of ASE program If the purpose of promoting awareness is to explain what the ASE program is, then the purpose of promoting acceptance is to explain why the program is worthwhile. To promote acceptance of the ASE program, it is important to educate the public about the general dangers of speeding and the specific speeding -related safety problem overall and at specific locations in the jurisdiction. Despite known links between speeding, crash likelihood, and crash severity, many people believe they are capable of speeding safely. It is also difficult to dissuade people from speeding because speeding has the benefit of reducing travel time. Even though ASE can deter speeding among those who be- lieve that speeding is safe and acceptable, a goal of the marketing and media effort should be to influence people to change their attitudes toward speeding so that speeding is seen as unsafe and socially unacceptable. The social marketing effort should also emphasize the safety and congestion mitigation benefits of ASE. Statistics can be cited from jurisdictions in the United States and abroad that have effective ASE programs. Although U.S. data may have more relevance to the American public, substantial evalua- tions conducted in Europe, Australia, and other places have shown many benefits, including: • In Victoria, Australia, within three months following the introduction of speed -enforcement cameras in late 1989, the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 per- cent and the percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from about 20 percent in 1990 to less than 4 percent in 1994 (Cameron, Cavallo, & Gil- bert, 1992). • A Norwegian study found that injury crashes were reduced by 20 percent on sections of rural roads with cameras (Elvik, 1997). • In British Columbia, Canada, there was a 7-percent decline in crashes and 20 percent fewer deaths the first year cameras were used. The proportion of speeding vehicles de- clined from 66 percent to less than 40 percent, and researchers attributed a 10-percent decline in daytime injuries to photo radar (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 1998). • In Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, injury crashes in the immediate vicinity of speed - enforcement camera sites were reduced 46 percent (Hess, 2004). • One of the most ambitious efforts to control traffic speeds on a heavily traveled urban highway is on the M25, which circles London (Harbord, 1997). Speed -enforcement cam- eras used in conjunction with a system of variable speed limits that are adjusted based on weather and traffic conditions resulted in 28 percent fewer injury crashes during the first year of the program; preliminary data for the second year indicated that the improvements were sustained. Although speed reductions are worth reporting, crash reductions are especially important to convince the public that ASE improves safety. 22 It is important to use marketing and media campaigns to explain the philosophy and strategy behind the ASE program. ASE should be described as a tool that can enhance the capabilities of traffic law enforcement and that ASE will supplement, rather than replace, traffic stops by officers. The public should also be made aware that ASE is used to improve safety, not to generate revenue or impose "big brother" surveillance. Saying this will not necessarily make it so in the eyes of the public, so it is important to explain how each element of the ASE program puts safety first and how controls are in place to prevent misuse of the system. Another key point is that ASE is intended to deter speeders, not punish them. It is important to emphasize that a low rate of violations is desirable because it means the program is successfully deterring speeders. Table 1 presents a list of common arguments used by opponents of ASE and the reasons that those arguments are not valid. Program transparency is critical to gain the support of the public. Program spokespersons must be able to explain why every decision was made and how it benefits public safety. For instance, it is im- portant to explain the site selection process and criteria for enforcement, the rationale behind contract arrangements with the vendor, the reasons that ASE units operate overtly or covertly, the accuracy and reliability of violation detection equipment, the quality control measures to ensure that recorded violations are valid, and so forth. If the jurisdiction is perceived as being secretive or disengaged, people are likely to become distrustful of the program's intentions and rationales. To help the public follow the ASE startup process, program managers can distribute the minutes of relevant meetings, post information on a community Web site, or start a mailing list to send updates to interested individuals. Table 1. Common arguments against ASE and appropriate responses Argument Response ASE is primarily intended to raise All fines are designed to maximize the deterrent effect of money for the government. ASE; the goal is to reduce the number of recorded viola- tions, not to penalize violators. ASE is illegal because a machine The ASE system does not issue tickets; it records evidence, issues the ticket and that means and a human reviewer must review each ASE citation to that I am deprived of my right to determine whether a violation took place. A human also face my accuser at a hearing. serves as the accuser at a hearing. ASE is illegal because I am pre- Alleged violators are presumed innocent unless they admit sumed guilty unless I prove my guilt by accepting the penalties or take their case to a court innocence. hearing and are convicted on the basis of evidence. ASE causes more accidents than Out of dozens of evaluations in the United States and it prevents abroad, no evaluation has ever found evidence of an in- crease in crashes attributed to ASE. Speeding is not unsafe; the Scientific evidence shows that speeding increases both the speed limits are set too low. likelihood and severity of crashes. Speed limits are not sim- ply set according to the maximum reasonable speed of a solitary vehicle; they also accommodate the safety of pedes- trians, turning and merging traffic, etc. Speed limits should be set according to current engineering policies before ASE is implemented. Photographing me and my car is Driving is a regulated activity that takes place in public, so an invasion of my privacy. there is no legal argument for privacy. Furthermore, ASE only takes photographs when an illegal activity is detected, and controls are in place to ensure the security of evidence. Information outlets For the marketing and media campaign to be effective, it is important to get the message to as many people as possible. Information outlets can vary in the type of information presented, the type and size of the audience it will reach, and cost, among other variables. A strategy to disseminate informa- 23 tion to the public should use a variety of information outlets to effectively reach the broadest possible range of people at a reasonable cost. Media coverage Media coverage is a very effective way to provide information to the public at no cost to the jurisdic- tion. Media interest in ASE is likely to be high during the months before and after ASE is imple- mented. Local television, radio, and print media outlets will want to cover the program, so it is impor- tant to facilitate their efforts. Press releases or video releases can be used to provide important infor- mation to the media and to announce program milestones or changes. Program managers or other representatives should be available for interviews, system demonstrations, and enforcement ride- alongs. Media relations should be centrally coordinated to ensure that the program's operations and strategic vision are described accurately and consistently. Responsiveness to media inquiries is criti- cal. Reporters may want traffic safety statistics, ASE program reports, rationales for particular deci- sions, and other information, so it is important to make this information available. Slow or unsatisfac- tory responses to queries might be viewed negatively by the media. During contact with the media it is important to continually emphasize the safety -oriented philosophy and goals of the program (see Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan and Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE program). It is also important to remember that media coverage and public opinion tend to influence one another. In other words, positive media coverage can lead to positive public opinion and positive public opinion can lead to positive media coverage. Marketing Many marketing outlets are available to reach broad or narrow segments of the population, and costs can vary widely. The appropriate choice of media outlets depends upon the needs of the jurisdiction and the budget available for marketing. Like other elements of the social marketing campaign, mar- keting materials should be designed to increase awareness and acceptance of the ASE program. The marketing campaign should focus on factual information about the dangers of speeding and the ways that ASE can improve community safety, but emotional appeals that focus on the human toll of speed- ing -related crashes can also help to make the safety problem seem more real and relevant to the public. The ASE program should be given a name that is memorable and favorably viewed by the public. Though many current ASE programs do not have names, some names that have been used for ASE programs (or the broader highway safety programs of which they are part) include Safe Speed (Char- lotte, NC), NASCOP (Neighborhood Automated Speed Compliance Program, San Jose, CA), No Need for Speed (Davenport, IA), Focus on Safety (Scottsdale, AZ), and Eye on Safety (Washington, DC). Marketing material should have a professional appearance. Slogans, logos, and eye-catching graphics and colors can help to attract attention and improve the public's memory of the message. Some jurisdictions have held contests for schoolchildren or the broader community to name the program or develop a theme for marketing materials. Such contests can promote positive public rela- tions and generate media attention. The program name, slogans, messages, and graphic themes should be used consistently to "brand" the ASE program. Potential marketing materials and messages can be evaluated in focus groups or surveys to ensure that they convey the intended message and are memorable. Marketing outlets include television, radio, newspapers and newsletters, signs and billboards, posters, flyers, video presentations, and giveaway items such as bumper stickers, lapel pins, pens, and similar incentive items. Television, radio, and print ads can reach a substantial number of people, but can be relatively expensive. Television and radio ads may be most effective if aired close to traffic reports. Road signs and billboards can be an excellent way to reach drivers in the jurisdiction, but the amount of information that can be presented this way is limited. Figure 3 shows an ad placed on the rear of city buses in Washington, DC. The use of signage is covered in more detail in Chapter 4: Signage. Flyers and other print materials can be distributed in many ways: they can be mailed to jurisdiction residents with other items such as utility bills or by themselves; made available at government build- ings such as department of motor vehicles, court houses, and libraries; distributed to organizations such as neighborhood associations, driving schools, and motorist associations; or handed out at community events such as fairs or open houses. Print materials about the ASE program should also be delivered with violation notices (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation 24 notice). Video presentations about the ASE program can provide a substantial amount of information about the ASE program and its value to the community. Videos can be distributed to media outlets, driving schools, high schools, and other organizations that might be interested in showing it to their constituents. Videos could also be made available for computer download from a community Web site or by mail order. Don't want a ticket? + —* 1 T ir U"S=J=J . =:r. -rRENT EW ak� Figure 3. Advertisement on rear of city buses in Washington, DC Jurisdiction Web site The jurisdiction's Web site is an excellent resource that can be used to present information about the ASE program. Unlike other information outlets, a Web site can be used to present information in great detail and allows users to navigate the information at their own pace. ASE information should be easy to find on the Web site by using a search function or by locating it under a logical heading, such as public safety, police department, transportation safety, or recent news. With the space and multimedia capabilities afforded by the Internet, it is possible to include information such as the history of the ASE program, safety statistics, enforcement site locations, photographs, videos, and links to additional in- formation, press releases, and more. A frequently -asked -questions (FAQ) section can be used to an- swer common questions that people have about the program and reduce the burden on live customer service representatives. Other marketing and media material should direct people to the Web site for more information. Once the ASE program has begun to issue citations, a Web site can also be used to allow users to view their own violation records and pay citations. Public input One of the most important aspects of a social marketing campaign is encouraging public input in the development of the ASE program. Public opinion is a major factor in the success of an ASE program, so it is important to be aware of people's concerns and to address them in its design. There are many ways to seek public input: • People should be able to deliver their comments and concerns by telephone, e-mail, or mail. • Public events such as an open house can be held to allow the public to interact with program managers and see the technology in person. • "Town hall" -style meetings or appearances at public events such as neighborhood association meetings or parent teacher association meetings can be used to give program managers a chance to talk about the program and answer questions from the public. • Guest appearances on call -in television or radio programs can allow program managers to re- spond to public questions and concerns. Write-in question and answer forums can also be held on the Internet. • Focus groups can provide a structured method to delve deep into people's opinions and knowledge about many issues related to ASE, but this method is labor intensive, should only 25 be conducted with up to about 10 individuals per session, and is best used to develop market- ing materials. • Surveys are the best way to assess overall public opinion on a broad scale, but are not par- ticularly effective in allowing individuals to express the sort of open-ended responses that best reflect individual concerns. Surveys are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 7: Evaluation of public awareness and acceptance. Continuing public information and education after startup An effective marketing and media campaign is critical to the success of a new ASE program, but it is important to maintain these efforts as the program matures. When the ASE program is established and public awareness and acceptance are at desirable levels, it is possible to scale down marketing and media efforts. Broad, expensive advertising such as television, radio, and print ads can be ceased, and communication efforts can be focused on inexpensive methods and specific groups. Student drivers should be a particular focus of ongoing marketing and media because they are most likely to be unfamiliar with ASE and they are also at especially high risk for speeding -related crashes. The department of motor vehicles should also be a focus of marketing and media because it serves many new drivers and people who are new to the jurisdiction. When there are important changes to program operations, program milestones are reached, or new findings regarding program effective- ness, press releases and media contacts should be used to spread the word. A community Web site is also an excellent place to maintain marketing and media materials and report current events at very little expense to the jurisdiction. PROGRAM ROLLOUT AND WARNING PERIOD Before the ASE program goes into operation, a demonstration should be conducted to ensure that all system components are functioning properly and all staff are following procedures. Staffing should be reevaluated to ensure that there are enough employees to handle the workload that the program will generate. The program may begin with a warning period, during which the program is in full operation but viola- tions do not carry fines or license sanctions. An advantage of a warning period is that managers can evaluate the program and correct problems before penalties are assessed. It also functions as an ad- ditional notice to motorists that ASE is beginning and individuals who receive warning notices can modify their behavior before actual ticketing begins. A disadvantage is that a warning period may en- courage some drivers to speed intentionally because they know there will be no penalties or to get a warning notice as a "souvenir." This behavior may be especially likely to occur if ASE is conducted by fixed units that function without an operator present. To discourage such behavior, violation notices sent during the warning period should not include photographs and it should be made clear to motor- ists that reckless behaviors recorded by ASE units will be prosecuted. If used, a warning period should not exceed one month. A warning period may also be used at sites where the speed limit has recently decreased or increased. Whether or not a warning period is used, other methods, such as speed trailers and increased traditional enforcement, may be used prior to full implementation to miti- gate speeding. 26 CHAPTER 4: OPERATIONS ENFORCEMENT PLAN The enforcement plan is the set of procedures and policies that determine how enforcement is con- ducted. The enforcement plan should focus on achieving the goals identified in the program's strate- gic plan (see Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan) with efficient use of resources, public support (see Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE program), and within the constraints of laws and policies (see Chapter 2: Ensure legal and policy authority forASE). It is important to document the reasons for all decisions that affect the enforcement plan in order to defend the enforcement plan or to reevaluate its strategy. Relevant enforcement plan considerations include: • Enforcement speed threshold; • Overt versus covert enforcement; • Signage; • Days and hours of operation; • ASE strategy and scheduling; • Immediate feedback to drivers; • Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts; • Coordination with adjudication and judiciary communities; and • Ongoing improvements to the enforcement plan. It is also advisable to develop a set of operational guidelines to ensure proper and consistent opera- tion of ASE equipment. The Department for Transport in the United Kingdom developed a handbook of rules and guidance that addresses the philosophy, strategy, and operations of ASE throughout the United Kingdom (Department for Transport, 2006). Police in Victoria, Australia, developed a policy manual for mobile ASE that addresses the philosophy of the program, roles of police and contractors, and guidelines for site selection and operations (Victoria Police Traffic Camera Office, 2006). Enforcement speed threshold The enforcement speed threshold is the lowest speed at which a violation will be recorded at a particu- lar site. The enforcement speed threshold should be the same that is used for traditional speed en- forcement, and should be at the point of exceeding reasonable and prudent speeds. Many jurisdic- tions begin enforcement at speeds 11 mph above the speed limit. This threshold is generally consid- ered appropriate because it ensures that enforcement will only affect those who drive substantially faster than the speed limit, particularly where the speed limit was not established through a recent en- gineering study. Higher enforcement thresholds are not appropriate because they can lead to even greater disregard for the speed limit. Lower enforcement thresholds are more appropriate in areas with low speed limits, especially where pedestrians and children might be present, such as residential areas, schools, playgrounds, and park areas, and where the speed limit was set according to proper engineering procedures. The enforcement speed threshold set in these areas should be no less than 6 mph above the speed limit. For more information on establishing enforcement speed thresholds, refer to Speed Enforcement Program Guidelines (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). Program managers must decide whether to reveal enforcement thresholds to the public. Revealing enforcement thresholds is likely to yield a positive public reaction and might help to reduce speed vari- ance at enforced sites. However, it might also be viewed as a tacit endorsement of a limited degree of speeding. If enforcement thresholds are not revealed, it is important to inform the public that there is some threshold, and that they will not normally be cited for driving just 2 or 3 mph above the speed limit. 27 Overt versus covert enforcement Overt enforcement provides some indication to drivers that they are approaching an enforced location. Indications can include fixed or temporary signage on the approach to the enforcement unit (see Chapter 4: Signage), pavement markings, or markings on the enforcement unit itself, such as identify- ing text or logos or conspicuous colors. Enforcement units might also have features such as a speed display board or conspicuous vehicle modifications, such as a large rear window or external equip- ment. Covert enforcement is conducted with ASE units that are unmarked and with no specific warn- ing to drivers that they are approaching an enforced location. Although the differences between the effects of overt and covert enforcement are not well understood, there is reason to believe that covert enforcement does have a more substantial positive effect on driver behavior than overt enforcement (Keall, Povey, & Frith, 2001; 2002). With overt enforcement, drivers can often see an upcoming ASE unit and slow down before entering the detection zone. With covert enforcement, drivers are more likely to maintain slower speeds throughout the jurisdiction be- cause of the possibility of unexpectedly encountering ASE. Therefore, overt enforcement is likely to result in minimal jurisdiction -wide effects, but a substantial decrease in speeding at actively enforced sites, whereas covert enforcement is likely to result in larger system -wide effects, but a less substan- tial decrease in speeding at actively enforced sites. This was the case in New Zealand, where the percentage of vehicles speeding through active ASE sites increased from 1 percent to 5 percent after the switch from overt to covert enforcement (Keall et al., 2001). Although no research exists on the effects of overt versus covert ASE on traffic flow, it is possible that overt enforcement will slow traffic excessively, which may impede traffic flow on high volume roads. Covert and overt enforcement can be effectively combined in a speed enforcement program and covert enforcement is especially effec- tive in improving safety when combined with a substantial marketing and media campaign (Diaman- topoulou & Cameron, 2002). Despite the likelihood of greater jurisdiction -wide speeding reductions, covert enforcement is not often used in the United States or abroad because of negative public reactions, and numerous jurisdictions have laws that forbid covert operations. Covert ASE may increase people's concerns that the program is designed to bring in revenue and penalize speeders rather than deter them. Negative reactions also likely stem from the fact that it is substantially more difficult for drivers to spot and avoid covert ASE than overt ASE, and even drivers who generally support the concept of ASE might not support the program if they believe that drivers who rarely speed will be caught speeding too often. Both overt and covert ASE result in positive safety effects, so either method is acceptable. In general, covert ASE should only be used where the public accepts its use or where overt enforcement has not sufficiently reduced speeding and crashes. One significant advantage of overt ASE is that its visibility can help to increase awareness of the program and increase the perceived likelihood of drivers en- countering ASE. In this way, overt ASE can act as a deterrent. In contrast, covert ASE might result in drivers remaining unaware of the presence of ASE or underestimating its prevalence. If covert ASE is used, it is especially important to make the public aware that ASE units are not visible, but that they will have a substantial presence. A combination of overt and covert ASE units might be an effective way to combine the visibility of overt ASE and the broad deterrence of covert ASE. Signage Signage plays an important role in alerting the public to the use of ASE (Makinen & Oei, 1992). Al- though research has not been conducted to evaluate the effects of signage, it is likely that signage can contribute to reductions in speeding, whether or not ASE is present, because it can increase both awareness of ASE and the perceived likelihood of encountering ASE. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (Federal Highway Administration, 2003), also known as the MUTCD, provides guidance on the use and appearance of photo enforcement signs as regulatory signs, in Section 2B.46. There are three basic types of signage: • General signage can be placed anywhere in the jurisdiction to notify drivers that the jurisdic- tion uses ASE. General signage serves a public awareness function. The goal is to indicate to drivers that ASE is being used in the jurisdiction and that they should not speed. To maxi- mize awareness, general signage should be placed on major roads and entrances to the juris- diction. Section 213.46 of the MUTCD specifies a "Traffic Laws Photo Enforced" sign (see sign R10-18 in Figure 4) as an option for entrances to the jurisdiction. Fixed advance signage can be placed on any road where ASE can be used. The goal of fixed advance signage is to alert drivers to the possible presence of ASE ahead and to encourage them not to speed. The MUTCD specifies a "Photo Enforced" sign (see sign R10-19 in Figure 4) as an optional plaque that can be mounted below a speed limit sign. If the "Photo En- forced" sign is used below a speed limit sign, the MUTCD requires that it "shall be a rectangle with a black legend and border on a white background." Fixed advance signs should primarily be used to supplement speed limit signs, but stand-alone signs may also be used. Stand- alone signs do not need to follow the MUTCD requirements for a regulatory sign because they are not connected to a regulatory sign and can use different messages and formats. Some examples of fixed advance signage are shown in Figure 6. Temporary advance signage can be placed upstream of an active enforcement unit to inform drivers that they are approaching ASE in progress. Temporary advance signage is generally undesirable because drivers become aware that they will be warned and given time to slow down before they reach the ASE unit, thereby reducing the deterrent effect of ASE. However, temporary advance signage is often desired by the public and is sometimes required by law or as a compromise to satisfy opponents of ASE. If temporary advance signage is used, it should be located somewhere that it is visible and legible to approaching drivers, yet not an obstruction to drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists. The distance between the sign and the ASE unit can be selected by the jurisdiction, but the distance should be consistent between ASE sessions and sites. The sign should be wind resistant so it does not move when hit by wind gusts. If photo enforcement is conducted by unmarked (covert) units it is a good idea to note this on general and fixed advance signs so that drivers are aware that they might not be able to see the ASE units. TRAFFiO La PHOTO EvORCED .f R 10-18 PHOTO ENFORCE I V R10A 9 Figure 4. Optional regulatory signs specified in the MUTCD TRAFFIC CAMERAS IN TT If! Laws u S E Photo PLEASE DRIVE SAFELY Enforced! Figure 5. General signage in Scottsdale, AZ, (left) and Washington, DC (right) 29 Figure 6. SPEED LET EWWLD I PHOTO P.R, O MPH,'. ■ I Qull� �141��µ SPEED I Mao LIMIT SPEED LIMIT �40- PHOTD - 12 5_ ENFORCED H010-RADAR ENFORCED Fixed advance signage (clockwise from upper left): Boulder, CO; Washington, DC; San Jose, CA; San Jose, CA (again); Scottsdale, AZ; Portland, OR z� i SCE TRAMC LAWS PHOTO ENFORCED Figure 7. Temporary advance signage in Charlotte, NC, (left) and Scottsdale, AZ (right) Days and hours of operation Days and hours of operation should be selected based on the times that speeding poses the greatest risk. This can be determined by crash data and public complaints and can also factor in traffic vol- umes, pedestrian presence, school hours, and so forth. ASE should be conducted every day of the week, if resources are available. However, school zones should only be enforced as such when their special speed limits are in effect and children are present or in transit. Most jurisdictions focus their mobile operations on morning, afternoon, and evening hours, while fixed units typically operate 24 30 hours per day. Though ASE can be conducted in darkness if a flash is used, violation notice issuance rates may be lower due to inadequate quality of some photographs, especially if driver identification is required. ASE can be conducted at any time of day, but it is important to also maintain traditional en- forcement and patrols during the late evening and overnight hours when traffic volumes are lower and alcohol -impaired driving and other criminal activities are most likely to occur. See Chapter 4: Coordi- nation with other traffic law enforcement efforts for additional information on integrating ASE with other traffic law enforcement activities. ASE strategy and scheduling The goal of ASE deployment is to use ASE where and when it will have the greatest positive effects on safety, while using resources efficiently. There are many ways to rotate enforcement between en- forceable sites, and the best method for a particular jurisdiction depends upon the number of enforce- able sites, the characteristics and locations of those sites, and the number of ASE units available. One potential strategy is to focus ASE in one area to create a "safety zone." As speeding in the safety zone is reduced, the zone can be expanded by distributing enforcement across a larger area. Pro- gram managers should maintain oversight; if not direct control, of the enforcement schedule to ensure that the schedule is consistent with best practices identified in the jurisdiction, the goals of the strategic plan, and the resources available for ASE. Fixed ASE units consist of a fixed -in -place housing and the ASE unit that can be removed for service and redeployment. The ASE unit can be permanently installed in a single, fixed location or occasion- ally rotated among a number of sites. One way to rotate fixed ASE units is to install a greater number of fixed ASE unit housings than there are fixed ASE units. With this strategy, some ASE housings will be "dummy housings" that have the appearance of a functioning ASE unit, but contain an ASE unit only when scheduled to have one. Dummy housings may have a deterrent effect, but they might also have the opposite effect if motorists come to believe that speeding violations are not always enforced by apparent ASE units. One of the most important elements of a successful ASE program is to be responsive to changing safety patterns. It is essential to understand how ASE influences driver behavior at frequently en- forced sites, infrequently enforced sites, and sites that are never enforced. For example, some drivers may avoid roads where ASE is used in favor of roads that are not enforced. Traffic and safety trends may also develop that are unrelated to ASE activity. Chapter 4: Ongoing improvements to enforce- ment plan provide more information on reevaluating and fine-tuning the enforcement plan. Site -specific effects versus iurisdiction-wide effects When deciding how to distribute enforcement to eligible sites, the agency should consider the goals of the ASE program and its desired effects on speeding and other driver behaviors. There are two ways to view the effects of ASE on speeding: Site -specific effects, and • Jurisdiction -wide effects. Site -specific effects are the effects observed at locations where ASE is used. Speeding is usually substantially reduced in the vicinity of active enforcement, but may return to baseline levels as little as one-half mile beyond the ASE unit. Site -specific speed reductions also tend to deteriorate quickly when ASE is not present. The key to maximizing site -specific speeding reductions is to use ASE to reduce speeding, and then use recurring ASE to maintain acceptable speeding levels. To reduce speeding at a site, the use of ASE at that site should be publicized and ASE should be visible and fre- quent during the times when speeding is most problematic. Speeds should be monitored at the site when ASE is present and when it is not present to determine the effects of recurring ASE deploy- ments. When speeding has been reduced by an acceptable amount and positive effects persist even when the ASE unit is not present, enforcement can occur less frequently, with the goal of maintaining speeding reductions through deterrence. Jurisdiction -wide effects are the overall effects on speeding observed throughout the jurisdiction, in- cluding on roads that are not enforced by ASE. Jurisdiction -wide effects are likely to be less dramatic 31 than site -specific speed reductions, but even small changes in driver behavior can have a substantial effect on safety throughout the jurisdiction. The key to maximizing jurisdiction -wide speeding reduc- tions is to maximize the perceived likelihood of encountering an ASE unit anywhere in the jurisdiction. To achieve this, it is important to promote public awareness of ASE and to select ASE sites that dis- tribute enforcement throughout the jurisdiction, encompassing a variety of road types. Covert en- forcement units can also help to improve jurisdiction -wide effects (see Chapter 4: Overt versus covert enforcement). Both site -specific and jurisdiction -wide speeding reductions are desirable, but in many cases there is a tradeoff between achieving site -specific and jurisdiction -wide speeding reductions. Some of these tradeoffs are listed in Table 2. When dealing with these tradeoffs, it is important to consider the goals identified in the strategic plan (see Chapter 2: Develop a strategic plan). If the program is focused on speeding reductions in a limited number of target areas or if crashes are overwhelmingly clustered on particular stretches of roadway, a more site -specific approach might be most advisable. If the goals of the program are more general and geographically distributed, a jurisdiction -wide approach might be most effective. In most cases, the solution will be somewhere in the middle, with a program designed to have a positive influence on targeted problem areas and throughout the jurisdiction. Scheduling ASE deployments As mentioned in Chapter 4: Days and hours of operation, it is important to schedule mobile ASE at a site during the times when the speeding -related safety risk is greatest. The ASE deployment plan, however, can also be scheduled to provide the most enforcement at sites with the most substantial speed -related safety problems. For instance, a major road with a substantial and persistent speeding problem might warrant more frequent enforcement than a residential road with a less substantial speeding problem. The duration of mobile enforcement shifts should reflect the span of time when speeding is most prob- lematic at a given site. For instance, a two- to three-hour shift might encompass an evening rush hour. Enforcement should typically be scheduled in shifts of no more than four hours to provide ASE operators with break time and variety. Although mobile ASE should be scheduled for specific times and locations, flexibility should be allowed for situations where the scheduled site is unenforceable due to sun glare, lack of safe location for ASE unit, roadway construction, traffic incidents, and so forth. Table 2. Ways to achieve site -specific and jurisdiction -wide speeding reductions Site -specific effects Jurisdiction -wide effects Reference Overt enforcement Covert enforcement Chapter 4: Overt versus covert enforcement Announce ASE site locations to Withhold ASE site locations Chapter 3: Promote public from public awareness of ASE program Fixed ASE units Mobile ASE units Chapter 2: Types of ASE systems Few road types/areas enforce- Many road types/areas en- Chapter 3: Road types able forceable ASE focused on small number of ASE distributed amongst large Chapter 3: Selection fac- sites number of sites tors All fixed ASE sites operating Rotate fixed ASE units among Chapter 4: ASE strategy full-time many sites (dummy housings) and scheduling Use of fixed advance signage Use of general signage Chapter 4: Signage and temporary advance signage 32 Immediate driver feedback An important element of speed enforcement is the connection that drivers make between their speed- ing behavior and the penalty for that behavior. With ASE, a span of days or weeks may separate the violation from the receipt of the violation notice, so without immediate feedback drivers may be unable to recall the situation when the violation was recorded. Immediate feedback can help to maintain the cause -and -effect relationship between speeding and its penalties, alert drivers to the possibility they will receive a violation notice, and deter future speeding. To the extent possible, drivers should immediately be made aware when their vehicles are recorded committing violations. Flash photography can present a passive indication that the vehicle has been photographed. A speed display board on or near the enforcement unit can also be used to indicate the speed of passing vehicles, though they may also confuse drivers who are not aware whether their vehicle is the one whose speed was displayed. If a speed display board is used, it should only display speeds of recorded violators so that non -violators do not think that they were recorded as violators. In general, they should not be used when the ASE unit is enforcing more than one traffic lane. Speed display boards are required by law in Oregon (see Figure 8). If speed display boards or other change- able message signs are used to present information to passing vehicles, messages should be de- signed to minimize distraction and should comply with requirements in the MUTCD (FWHA, 2003). Figure 8. Mobile ASE unit with speed display board in Portland, OR Coordination with other traffic law enforcement efforts ASE should be used to supplement, but not replace, other traffic law enforcement activities. ASE can only be used to observe speeding violations, so police officers must be active on roads to observe traf- fic for other violations. Police presence is an important deterrent to impaired driving and other criminal activity on roadways. Police presence should be especially high during hours when impaired driving and other non -speeding violations occur most frequently. High -profile enforcement activities such as heightened police presence on holiday weekends and sobriety checkpoints can help to remind the public that ASE is only one aspect of traffic law enforcement. ASE and traditional traffic law enforcement can also be used in combination. One option is to station a traffic law enforcement officer simultaneously on the same road as an ASE unit. This strategy may lead to a more widespread deterrent effect by indicating to drivers that once they pass an enforcement unit, there may still be additional enforcement presence on the road. Furthermore, being stopped by a police officer immediately interrupts drivers' speeding behavior, while drivers photographed by ASE may continue to drive at unsafe speeds. Another coordinated enforcement strategy is to alternate en- forcement at a location between ASE and traditional traffic law enforcement. No research exists to indicate the effectiveness of strategies for combined ASE and traditional enforcement. 33 Another option is to use ASE in conjunction with speed display boards. Speed display boards (see Figure 9) may be placed upstream of an ASE unit to inform drivers of their speed and the speed limit on the road. The speed display board may also indicate that ASE is being conducted ahead. If the public is properly informed that speed display boards are often followed by ASE, it is possible that speed limit compliance may be improved and speed reductions may be extended over greater dis- tances than with ASE alone. One study conducted on a road with a 50 km/h (31 mi/h) speed limit found that a speed display board located 150 meters before a fixed ASE unit on a reduced the propor- tion of vehicles speeding at least 10 km/h (6.2 mi/h) above the limit at the ASE site from 12.6 percent to 2.1 percent (Woo, 2007). Figure 9. Portable speed display board Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan The enforcement plan should adapt and evolve to meet the needs of the jurisdiction. Speed data and crash data should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine whether resources should be shifted to respond to changing patterns. Different patterns of enforcement can be used and evaluated to deter- mine how resources can be used most efficiently. Public opinion should be sought to determine which aspects of the program are popular and which are unpopular. Reevaluation of the enforcement plan is especially important in the first months of the program because growing public familiarity with the pro- gram is likely to influence driving patterns and because no matter how well planned the program is, it is difficult to predict the ideal distribution of ASE resources before enforcement begins. FIELD OPERATIONS Operator staffing and training Unlike traditional traffic law enforcement, mobile ASE unit operators in most States do not have to be sworn police officers. While some jurisdictions do require sworn police officers to conduct ASE, others use non -sworn police employees, other local government employees, or employees of the equipment vendor. Traffic law enforcement officers have credibility with the public in terms of promoting the use of ASE as a tool for law enforcement. They are also likely to have the best sense of the relationship between ASE and other traffic law enforcement activities and are under direct police supervision. Vendor employees and other non -police operators might be perceived as unqualified and might also lead to accusations of outsourcing police responsibilities, operator conflict of interest, and an emphasis on revenue generation. Still, there are some advantages to non -police operation of ASE. First, some jurisdictions report that police officers find ASE operation undesirable or uninteresting and would pre- 34 fer direct contact with motorists (though supervisors should emphasize that officers conducting ASE can issue many more citations than if they were conducting traditional enforcement). Second, the use of non -police operators frees police officers to conduct activities that they alone are qualified for. Third, if the vendor supplies mobile unit operators, ASE staffing costs may be lower and the jurisdic- tion is relieved of the need to hire and train operators. No matter who operates ASE units, the jurisdic- tion's program manager must maintain control and oversight of all ASE activities and monitor the op- eration to ensure that operators are in full compliance with laws and policies. Most vendors provide training for ASE operators, regardless of their affiliation. Supplementary docu- mentation and training should be provided by the jurisdiction to familiarize operators with jurisdiction policies and procedures and to provide equipment training, if necessary. Even after training, ASE op- erators may require practice and experience before they achieve peak performance. Close supervi- sion should be provided to new operators. Unit location and setup procedures ASE units should only be located in areas where they do not create an unsafe situation for operators or roadway users. A location might be unsafe if it protrudes into the traveled way, if there is a risk that vehicles will crash into the unit, or if the unit obstructs drivers' or pedestrians' sight. Units should not impede the way of bicyclists and pedestrians. All roadside equipment should meet the safety specifi- cations provided in NCHRP Report 350 (Ross, Sicking, Zimmer, & Michie, 1993). Specific setup fac- tors such as direction of observed travel, distance from observed traffic, and angle of offset are largely determined by the functional requirements of the detection and violation recording equipment. An- other consideration is sun glare, which varies by direction of observed travel and time of day. If required, a temporary advance sign should be placed the appropriate distance upstream of the ASE unit (see Chapter 4: Signage). Equipment should be tested and proper operations should be verified before beginning an enforcement session. Equipment should be checked to ensure proper configura- tion and aim of violation detection equipment and cameras, proper focus of cameras, and proper func- tion of flashes and computer equipment. A checklist may be used to ensure that proper and consistent procedures are followed for mobile ASE. The checklist should address site verification, unit location, lanes and directions of travel observed, equipment startup and calibration, operations, and ending the session. A checklist may be integrated into the ASE technology to decrease the likelihood of errors and to allow the system to electronically verify and record the use of proper procedures. This record may be presented as evidence if a citation recipient challenges the citation at a hearing (see Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipient). The checklist used by ASE unit operators in Beaverton, Oregon, is shown in Appendix D. Event documentation Mobile ASE operators should maintain a log to document specific information about the equipment setup and individual violations. The purpose of an event log is to provide a human observation to compare with the data recorded by the ASE system. Important event information to log includes time of event, vehicle descriptors (e.g., type of vehicle, color), lane location, visual confirmation of speed- ing, and situational factors such as the presence of pedestrians, active school hours, or the presence of emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Log data can either confirm or contradict ASE data. For instance, if the vehicle type recorded in the event log does not match the vehicle in the photograph taken by the ASE system, the violation should be voided. The same may be true if the ASE operator notes that an emergency vehicle with flashing lights was photographed by the ASE system. Event logs should be available to violation processing staff (see Chapter 5: Violation validation) and should be presented as evidence at a hearing to contest a violation notice, if one is requested by the alleged violator (see Chapter 6: Contest violation). Though not required by law in most jurisdictions, event logs should be used as a safeguard to ensure proper system operation and to assure the public that the system is constantly monitored by a trained operator. 35 Data transfer ASE data includes photographs, electronic data recorded by the ASE system, and additional informa- tion and notes recorded by the ASE operator, such as an event log (see Chapter 4: Event documen- tation). Ideally, violation data from ASE sessions should be transferred for processing within 24 hours of violation occurrence to ensure that violation notices are sent to alleged violators as quickly as pos- sible. A maximum span of time between violation detection and data transfer may be mandated to ensure timely processing (see Chapter 5: Timeliness of processing). Transfer methods will largely depend upon the system provided by the equipment vendor. If the system uses wet film, the film must be manually transferred to a location where the film can be developed and processed. If the system uses digital photography, photos may be transferred via electronic media or even wirelessly from the field. Though electronic transfer of digital images offers advantages in terms of ease and speed of transfer, particular care must be taken to ensure data security. ASE system data and operator event logs should preferably be maintained in electronic form to allow transfer via electronic media or a net- work connection. Chapter 3: Information management: Compatibility, flow, and security provide more information on privacy and security of ASE systems. Another critical aspect of data transfer is ensur- ing that the photographs, ASE data, and operator logs that comprise the violation record are linked together to maintain a complete record of the alleged violation. Many jurisdictions print violation data directly to the violation photograph to ensure record linkage. Violation records must also contain iden- tifying information that can be used to track the status of alleged violations and query the database to find relevant information. Violation status tracking is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5: Status tracking. Equipment maintenance and calibration In addition to field testing of equipment during session setup, ASE equipment should undergo regular maintenance to ensure that equipment continues to function properly and accurately. Speed - measuring equipment should be calibrated on a regularly scheduled basis, and after repairs are made, in a qualified testing laboratory. Proper configurations, focus, computer equipment, flash and image capture processes for the equipment should be checked according to established standards, local law and manufacturer's specifications. NHTSA (2004a; 2004b; 2004c; in press) provides standards for detection equipment testing and calibration. Further instructions may be available from the equipment manufacturer. Maintenance and calibration is sometimes conducted by the equipment vendor or equipment manufacturer. Maintenance and calibration records should be kept on file as evidence of system accuracy and integrity, and may be submitted as evidence at hearings when individuals con- test ASE citations. 36 CHAPTER 5: VIOLATION NOTICE PROCESSING AND DELIVERY Violation notice processing is a process in which photographs, event data, and operator event logs are reviewed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a speeding violation took place and whether the evidence can be linked to the individual who is responsible for the citation. During this process, the burden of proof is upon the jurisdiction to find that a violation did occur. Nu- merous checks must be performed to ensure that violation criteria are met and records that do not meet the criteria should be dismissed before citations are issued. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES Violation notice processing staff can be employees of the vendor, police employees, or other jurisdic- tion employees, but regardless of affiliation all processors must be trained according to jurisdiction policies and procedures and should be supervised by jurisdiction management. It is essential that the program managers maintain adequate control and supervision of the violation processing staff. In 2002, a Denver County judge found that Denver's ASE program violated Denver Revised Municipal Code §54-19 because the city wrongfully delegated police duties (summons preparation) to the ASE vendor. The judge also found that the program violated Colorado Revised Statute §42-4-110.5 be- cause the city wrongfully paid the vendor for services beyond provision of equipment (City and County of Denver v. Pirosko, 2002). Violations typically should not be processed by the same individuals who operated the ASE units be- cause operational errors may be more likely to go undetected. Jurisdiction managers should also be responsible for reviewing violation notices to ensure that they are valid before they are delivered to recipients. Quality control and violation review procedures are described in further detail in Chapter 5: Review and quality control procedures. VIOLATION VALIDATION The first step in violation notice processing is to review the evidence and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a violation did occur. Processors should ensure that the session information recorded by the ASE operator (e.g., location, lane(s) observed, date, time) is correct and that ASE was authorized at that time and location. Each photograph should be reviewed to ensure that only one vehicle was within the detection zone at the time that speed was recorded, that the vehi- cle has a legible license plate, and, if necessary, that the photograph includes the driver's face. If the system captured more than one photograph (e.g., one of the rear for license plate identification and one of the front for driver identification), the photos should be compared to ensure that they represent the same vehicle. Event data recorded by the speed -measuring component should be reviewed to ensure that the vehicle's speed was in excess of the enforcement threshold and that other values such as vehicle distance from the enforcement unit are within reasonable bounds and consistent with the photographic evidence. Processors should review event logs to ensure that the ASE operator's documentation supports the evidence provided by the photograph and other violation data. If con- secutive photographs or a video record of the violation are recorded, they should be reviewed for vis- ual confirmation of excessive speed. MATCHING VIOLATION INFORMATION TO DRIVER AND VEHICLE RECORDS If it is determined that a violation did occur and the evidence is sufficient to identify the vehicle license plate (and driver, if necessary), the next step is to retrieve information about the registered owner of the vehicle. These records are maintained by motor vehicle administrations and an arrangement must be made with the agency to obtain access to these records. If the vendor is responsible for violation processing, the vendor will often arrange to receive records directly from the motor vehicle administra- tion. Regardless of which organization is given access to motor vehicle records, care must be taken to protect sensitive information and to limit record access to the information needed to process ASE vio- lations. Violation processors should not have access to the entire database of registration information, but should only have access to the relevant information about vehicles that were recorded allegedly committing a violation. One method is to acquire vehicle information in batches. With this method, 37 violation processors can gather a list of license plate numbers of violators and then send this list to the motor vehicle administration. The motor vehicle administration can then deliver the relevant registra- tion information to data processors. Once registration information has been received, violation processors should perform a second check to ensure that the make and model of the vehicle reported in the registration information matches the vehicle in the violation photo. If the jurisdiction requires positive identification of the driver, then addi- tional steps may be required to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. Most jurisdictions that require driver identification first determine whether the driver in the violation photo is of the same gender as a registered owner of the vehicle. If there is a gender mismatch, the only practical way to identify the driver is to ask the registered owner of the vehicle to identify him or her. Some jurisdictions have found this procedure to be excessively burdensome and unpopular with the public and have therefore opted to dismiss violations in which there is a gender mismatch. In ju- risdictions that perform an initial gender match, about one in five recorded violations is dismissed be- cause of a gender mismatch. If there is a gender match between the photograph and the registration information, a violation notice can be sent to the registered owner indicating that the vehicle was ob- served committing a violation and that the registered owner must either admit guilt by paying the fine, attest that he or she was not the driver at the time of the violation, or contest the citation in court. These alternatives are addressed in further detail in Chapter 6: Options for violation notice recipient. DELIVERY TO RECIPIENTS If sufficient evidence exists to determine that a violation has occurred, a violation notice should be de- livered to the registered owner of the vehicle. The most practical and cost-effective delivery method is postal mail. Envelopes should be clearly marked with the name of the enforcing agency. More infor- mation on violation notices is provided in Chapter 6: Information on violation notice and Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice. REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES Quality control procedures are essential to ensure that violation processing staff is following all proce- dures correctly and to discover errors and flaws early in the process. At a minimum, violations deemed valid by processors should be spot checked by law enforcement supervisors. Ideally, all vio- lations should be reviewed and certified by at least two individuals. If two reviewers disagree on whether a violation is valid, it should be sent to a supervisor for review. Traffic law enforcement offi- cers are appropriate reviewers because they are knowledgeable about traffic laws and enforcement technologies, because police officer certification of citations more closely matches traditional enforce- ment methods, and because the public is likely to perceive police review of citations as more credible than non -police review. However, non -police employees can also review violations if they are appro- priately trained and supervised. It is important to document the reasons that violations are invalidated to confront problems as soon as they are discovered. If invalidations are caused by ASE operator error, the operator should receive feedback to this effect and remedial training, if necessary. If invalidations are due to equipment fail- ure, the problematic equipment should be replaced or repaired and recalibrated. If invalidations are due to normal limitations of the technology or setup procedures, then ASE operator procedures should be altered or equipment should be upgraded to meet requirements. STATUS TRACKING From the time that a violation is recorded until the record is purged from the system, it is essential to track violation information. Most vendors will provide a proprietary computer system to track viola- tions, but the jurisdiction must confirm that the vendor's system meets the needs of the program and is consistent with laws, regulations, and information security policies. Each violation event should be assigned a unique identifying number so that photographs, event data, and event log information can remain linked and accessible. The current status of violation records (e.g., violation confirmed, viola- tion notice issued, fine paid) should be noted within each record. If violation information is retained for statistical purposes, personally identifying information should be removed from records. ffl TIMELINESS OF PROCESSING Violation notices must be delivered in a timely manner for the recipient to maintain a mental associa- tion between the violation and the penalty. Long delays between the violation and the receipt of the violation notice can result in public disapproval. The jurisdiction should establish a maximum time for the violation to be sent. An appropriate target is two weeks or 10 business days from the date of the violation, but faster processing times are better. The jurisdiction should establish policies that mini- mize processing time. For instance, there could be a policy that requires violation photos and data to be delivered for processing within 24 hours of the end of the ASE session. The arrangement to re- ceive vehicle registration information from the motor vehicle administration should require motor vehi- cle administration staff to deliver the information to processors in a timely manner. Adequate process- ing staff should be in place to keep pace with violation data. Processing speed should never be achieved at the expense of quality control and review procedures (see Chapter 5: Review and quality control procedures). 39 CHAPTER 6: VIOLATION NOTICE RECEIPT AND ADJUDICATION INFORMATION ON VIOLATION NOTICE All information necessary for recipients to understand the violation notice and their response options should be provided on the notice itself. The violation notice should clearly identify the issuing agency and any coded information on the notice should be explained. The violation notice must include the date, time, and location associated with the violation. The measured speed of the vehicle and the speed limit at the location must be stated. The notice should also state the traffic law that was violated and the fine and other penalties associated with that violation. The notice should include a violation identification number to aid in customer service and status tracking and should make clear that the violation notice was delivered to the registered owner of the vehicle. The notice should explain the recipient's due process or appeal rights. The method of requesting a hearing or trial and its date, time and location should be explained. The notice should include at least one photograph that shows the vehicle and the surrounding roadway, a legible image of the license plate, and, if necessary, the driver's face. Sections of photos may be blown up to present greater detail (e.g., license plate), but other image enhancements that alter the appearance of photos should not be used. Color photo- graphs are preferable. A sample citation from Charlotte, North Carolina, is presented in Appendix E. If a video record of the violation was also captured, notice recipients may be given instructions on how to access the video, such as on the Internet or at a government site. After viewing the violation video, notice recipients may be less likely to contest the violation. The violation notice should describe the response options for the recipient, payment methods, the due date for response, and the results of a failure to respond by the due date. The burden for response should be minimal and should not require in -person appearances at government facilities. Multiple payment methods should be available and people should be able to pay by mail or in -person. If there is an online payment option, the payment system must be secured from unauthorized access or tam- pering (see Chapter 3: Information management: Compatibility, flow, and security). The notice should also direct recipients to other sources of information about the program including customer service contacts. A pre -addressed envelope should be provided for recipients to mail in their payment or other response to the notice. Additional information can also be provided as supplementary material deliv- ered with the violation notice. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL DELIVERED WITH VIOLATION NOTICE Supplementary information can be delivered with violation notices to help recipients understand how ASE works, why it is used, and what their options are to respond to the notice. Effective use of sup- plementary material can improve notice recipients' understanding and acceptance of the program, re- duce the difficulty and stress of responding to the notice, and reduce the burden on customer service representatives. Supplementary material should include: • Description of ASE technology; • Support for the legality of ASE; • Description of the violation review process; • Description of the goal to reduce speeding -related crashes; • Summary of positive effects of the ASE program; • Options for recipient to respond to the notice; • List of frequently asked questions (FAQ) and their answers; • If available, the community ASE Web site; and • References to sources of additional information or support. The purposes of the program should be described with an emphasis on reducing speeding -related crashes and speeding. The harmful effects of speeding within the jurisdiction should be described, .ff along with the positive effects of ASE observed in the jurisdiction, if data is available. Positive effects observed in other jurisdictions may be cited as well. The description should emphasize the degree of precision and accuracy and the training received by the ASE operator. The legality of ASE should be asserted and common arguments made against ASE should be debunked (see Table 1 above for ex- amples). The review process should be described with an emphasis on the presence of a trained re- viewer and the quality control procedures in place. Violation notice recipients' options should be noted on the citation itself, but additional details may be presented within supplementary materials. For in- stance, a list of common questions and their answers can be provided. Recipients should also be di- rected to other sources of information, such as a Web site or customer service contact. Customer service and support is discussed in Chapter 6: Additional help and support. OPTIONS FOR VIOLATION NOTICE RECIPIENT Jurisdiction policies should allow violation notice recipients to respond to the violation notice in one of three ways: accept responsibility for the violation, deny responsibility for the violation, or contest the citation at a hearing. The specific procedures involved for each of these options must be defined by the jurisdiction. For all options, the jurisdiction should make all reasonable efforts to minimize the bur- den placed upon violation notice recipients. Accept responsibility The most common way for violation notice recipients to accept responsibility for the violation is to pay the fine. One possible alternative is to allow violators to take a driving safety class in return for a re- duction or dismissal of penalties. Jurisdictions may consider providing a payment extension or in- stallment payment option for individuals without the means to pay citations by their due date. In some jurisdictions, a failure to respond to the notice by the due date also constitutes acceptance of respon- sibility and a waiver of the ability to contest the notice. Non -response is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 6: Procedures if recipient does not respond to violation notice. Deny responsibility If violation notice recipients deny that they were the driver of the vehicle at the time that the violation occurred, they should be granted the opportunity to respond to the violation notice with a certification of innocence. If drivers are not photographed in the jurisdiction, a certification of innocence should require either the identification of the actual driver at the time of the violation or evidence that the vehi- cle was not in the legal possession of the registered owner at the time of the violation. Requirements for driver identification should discourage driver identification fraud: violation notice recipients may be required to provide an address, phone number, and driver's license number of the actual driver, and penalties for intentionally false identifications should be emphasized. A person who chooses to file a certificate of innocence may be required to have the document notarized for legal certification. Spe- cific procedures related to violation notices issued to business vehicles and government vehicles are addressed in Chapter 6: Violation notices issued to government and business vehicles. If driver iden- tification is required by the jurisdiction, violation notice recipients may be required to send a copy of their driver's licenses as evidence of innocence. If the driver's license photo does not match the photo of the driver of the vehicle, the violation may either be dismissed or the violation notice recipient may be required to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. Most jurisdictions have opted to dismiss violations if the recipient provides evidence that he or she was not the driver because of the burden created by the driver identification requirement. Contest violation Violation notice recipients must be provided the opportunity to contest violations at a hearing. If ASE violations carry license sanctions as penalties, hearing procedures should be the same as those for non -automated speeding violations. If ASE violations do not carry license sanctions, then procedures may be more like those for non-moving violations such as parking tickets and registration violations. Specific requirements and procedures may be required by State or local law. 41 An individual must be present at the hearing to represent the ASE program. If the violation was re- corded by a manned mobile ASE unit, the operator whose unit recorded the violation may represent the ASE program. If the violation was recorded by an unmanned unit, an ASE expert from either the jurisdiction or the vendor should represent the ASE program. However, vendor experts may be per- ceived as less credible if they have a financial stake, so jurisdiction experts are generally preferable. In prosecuting ASE violations, one of the most important responsibilities of the expert is to explain the technology and assert its validity and reliability. This is especially important during the ASE program's first weeks and months, and when the individual presiding over the hearing is inexperienced in hearing ASE cases (see Chapter 2: Obtain interagency and community support for guidance on securing sup- port from the judiciary). Testimony by ASE program representatives should follow a script to ensure that they present thorough and accurate descriptions of the ASE technology, violation processing pro- cedures, and the violation in question. If available, the unit operator's event log should be used as evidence to support the prosecution and to refute erroneous claims by the defendant. Additional ma- terial such as a video of the violation, site photographs, crash history statistics, and site speed distribu- tion charts can provide additional support. PROCEDURES IF RECIPIENT DOES NOT RESPOND TO VIOLATION NOTICE Procedures and penalties for overdue violation notices should be made clear to recipients to encour- age a response to the initial notice. Recipients of violation notices may fail to respond to the violation notice by the due date for a variety of reasons: the notice may be misplaced or unintentionally dis- carded, it may be sent to an outdated address, the recipient may forget about the notice or procrasti- nate until the due date passes, or it may be willfully disregarded. When the due date has passed, a reminder notice should be sent to the registered owner. The notice should specify a new due date and any penalties associated with the failure to respond to the initial notice or the second notice. Ad- ditional penalties for a failure to respond to the first notice or subsequent notices may include the in- ability to contest the citation or proclaim innocence, late fees, inability to reregister the vehicle or driv- ers license, license suspension, or vehicle immobilization (e.g., with a Denver boot) or impounding. Overdue violations may also be referred to a collection agency for service by mail or in person. It may also be possible for the jurisdiction to collect debts from violators' tax returns. State and local laws and procedures for overdue non -automated speeding violations should be considered when develop- ing procedures for overdue ASE violation notices. VIOLATION NOTICES ISSUED TO GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS VEHICLES Vehicles registered to government agencies and businesses (including vehicle rental or leasing busi- nesses) pose a special challenge because these vehicles are unlikely to be driven by their registered owners. It is important to take all reasonable measures to identify the drivers of these vehicles. When registration records indicate that a speeding vehicle is owned by a government agency or a business, a form should be sent to the registered owner or fleet manager requesting the identification of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. To do this, vehicle fleet managers may need to consult vehicle use log books to determine who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. This level of compliance may be required by policy in government agencies, but may be more difficult to achieve with business vehicles. If no response to the notice is received, or the responsible individual is not identified, State and local laws may determine whether the organization is responsible for the violation notice or it should be dismissed. In Victoria, Australia, businesses that do not identify the driver of a violating vehicle are subject to a fine greater than the maximum fine for an ASE violation, but license sanctions are not assessed (Victorian Road Safety [General] Regulations 1999, 2005). Special considerations must also be made for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police cruisers. In addition to determining the identity of the driver, it is important to determine whether an emergency vehicle was responding to an emergency at the time of the recorded violation. Dispatch information should be used to make this determination. If available, ASE operator event logs should also be consulted to determine whether the vehicle had active emergency lights or sirens. Every ASE violation committed by a government vehicle (including emergency vehicles while not on an emergency call) should be reviewed by the driver's supervisor or a fleet manager. Penalties and 42 procedures to contest the violation should be the same as for the general public, though government vehicle drivers may face additional disciplinary action in accordance with department policies. ACCESSIBILITY OF VIOLATION NOTICE Violation notices should be designed to maximize accessibility to all potential recipients. All important information should be presented in plain language and small "fine print' should not be used. If there is a large non -English-speaking population in the jurisdiction, the violation notice may be fully or partially multilingual. The violation notice may also include a reference to a Web site, phone number, or other source where support is available in other languages. ADDITIONAL HELP AND SUPPORT Additional help and support should be available to people who have questions or comments about the ASE program or a particular violation. People should be encouraged to seek information on the pro- gram Web site or in supplementary information provided with violation notices before contacting ASE program representatives (see Chapter 6: Supplementary materials delivered with violation notice for guidance on providing supplementary materials). Support should be available over the phone and, optionally, in person at a government building or customer service location. Representatives should be thoroughly knowledgeable about program policies and procedures, especially those related to the rights, responsibilities, and options of violation notice recipients. The purposes and outcomes of sup- port calls should be recorded and regularly reviewed by program mangers to determine what confu- sions and misunderstandings people have about the program and to improve informational materials to address these issues. 43 CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM EVALUATION ASE program evaluation is critical to understand how the program is affecting safety and how it is per- ceived by the public. An evaluation plan should be developed during the program planning phase (see Chapter 2). Minimal evaluation methods can include tracking speeds at enforced sites, crashes, and citation issuance. If resources are available, more sophisticated analyses should be conducted to investigate crash effects, speed effects, and public awareness and acceptance. This chapter provides guidelines on: Program monitoring • Statistical analysis of speeds and crash effects Evaluation of public awareness and acceptance BASIC PROGRAM MONITORING At a minimum, basic data about program operations should be recorded and analyzed. Speed data should be recorded by ASE units during enforcement sessions, then transferred and maintained in a community -wide database. This data can be used to determine the range of speeds of passing vehi- cles and the frequency of speeding violations. Speed data can give a general idea of the effective- ness that ASE units have in lowering vehicle speeds when they are present. Violation frequency data can help to estimate the number of violations that will need to be processed and give an early indica- tion if trends in violation frequencies are changing. If possible, speed data should also be collected covertly when ASE units are not present to determine the lingering effects of ASE, which are some- times called halo effects. Key variables include the percentage of vehicles speeding above the speed limit, the enforcement threshold, and 85th 90th and 95th percentile speeds. The percentage of drivers speeding above the mean speed and measures of dispersion such as speed variance may also be of interest, but are of less direct relevance to safety. Crash statistics should also be monitored at ASE sites and throughout the jurisdiction to identify the highest priority sites for ASE. Particular attention should be given to crashes where speeding was a factor and where crashes were severe. Evaluation of crash and speed data is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 7: Statistical evaluation of crash effects and speed effects. STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CRASH EFFECTS AND SPEED EFFECTS The most important measures of ASE effectiveness are its effects on crashes and vehicle speeds. Issues related specifically to crash effects are addressed in Chapter 7: Crash effects and issues re- lated specifically to speed effects are addressed in Chapter 7: Speed effects. Issues common to both types of data are addressed in this section. Statistical evaluations should be conducted by an inde- pendent organization with experience in evaluation design and statistical analyses. Evaluations con- ducted by an agency with a stake in the ASE program may be perceived as biased and less credible by the public. Crash and speed effects can be evaluated at individual ASE sites, at the entire set of ASE sites, or throughout the jurisdiction. Data from individual sites is useful to determine where ASE is having the greatest positive effects and where improvements should be made to the enforcement plan (see Chapter 4: Ongoing improvements to enforcement plan). It can also help to identify where confounds (other factors that affect driver behavior) may be present. Data from the entire set of ASE sites can be used to determine the direct effects of ASE where it is used. Jurisdiction -wide data can be used to determine whether ASE is influencing behavior beyond enforced sites. Program evaluators are cautioned to avoid oversimplifying the effects of ASE. The evaluation should encompass more than just a simple comparison of data before ASE was implemented versus data during ASE activity. There are many phases of an ASE program, which can be loosely defined as follows: • Pre-ASE. This is the stage before the marketing and media campaign begins, before wide- spread public awareness of the program, and before site locations are announced. This is the true "before" data in a before -and -after evaluation of ASE effects. • Approach. This is the stage that includes the marketing and media campaign and other efforts to raise public awareness. Driver behavior may begin to change during this phase in anticipa- tion of enforcement or as a result of a heightened awareness of the dangers of speeding in- stilled by marketing and media efforts. • Warning period. This is an optional phase during which the ASE program is operational, but only warning notices are being delivered (see Chapter 3: Program rollout and warming period). • Full implementation. This phase begins when the ASE program is in operation and citations are being delivered. Even within this full implementation, driver behavior is likely to continue to change for many months as people adapt to and become familiar with the program. Changes in program operations and confounding variables may continue to influence behavior years into the program. • Post -implementation. ASE operations may be ceased at a site or throughout the jurisdiction for a variety of reasons. Data collection at former ASE sites can provide valuable data on driver behavior. For example, it may be of interest to determine whether speeding and crashes occur more frequently once ASE is removed, and how long it takes for these meas- ures to reach or exceed their pre-ASE levels. A study conducted on a freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona, found that the rate of speeding violation detection increased by 836 percent after the fixed ASE units were deactivated (Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). The first and fourth phases are the most important to assess the effects of the ASE program, but the other phases can also shed light on the ways in which behavior is changing and to help identify the reasons for this. One of the major challenges to an ASE evaluation is identifying confounds and controlling for them. There are numerous factors that can influence driver behavior. These include time of day, day of week, seasonal patterns, weather patterns, daylight patterns, traffic volumes, changes in the vehicle fleet, changes to roadways, or their safety features, changes in laws, driver demographics, police presence, public information and education campaigns, changes to the ASE program plan, and so forth. Although it is impossible to eliminate all possible confounds, it is possible to control for their ef- fects by also collecting data at comparison sites. Comparison sites can show whether there were any changes in crash patterns or speed patterns at locations where ASE was not an influence. Comparison sites may be located within the ASE-enforced jurisdiction or in a nearby jurisdiction without ASE but otherwise with comparable characteristics. Comparison sites within the jurisdiction can control for many potential confounds, but it may be impossible to distinguish between effects that are independent of ASE and those that are related to ASE. Comparison sites outside the jurisdiction may eliminate the influence of ASE, but may be sub- ject to different confounds than those in the enforced jurisdiction (e.g., the effectiveness of its conven- tional speed enforcement program). Although comparison sites are not likely to perfectly control for all confounds, they are important to account for and understand the trends that are influencing crashes and speeds. One additional confound that can influence the effects of an ASE evaluation is regression to the mean. This refers to the natural tendency for a site that has recently experienced a high number of crashes to return to its baseline crash level without any intervention. In many cases, sites are selected for ASE because they have recently experienced a substantial number of crashes. The problem with this is that it is unclear whether this high number of crashes represents a continuing trend of high crash fre- quency or simply an anomaly that will pass, with the site crash frequency ultimately returning to its baseline level. Therefore, if ASE is used at such a site, it may be unclear whether ASE caused the reduction in crashes or whether it was due to regression to the mean. It is possible to partially control for regression to the mean by selecting comparison sites that have experienced similar increases in 45 crashes or by selecting sites with long-established histories of frequent crashes rather than those that have experienced a recent upsurge. Crash effects Crash effects are the most direct measure of an ASE program's effectiveness. Crashes can be bro- ken down by whether or not they had speed as a causal or contributing factor, and by level of severity, with common crash categories including property damage only, injury, and fatality. It is important to focus on speed -related crashes and to establish clear definitions for categories of severity. Crashes that are not reported to the police are unlikely to be available for analysis, though unreported crashes are likely to be minor. Crash documentation should be reviewed to ensure that all variables necessary for analysis are present. Data such as specific crash location, date, time, severity, and causal factors (primary and secondary) is essential. Other factors such as weather conditions, vehicle type, driver demographics, and specific mechanisms of injury may also be useful in analysis. All crashes that re- sult in fatalities are summarized in a standard national format, provided to NHTSA, and included in the FARS database, so additional details may be available about fatal crashes. If insufficient crash docu- mentation is currently being collected, efforts should be made to work with police and emergency re- sponders to collect additional information of use for ASE program analysis. One of the challenges of crash effect analysis is collecting enough data to make statistically meaning- ful comparisons. Crashes are relatively rare events, and injury and fatal crashes account for small fractions of total crashes. Years of data before and after the start of ASE may be required to make statistical comparisons, especially for crashes involving speed as a factor and injuries or fatalities. Preliminary, non -statistical comparisons can be made in the shorter term, but care must be taken to consider the possible effects of confounds and other external factors. Speed effects Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between speeding and the likelihood and severity of a crash. Therefore, speeding can be used as an indicator of risk. To analyze overall program ef- fects, speed data should be collected at mobile ASE sites when ASE is not present. This is because for any given site, ASE will not be present far more often than it is present. Speeding is likely to occur much less frequently when ASE is present than when it is not, so the reliance on speed data recorded during ASE sessions is likely to substantially overestimate the program's broader effects on vehicle speeds. The enforcement agency should determine whether it has the in-house capability to operate a comprehensive speed measurement program. If not, it would be more appropriate to use the juris- diction's traffic engineering function or a consultant for speed measurement. EVALUATION OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND ACCEPTANCE Public awareness and acceptance of the ASE program are essential to the program's success (see Chapter 3: Promote awareness of ASE program and Chapter 3: Promote acceptance of ASE pro- gram). Program managers can benefit by gaining knowledge of current levels of awareness and ac- ceptance and by identifying areas that need improvement. The public can also benefit from the oppor- tunity to voice their opinions and concerns about the program. There are many ways to assess public awareness and attitudes, both formally and informally. These methods are described in Chapter 3: Public input with regard to program startup, but they are also relevant to the evaluation of an active ASE program. Of all evaluation methods, formal surveys are typically the most appropriate way to assess public awareness, understanding, and acceptance. As such, surveys are singled out here for further discussion. Surveys can be conducted using a variety of methods, including telephone, mail, Internet, handout, or in -person interviews. Surveys administrators should typically attempt to survey a representative sam- ple of the relevant population (e.g., residents of the jurisdiction who have driver's licenses). Some- times a convenience (unrepresentative) sample may be more practical for budgetary or other reasons. Although convenience samples can be useful as a compromise, the limitations and potential biases of an unrepresentative sample may influence the findings of the survey. .o Surveys can be used to assess public knowledge and opinions on a variety of relevant issues. They can also include questions on issues other than ASE. Some key issues to assess using surveys include: • awareness of the ASE program's existence; • awareness of the ASE marketing and media campaign and attitudes toward the campaign; • sources of information about ASE program; • awareness of various features and operational aspects of the program; • presence of incorrect beliefs about program features and operations; • perceived purposes of ASE; • perceived appropriateness of site selection and amount of enforcement; • general attitudes toward highway safety, speeding, and enforcement; • perceived likelihood of self or others being ticketed by ASE; • perceived changes in own driving behavior as a result of ASE; • perceived changes in behaviors of other drivers in the jurisdiction; • level of support/acceptance of ASE program; • perceived attitudes of other people toward the ASE program; • effects of ASE on roadway safety; and • desired changes to ASE program. If possible, an expert in survey methodology should design the surveys. Questions must be worded carefully to make sure that their meanings are clear and to avoid common pitfalls such as biased lan- guage, vague questions, inappropriate response choices, and so forth. Surveys typically should not include any descriptions of the program or its effects that could bias respondents. For example, a summary of positive safety effects should only be given to respondents if the specific focus of the sur- vey is to assess the influence of this knowledge upon attitudes and opinions. The survey must also be designed so that the responses will provide a meaningful basis for analysis. If budget allows, ASE program managers can hire an organization that specializes in survey research to design and conduct surveys. In addition to the advantages in expertise that such an organization can provide, the public may regard an independent organization as less biased than the jurisdiction. This strategy can assist in alleviating public opposition to the program. 47 REFERENCES Aarts, L., & van Schagen, I. (2006). Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: A review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 215-224. Alcee, J.V., Black, J.C., Lau, R.R., Wendzel, P.M., & Lynn, C.W. (1992). Legal issues concerning the use of photo -radar. Transportation Research Record 1375, 17-25. Behavior Research Center, Inc. (2007). Photo -based traffic enforcement attitude study. Scottsdale, AZ: Scottsdale Police Department. Blincoe, K.M., Jones, A.P., Sauerzapf, V., & Haynes, R. (2006). Speeding drivers' attitudes and per- ceptions of speed cameras in rural England. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 371-378. Bowie, Jr., N.N., & Walz, M. (1994). Data analysis of the speed -related crash issue. Auto and Traffic Safety, 2, 31-38. Cameron, M., Cavallo, A., & Gilbert, A. (1992). Evaluation of the speed camera program in Victoria 1990-1991. Report no. 42. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Champness, P., Sheehan, M., & Folkman, L. (2005). Time and distance halo effects of an overtly de- ployed mobile speed camera. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Cities of Beaverton and Portland. (1997). Photo radar demonstration project evaluation. Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation. City and County of Denver v. Pirosko, case nos. S003143859, S003143912, S002999146, S003006196, Ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss (County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado, 2002). City of Winnipeg Audit Department. (2006). Photo enforcement program review. Final report. Winni- peg, Canada: City of Winnipeg Audit Department. Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1999). The effects of speed cameras: How drivers respond. London: De- partment for Transport. Cornell, J.G. (in press). My experience with photo enforcement traffic cases in a municipal court. Submitted for publication in The Court Manager with the National Association for Court Manage- ment. Cunningham, C.M., Hummer, J.E., & Moon, J.-P. (2005). An evaluation of the safety effects of speed enforcement cameras in Charlotte, NC. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University. Davis, G.A. (2002). Is the claim that 'variance kills' an ecological fallacy? Accident Analysis and Pre- vention, 34, 343-346. Department for Transport. (2006). Handbook of rules and guidance for the national safety camera pro- gramme for England and Wales for 2006107. London: Department for Transport. Diamantopoulou, K., & Cameron, M. (2002). An evaluation of the effectiveness of overt and covert speed enforcement achieved through mobile radar operations. Report No. 187. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Elliot, M., & Broughton, J. (2004). How methods and levels of policing affect road casualty rates. Re- port no. TRL637. Crowthorne, England: TRL Limited. Elvik, R. (1997). Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Norway. Transportation Re- search Record 1595, 14-19. Federal Highway Administration. (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. M Federal Highway Administration & National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Red light camera systems operational guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Freedman, M., Williams, A.F., & Lund, A.K. (1990). Public opinion regarding photo radar. Transporta- tion Research Record 1270, 59-65. Garber, N.J., & Gadiraju, R. (1988). Speed variance and its influence on accidents. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Gilbert, D.T., Sines, N.J., & Bell, B.E. (1996). Photographic traffic law enforcement. Legal Research Digest, 36. Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Harbord, B. (1997, October/November). Success over `stop -start': Results of the M25 `controlled motorway'. Traffic Technology International, special issue, 57-60. Harkey, D.L., Robertson, H.D., & Davis, S.E. (1990). Assessment of current speed zoning criteria. Transportation Research Record 1281, 40-51. Hess, S. (2004). An analysis of the effects of speed limit enforcement cameras with differentiation by road type and catchment area. Transportation Research Record 1865, 28-34. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. (1998). Interim evaluation report on photo radar program. Richmond, British Columbia. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). Traffic safety in the new millennium: Strate- gies for law enforcement. DOT HS 809 158. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Keall, M.D., Povey, L.J., & Frith, W.J. (2001). The relative effectiveness of a hidden versus a visible speed camera programme. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 277-284. Keall, M.D., Povey, L.J., & Frith, W.J. (2002). Further results from a trial comparing a hidden speed camera programme with visible camera operation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 773-777. Keenan, D. (2004). Speed cameras — how do drivers respond? Traffic Engineering and Control, 45, 104-111. Kendall, S.T. (2004). Is automated enforcement constitutional? Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Kockelman, K.A., & Ma, J. (2004). Freeway speeds and speed variations preceding crashes, within and across lanes. Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Liu, C., Chen, C.-L., Subramanian, R., & Utter, D. (2005). Analysis of speeding -related fatal motor ve- hicle traffic crashes. Report no. DOT HS 809 839. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lowery, M. (2006, May 22). Ruling puts red-light cameras in peril... Retrieved July 27, 2006 from Caro- lina Journal Online: http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3331 Makinen, T., & Oei, H.L. (1992). Automatic enforcement of speed and red light violations: Applications, experiences and developments. Report no. R-92-58. Leidschendam, Holland: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1992). Beyond the limits: A law enforcement guide to speed enforcement. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000). Guidelines for developing a municipal speed enforcement program. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004a). Speed -measuring device performance specifications: Across -the -road radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004b). Speed -measuring device performance specifications: Down -the -road radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2004c). Speed -measuring device performance specifications: Lidar module. Report no. DOT HS 809 811. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005). Speed management strategic initiative. Report no. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006a). Highway safety program guideline no. 19: Speed management. In Revised highway safety program guidelines nos. 3, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20. Docket no. NHTSA-2005-23090. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006b). Traffic safety facts: 2005 data: Overview. Re- port no. DOT HS 810 623. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2007). Speed enforcement program guidelines. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (in press). Speed -measuring device performance specifications: Photo radar module. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Pilkington, P., & Kinra, S. (2005). Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 330, 331-334. Povey, L.J., Frith, W.J., & Deall, M.D. (2003). An investigation of the relationship between speed en- forcement, vehicle speeds, and injury crashes in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Institu- tion of Professional Engineers, Transportation Group. Q&A: Speed - law enforcement. (2006). Retrieved August 8, 2006, from http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_lawenf.html Retting, R.A. (2003). Speed cameras - Public perceptions in the US. Traffic Engineering and Control, 44, 100-101. Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co- lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37. Roberts, C.A., & Brown-Esplain, J. (2005). Technical evaluation of photo speed enforcement for free- ways. Final report 596. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation. Ross, H.E., Sicking, D.L., Zimmer, R.A., & Michie, J.D. (1993). Recommended procedures for the safety performance evaluation of highway features. NCHRP Report 350. Washington, DC: Na- tional Cooperative Highway Research Program. Royal, D. (2003). National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behaviors: 2002. Vol- ume ll: findings. DOT HS 809 688. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. State of Minnesota and City of Minneapolis v. Kuhlman, court file no. 05062805, Ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss (Hennepin County District Court, 2002). Transportation Research Board. (1998). Managing speed. Special report 254. Washington, DC: Na- tional Academy Press. U.S. DOT Speed Management Team. (2005). U.S. Department of Transportation speed man- agement strategic initiative. Report no. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Victoria Police Traffic Camera Office. (2006). Mobile cameras policy manual. Melbourne, Australia: State of Victoria. 50 Victorian Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999. (2005). Version 25. Statutory rule number 27/1999. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents. Vinella, S. (2006, May 14). Cameras nab speeders by the thousands. Retrieved July 26, 2006 from The Plain Dealer: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/ base/cuyahoga/1147595588110160.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 Washington, S., Shin, K., & Van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 photo enforcement demonstration program. Draft summary report. Phoenix, AZ: The Arizona De- partment of Transportation. Winnett, M.A. (2003). Speed changes at a safety camera site. Report PR/SE/708/03. Berkshire, United Kingdom: TRL Limited. Woo, H. (2007). Effectiveness of monitoring displays coupled with speed cameras on speed reduction. Presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. 51 APPENDIX A: FURTHER READING Ali, S.Y., AI-Saleh, O., & Koushki, P.A. (1997). Effectiveness of automated speed -monitoring cameras in Kuwait. Transportation Research Record 1595, 20-26. Anderson, R. (2000). Introducing speed cameras in the ACT - How to win friends and influence peo- ple. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer- ence, Brisbane, Australia. Anderson, R., & Edgar, A.W. (2001). Mobile speed cameras in the ACT - Slashing speeds and cutting crashes. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con- ference, Melbourne, Australia. Berkuti, C., & Osburn, W. (1998). Photo enforcement in the Wild West: National City's experience with photo radar enforcement program. Institute of Transportation Engineers, District 6, 51 st Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. Compendium of Technical Papers, 112-117. Blackburn, R. R., & Gilbert, D.T. (1995). Photographic enforcement of traffic laws. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 219. Bloch, S.A. (1998). Comparative study of speed reduction effects of photo -radar and speed display boards. Transportation Research Record 1640, 27-36. Brimson, T., & Anderson, R. (2002). Fixed red light and speed cameras in Canberra: Evaluating a new digital technology. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Educa- tion Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Bringing down the road toll: The speed camera programme. (2002). Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Auditor -General. Cairney, P, & Imberger, K. (2005). The experience of speed camera operations in Australia and New Zealand. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con- ference, Wellington, New Zealand. Cameron, M., Delaney, A., Diamantopoulou, K., & Lough, B. (2003). Scientific basis for the strategic directions of the safety camera program in Victoria. Report 202. Victoria, Australia: Monash Uni- versity Accident Research Centre. Cameron, M., Newstead, S., Diamantopoulou, K., & Oxley, P. (2003). The interaction between speed camera enforcement and speed -related mass media publicity in Victoria. Report 201. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Campbell, M., & Stradling, S.G. (2002). The general deterrent effect of speed camera housings. In G.B. Grayson (Ed.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety X1(pp. 75-85). London: Department for Transport. Carseldine, D. (2003). Fixed, digital speed cameras in NSW: Impacts on vehicle speeds and crashes. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Sydney, Australia. Champness, P., & Folkman, L. (2003). The impact of speed cameras on speed -related crashes over time. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Confer- ence, Sydney, Australia. Chen, G., Meckle, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). Speed and safety effect of photo radar enforcement on a highway corridor in British Columbia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 2, 129-138. Chen, G., Wilson, J., Meckle, W., & Cooper, P. (2000). Evaluation of photo radar program in British Columbia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 4, 517-526. Chin, H.C. (1999). An investigation into the effectiveness of the speed camera. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 135, 2, 93-101. A-1 Christie, S.M., Lyons, R.A., Dunstan, F.D., & Jones, S.J. (2003). Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study. Injury Prevention, 9, 302-306. Davis, G.A. (2001). NASCOP: an evaluation of photo -radar speed enforcement program. San Jose, CA: City of San Jose. Delaney, A., Diamantopoulou, K., & Cameron, M. (2003). MUARC's speed enforcement research: Principles learnt and implications for practice. Report 200. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Delaney, A., Ward, H., & Cameron, M. (2005). The history and development of speed camera use. Report 242. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Delaney, A., Ward, H., Cameron, M., & Williams, A.F. (2004). Controversies and speed cameras: les- sons learnt internationally. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Department for Transport. (2002). A cost recovery system for traffic safety cameras —first year report. London: Department for Transport. Diamantopoulou, K. & Corben, B. (1998). The impact of speed camera technology on speed limit compliance in multi -lane tunnels. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Polic- ing and Education Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Donnelly, T. (2003). Application of system engineering techniques to optimize benefits of fixed speed cameras. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con- ference, Sydney, Australia. Dunn, P. (1998). Managing a photo radar program in the Scottsdale City Court. Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts. Fields, M. (2001). Statement before the California Legislature Senate Committee on Privacy - auto- mated enforcement laws. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Fontaine, M.D., Schrock, S.D., & Ullman, G. (2002). Feasibility of real-time remote speed enforcement for work zones. Transportation Research Record 1818, 25-31. Gains, A., Heydecker, B., Shrewsbury, J., & Robertson, S. (2004). The national safety camera pro- gramme: Three year evaluation report. London: Department for Transport. Gains, A., Humble, R., Heydecker, B., & Robertson, S. (2004). Safety performance of traffic manage- ment at major motorway road works. London: Department for Transport. Gains, A., Nordstrom, M., Heydecker, B., & Shrewsbury, J. (2005). The national safety camera pro- gramme: Four year evaluation report. London: Department for Transport. Heidstra, J., Goldbeld, C., Makinen, T., Nilsson, G., & Sagberg, F. (2000). New concepts in automatic enforcement: Recommended applications in a European enforcement project. Deliverable 6, The "Escape" Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). Helmer, J.R. (1997). San Jose's experience with residential photo speed enforcement. In ITE Com- pendium of Technical Papers, Boston, MA. Hess, S., & Polak, J. (2003). Effects of speed limit enforcement cameras on accident rates. Transportation Research Record 1830, 25-33. Highways Agency. (1997). West London speed camera demonstration project. London: Department for Transport. Hirst, W.M., Mountain, L.J., & Maher, M.J. (2005). Are speed enforcement cameras more effective that other speed management measures? An evaluation of the relationship between speed and accident reductions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 731-741. Hooke, A., Knox, J., & Portas, A. (1996). Cost benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras. London: Police Research Group. A-2 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2006). Video: Automated Traffic Law Enforcement, Retrieved June 5, 2007 from: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/speed.html Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2005). Speeding: Methods to deter violators stir controversy, but officials need not cave in to the opposition. Status Report, 40, 8. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2006, June). Automated enforcement laws. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/pdf/automated_enforcement.pdf Kang, J.-G. (2002). Changes of speed and safety by automated speed enforcement systems. /ATSS Research, 26, 38-44. Kang, J.-G., Hong, C.-E., & Oh, S. (1998). A study on the effect of automated speed enforcement systems on traffic flow. In Proceedings of the 5th World Congress Conference on ITS, Seoul, Korea. Keenan, D. (2002). Speed cameras - measuring the impact on behavior. Traffic Engineering & Control, 43, 154-160. Kraus, E. & Quiroga, C. (2003). Legislative issues related to automated enforcement of red light running. In Proceedings of the 82" d Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Lynn, C.W., Ferguson, W.S., & Garber, N.J. (1992). Feasibility of photo -radar for traffic speed enforcement in Virginia. Transportation Research Record 1375, 11-16. Lynn, C., Lau, R, Garber, N.J., Alcee, J.V., Ferguson, W.S., Black, J.C., & Lienau, T.K. (1992). Final report: Automated speed enforcement pilot project for the capital beltway: Feasibility of photo radar. Charlottesville, Virginia: Virginia Transportation Research Council. Maccubbin, R.P., Staples, B.L., & Salwin, A.E. (2001). Automated enforcement of traffic signals: A literature review. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. (2001). Automated traffic law enforce- ment model law. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.ncutlo.org/autoenforce622.htm Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (2003). Evaluation of the crash effects of the Queensland speed cam- era program. Report 204. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (2003). Evaluation of crash effects of the Queensland speed camera program. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Con- ference, Sydney, Australia. Newstead, S., Mullan, N., & Cameron, M. (1995). Evaluation of the speed camera program in Victoria 1990-1993. Phase 5: Further investigation of localized effects on casualty crash frequency. Report 78. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Nilsson, G. (2006). Automatic enforcement use and its issues across EU-countries. Working paper 6, The "Escape" Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). Oesch, S.L. (2005). Statement before the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee — HB 443 automated speed enforcement. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. (2003). Speed cameras: 10 criticisms and why they are flawed. London: Department for Transport. Polk, A.E. (n.d.) Automated enforcement of traffic laws: How to do it right and why you should care. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://152.99.129.29/its/cdrom/1043.pdf Price, N.T., & Hunter-Zaworski, K.M. �1998). Evaluation of photo radar for the city of Portland, Oregon. In Proceedings of the 77" Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Wash- ington, DC. A-3 Retting, R. (2002). Public opinion regarding speed cameras in the District of Columbia. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co- lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37. Rogers, C. (2005). Kent and Medway safety camera partnership: Operational case for financial year 2005-06 (year 4). Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership. Rogerson, P., Newstead, S., & Cameron, M. (1994). Evaluation of the speed camera program in Victoria 1990-1991. Phase 3: Localized effects on casualty crashes and crash severity. Phase 4: General effects on speed. Report 54. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Sagberg, F. (2000). Automatic enforcement technologies and systems. Working paper 7, The "Es- cape" Project. Espoo, Finland: Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). Savage, M. (2004). Automated traffic enforcement. NCSL Transportation Reviews. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislators. Speed cameras. (2004, May). Post note, no. 218. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Stanek, T.M. (1998, winter). Photo radar in Arizona: Is it constitutional? Arizona State Law Journal, 1209-1243. Stradling, S.G., Martin, L., & Campbell, M. (2005). Effects of speed cameras on driver attitude and behavior. In G. Underwood (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 513-520). Oxford: Elsevier. Streff, F.M., & Molnar, L.J. (1995). Developing policies for automated speed enforcement: A survey of Michigan opinions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 4, 611-616. Stuster, J., Coffman, Z., & Warren, D. (1998). Synthesis of safety research related to speed and speed management. FHWA-RD-98-154. U.S. Department of Transportation: FHWA-NHTSA Speed Management Team. Swali, L. (1993). The effect of speed cameras in West London. In Traffic Management and Road Safety: Proceedings of a PTRC Seminar at Manchester University. PTRC Education and Re- search Services Ltd. Tae-Jun, H.A., Jeong-Gyu, K., & Je-Jin, P. (2003). The effects of automated speed enforcement sys- tems on traffic -flow characteristics and accidents in Korea. ITE Journal, 73, 2. Tay, R. (2000). Do speed cameras improve road safety? In Traffic and Transportation Studies: Inter- national Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies (pp. 44-57). Beijing, China. Turner, S., & Polk, A. (1998, June). Overview of automated enforcement in transportation. ITE Journal, 20-29. Walsh, D. (2003). Public perceptions of fixed digital speed cameras in New South Wales. In Proceed- ings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Sydney, Aus- tralia. Ward, H. (2004). Safety cameras in Great Britain - The continuing debate. In Proceedings of the Aus- tralasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Perth, Australia. Willis, D.K. (2006). Speed cameras: An effectiveness and a policy review. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute. Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J.K., & Bellamy, N. (2006). Speed enforcement detection devices for preventing road traffic injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ASE PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION The first substantial demonstrations of automated speed enforcement technologies occurred in the 1980s. Since then, the technologies have become more advanced and programs have been imple- mented in dozens of countries around the world. In the United States, about 20 jurisdictions are cur- rently using ASE and some other jurisdictions are planning to implement programs of their own. Table B-1 shows the U.S. jurisdictions where ASE is currently being used. The table shows that ASE has been used in locations ranging in size from small towns to large cities. Table B-1. Selected U.S. jurisdictions with active ASE programs (as of February 2007) Jurisdiction Population (year 2000)* Land area (mil) Program start ID type Fixed or mobile Mesa, AZ 448,000 125 1996 Driver Both Paradise Valley, AZ 14,000 16 1987 Driver Both Pinal County, AZ 271,059 5,3704 2007 Driver Both Phoenix, AZ 1,321,000 475 2001 Driver Mobile Prescott Valley, AZ 33,068 32 ?? Driver ?? Scottsdale, AZ 203,000 184 1996 Driver Both Tempe, AZ 159,000 40 1997 Driver Mobile San Jose, CA 895,000 175 1997 Driver Mobile Boulder, CO 95,000 24 1998 Driver Mobile Denver, CO 555,000 153 1998 Driver Mobile Fort Collins, CO 119,000 47 1996 Driver Mobile Washington, DC 572,000 61 2001 Vehicle Both Chicago State Police District, IL** 5,377,000 946 2006 Driver Mobile Davenport, IA 98,000 63 2006 Vehicle Both Montgomery County, MD 922,000 496 2007 Vehicle Both Charlotte -Mecklenburg, NC*** 827,445 526.28 2003 Vehicle Both Albuquerque, NM 471,856 181 2004 Driver Both Akron, OH 217,000 62 2005 Vehicle Mobile Cleveland, OH 478,000 78 2006 Vehicle Both Northwood, OH 5,000 8 2005 Vehicle Both Toledo, OH 314,000 81 2004 Vehicle Both Trotwood, OH 27,000 31 2005 Vehicle Fixed Beaverton, OR 76,000 16 1996 Driver Mobile Medford, OR 63,000 22 2002 Driver Mobile Jackson, TN 62,099 49 ? Portland, OR 529,000 134 1996 Driver Mobile A-5 *Census estimate to nearest 1,000 population **District encompasses Cook County, IL; ASE is conducted only on interstate highways *** The population and land area is for Mecklenburg County — The program is currently suspended due to a legal challenge ASE was first implemented in the United States in the late 1980s with mixed success. The program established in Paradise Valley, Arizona, in 1987 is still running today with strong public support. How- ever, a number of other programs established in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not last. ASE programs have been discontinued for a variety of reasons, including negative public opinion, inability to demonstrate positive safety effects, incompatibility with existing laws or regulations, lack of support from judges or elected officials, dissatisfaction with the equipment vendor, excessive administrative burden, and unanticipated program expenses. In the late 1990s and early 2000s a number of new ASE programs were established in the United States and most of them are still active. Although State laws regulate many aspects of ASE opera- tions, most jurisdictions by and large have the freedom to decide how their program will be run. This has led to great diversity in the way that ASE programs are run in the United States. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS Many of the jurisdictions that have implemented ASE in the United States are small- to medium -size cities that have experienced rapid increases in traffic volumes and crashes. This was the case in the Phoenix metropolitan area where surrounding cities including Scottsdale and Paradise Valley were seeing their police forces overwhelmed by traffic duties to the detriment of other responsibilities. When traditional enforcement failed to bring the problem under control, they sought other solutions and saw potential in ASE. Other jurisdictions have not had such specific challenges, but nonetheless saw ASE as a tool that could improve safety and free police resources without excessive costs. All ASE programs require the cooperation of multiple agencies and groups. Local and State govern- ment bodies often must provide initial approval for ASE to be conducted. Police departments are typi- cally responsible for the daily enforcement operations and the strategic planning of operations, though daily operations in some jurisdictions, including San Jose and Boulder, are managed by department of transportation or public works staff. The vendor provides equipment and services vital to the ASE pro- gram. A supportive judiciary is critical to ensure that ASE citations will be upheld as legal and valid. ASE programs must start with a sound legal basis if they are to be stable and successful. Not all pro- grams require the passage of specific enabling legislation. Many States and jurisdictions were able to initiate ASE programs in accordance with preexisting laws enacted to permit the use of red light cam- eras. Some States initially passed legislation to allow a temporary ASE demonstration project. Legis- lators could then decide whether or not to support the continuation of ASE based on demonstrated results. Oregon, North Carolina, Boulder, and Akron introduced ASE with demonstration projects and the use of freeway ASE in Scottsdale also was approved as a demonstration project. CONTRACT ISSUES There are three basic options for a jurisdiction to acquire ASE equipment and services from a vendor: (1) purchase equipment, (2) lease equipment, and (3) use equipment at no cost in exchange for a share of revenues. There are countless possible variations on these basic options and each jurisdic- tion has a unique arrangement worked out between program managers and vendor representatives to meet the needs of the jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions pay a contractually obligated recurring fee in ad- dition to some compensation based on the number of citations processed by the vendor. Scottsdale pays its vendor a monthly rental fee for ASE equipment plus a fee for each successfully disposed cita- tion. Successful dispositions include paid citations, completion of an accredited defensive driving class, or defendant failure to pay or appear in court and being found in default by a hearing examiner. Washington, DC, pays its vendor a set monthly fee for equipment and services. A previous contract with the same vendor entitled the vendor to a set monthly fee plus additional fees if monthly citation volume exceeded a predetermined threshold. Program managers negotiated to eliminate citation vol- Eve ume fees in the most recent contract because citation volume had become more stable and predict- able. Charlotte pays its vendor on a per -citation basis, with the majority of citation revenue going to the vendor and the remainder used to cover program expenses. Akron, during its demonstration phase, pays a portion of each citation to the vendor, and does not pay any recurring lease fees. San Jose and Paradise Valley purchased their equipment from the vendor. FIELD OPERATIONS Site Selection Most jurisdictions restrict ASE to particular types of roads. ASE is used in Akron and Phoenix only to enforce school zones. San Jose only enforces residential neighborhoods. Colorado law limits en- forcement to residential neighborhoods, school zones, park areas, and construction zones with aver- age daily traffic between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles and speed limits of 35 mph or less. Beaverton distributes 45 percent of its enforcement time to major arterials, 35 percent to school zones, and 20 percent to residential neighborhoods, in compliance with a city law designed to distribute enforcement in proportion to the locations where speeding problems are deemed most serious. Charlotte focuses enforcement on high speed corridors with histories of high crash rates. Scottsdale and Washington, DC, can enforce any location where speeding is considered problematic. These are the only two ju- risdictions in the United States that currently conduct ASE on freeways. Oregon law specifically pro- hibits use of ASE on freeways. The criteria for ASE site selection also vary between jurisdictions. In San Jose, the City Department of Transportation only conducts ASE at locations where (1) a majority of local residents approve of ASE at that location and (2) a speed survey conducted by the DOT finds that speeds are excessive. Resi- dent approval is determined by petition signatures or approval by a neighborhood association. In Scottsdale, sites are selected by reviewing volume and crash data, speed surveys, and feedback from citizens and police officers. All potential ASE sites first undergo an engineering study to determine if speeds are excessive and if countermeasures other than ASE are appropriate and feasible. Scotts - dale's contract specifies that the equipment vendor must not have input in site selection. Portland se- lects sites where vehicle speeds are substantially above the speed limit and where citizens have ex- pressed concerns about speeding. All potential sites undergo an engineering study before approval. More than 300 sites in Portland have been approved for ASE, but many sites are not used because speeding is no longer a substantial problem at those locations. Beaverton selects sites based on presence of a speeding problem (at least 6% of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph), assessed crash risk, mixed use of roadway, and the presence of construction. Paradise Valley site selection is primarily based upon crash history and citizen complaints. The police traffic officers have a monthly meeting to review statistics and identify locations that could benefit from ASE. Site selection in Tempe is based upon crash data provided by the city traffic engineer, citizen complaints, and traffic officer input. Special consideration is given to school zones. In Charlotte, ASE is con- ducted at locations on 14 corridors where speed -related crashes were known to be a serious problem before ASE began. Washington, DC, police choose sites that are known to have speeding problems and high crash rates. They also consider citizen complaints and proximity to school zones. In Boulder, ASE is used where speed violations occur too frequently for a police officer to cite most of them while conducting traditional enforcement. An engineering study is conducted for each site before it is ap- proved for ASE. Mobile Units The primary method of enforcement in most jurisdictions is a mobile ASE configuration that can be transported to numerous locations. All of the jurisdictions that use mobile ASE have between one and five units, with the exception of Washington, DC, which has 12 mobile units. The majority of jurisdic- tions use a van or other vehicle equipped with the suite of speed monitoring and photographic equip- ment. This setup allows all equipment to be easily transported and provides a safe and comfortable environment for the equipment operator. In Akron, the mobile ASE equipment is transported in a vehi- cle, but is operated from tripods located on the roadside. ASE equipment can also be operated from A-7 tripods in Washington, DC. In Steubenville, the mobile ASE equipment is contained in a weatherproof housing that can be secured to a pole and left to operate without human oversight. Most mobile units operate overtly, with clearly marked vehicles, advance signage, or both. Operators in North Carolina, Oregon, Paradise Valley, Boulder, and Akron are required to place temporary signs upstream of the enforcement unit that state the speed limit and warn of speed enforcement ahead. In North Carolina, the sign must be placed within 1,000 feet of the unit. In Oregon, the sign must be placed between 300 and 1,200 feet of the enforcement unit. In Arizona, ARS 28-654 defines signage requirements for fixed and mobile ASE systems. Permanent signage is also used in many jurisdic- tions. In San Jose, signage is located at entrances to neighborhoods and on enforced streets. Wash- ington, DC, does not require signage immediately upstream of an enforced site, but does have signs throughout the city that state that traffic laws are photo enforced. Oregon State law requires ASE noti- fication signs on all major highway entrances to jurisdictions where ASE is used. In Charlotte, sup- plementary plaques that state "Photo Enforced" were placed below every speed limit sign on ASE- enforced corridors. Figure B-1 shows the temporary advance signage and supplementary plaque used in Charlotte and Figure B-2 shows a fixed advance sign in Boulder. PHOTO SPEED ENFORCEMENT AHEAD _ SPEED LIMIT k .55 SPEED LIMIT 14.51 PHOTO ENFORCED Figure B-1. Temporary ASE warning sign (left) and supplementary speed limit plaque (right) used in Charlotte, NC �1 - Kf Figure B-2. Fixed advance sign in Boulder, CO Most mobile ASE vehicles are marked to indicate that they are enforcement vehicles. The van in Northwood, Ohio, has a speed limit sign on the back with an additional plaque that states "SPEED ENFORCED." In Oregon, enforcement vehicles are required by law to have a speed display board on or near the enforcement unit that displays violators' speeds as they approach the vehicle. One of Portland's ASE vans is shown in Figure B-3. Mobile units in Charlotte and San Jose are marked on the sides, but not on the rear. Paradise Valley's mobile units are inconspicuously marked. In Boulder and Washington, DC, unmarked police vehicles are used to conduct enforcement. Figure B-3. Mobile ASE van in Portland, OR In most jurisdictions, trained operators are required to monitor the mobile ASE system while it is in use. In addition to ensuring proper setup and operation of the equipment, operators are required to maintain event logs in most jurisdictions. Event logs are typically used to record information about the session (e.g., specific location, direction of traffic observed, start time, weather conditions, etc.) and information about specific violations (e.g., visual confirmation of violation, vehicle description, pres- ence of emergency vehicles). Log information can be used as supplementary evidence during citation processing and adjudication. The affiliation of van operators also differs between jurisdictions. Oregon requires that police officers operate mobile units. Portland uses sworn officers and Beaverton uses special reserve officers. Washington, DC, and Charlotte also use sworn police officers. Operators in San Jose are City De- partment of Transportation employees. Operators in Tempe and Boulder are police employee's equivalent to parking enforcement staff. Operators in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley are employees of the equipment vendor, Redflex. Mobile unit operators follow a variety of procedures in different jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions operate ASE either Monday through Saturday or seven days per week. Jurisdictions that only enforce school zones during school hours operate only on days when schools are in session. The first shift of the day starts in most jurisdictions between 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. Most programs end mobile enforcement in the evening, between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m., though Scottsdale can conduct mobile enforcement 24 hours per day. Oregon law states that enforcement cannot be conducted at one location for more than 4 hours per day. Tempe also conducts enforcement in 4-hour shifts. In Washington, DC, shifts can be as long as 8 hours. Fixed Units Fixed ASE units that can conduct speed enforcement up to 24 hours per day without human supervi- sion have been used for many years in Europe and Australia, but now are becoming increasingly common in the United States. Pole -mounted fixed units are used in Scottsdale; Paradise Valley; Washington, DC; Trotwood; Northwood; Cleveland; and Toledo. Washington, DC, has 10 fixed units located at mid -block locations on city streets. Scottsdale has a pair of midblock units to enforce both directions of an arterial road as well as 9 intersection cameras that conduct ASE and red light camera enforcement simultaneously. These combination units, sometimes called `speed -on -green' red light cameras, are becoming popular among jurisdictions using ASE. Paradise Valley has 3 combination units, Toledo has 6, and Cleveland and Trotwood have 2 each. If a driver is photographed speeding through an intersection while the light is red, the driver will be cited for both violations in Paradise Val- ley, Scottsdale, Trotwood, and Northwood, but only for one of the violations in Toledo and Cleveland. Program managers in Washington, DC, and Mesa are considering adding ASE capability to some of their red light camera intersections. H Enforcement Speed Threshold Nearly all jurisdictions use a speed threshold of 10 or 11 mph or more above the speed limit to record a violation. However, many of the jurisdictions that enforce school zones have a speed threshold of about 6 mph or more above the speed limit. Trotwood has a 16 mph threshold for its fixed camera monitoring an intersection on a State highway with a 50 mph speed limit. This threshold was selected because a substantial number of vehicles were traveling at least 16 mph above the speed limit before enforcement began. Violation Types and Penalties Some jurisdictions require that the driver of a speeding vehicle be identified while other jurisdictions only require that the vehicle be identified. Often this decision is driven by State legislation. For in- stance, Colorado, Oregon, and Arizona laws require driver identification, while Ohio, North Carolina, and Washington, DC, laws do not. In most jurisdictions where drivers are identified, penalties are consistent with the penalties assessed through traditional speed enforcement and include a fine and license sanctions. Colorado is an exception, where driver identification is required, but only civil penal- ties are assessed. In jurisdictions where only the vehicle is identified, violations are considered civil violations and penalties are limited to fines. Fines for ASE violations are the same as those for moving violations in Washington, DC, but Colorado, Charlotte, and all jurisdictions in Ohio with the exception of Cleveland and Northwood assess flat fines for all ASE violations, though fines may be higher in school zones. In Northwood, all speeding fines assessed by fixed units are $90, but fines assessed by the mobile unit range from $80 for up to 10 mph above the speed limit to $145 for up to 35 mph above the limit. The fines assessed by the mobile unit are consistent with those issued by a police officer during a traffic stop. No jurisdiction raises fines for repeat offenses. Detection Technologies The majority of jurisdictions use radar in their mobile units to detect vehicle speeds, but Charlotte uses lidar and Akron use scanning lidar. Scanning lidar rapidly scans a beam horizontally across the road- way, allowing the system to monitor speeds in multiple lanes and in both directions of travel. The ma- jority of fixed ASE units measure vehicle speed as a function of the time required for vehicles to pass over two piezo sensors embedded in the pavement. In Washington, DC, fixed units measure speed using pole -mounted radar. Image Capture ASE units in all jurisdictions take at least one still photo of the rear of a vehicle and jurisdictions that require driver identification also take at least one photo of the front of a vehicle. The rear photograph must show the vehicle on the road and include a legible depiction of the vehicle's rear license plate. Most mobile units take one rear photograph, but many fixed ASE units, including those in Washington, DC, take two photographs when a violation is detected; the photos show the distance that the alleged violator traveled over a short period of time, which can be used as an additional verification of the re- corded speed. In jurisdictions where driver identification is required, ASE units also photograph the front of the vehicle. The front photograph must include the driver's face and might also include the front license plate. Separate cameras are required to photograph the front and the rear of a vehicle. For mobile units, the most common arrangement is to have both cameras located in the same location, typically inside the mobile vehicle, with one camera aimed at approaching traffic and one camera aimed at receding traf- fic. When a violation is detected, the camera aimed at approaching traffic records a photograph of the front of the vehicle. When the vehicle passes the ASE unit, a second detection device (e.g., radar) triggers the second camera to take the photo of the rear of the vehicle. A less common approach has the two cameras separated by a distance and the cameras' fields of view converge to allow the front and rear photographs to be taken simultaneously. Although this approach does not require a second detection device to trigger the second camera, it does require at least one camera to be located re- motely away from the mobile ASE unit and more effort might be required to ensure that the remote camera is properly aimed. With fixed ASE units, however, front and rear photographs are taken simul- A-10 taneously, or almost simultaneously, by cameras separated by some distance, because the difficulty of setting up remote cameras is minimal in a fixed unit. Currently, about half of jurisdictions are using digital photography for some or all of their ASE units, and some of the jurisdictions currently using wet film are considering switching to digital cameras. Digital photography is advantageous because of the ease of transmission and reproduction, but not all program managers are convinced that the current digital technology yields images of sufficient quality for driver identification. Most jurisdictions report a success rate of 60 to 80 percent in capturing photographs of sufficient qual- ity to issue a notice of violation. Precipitation and dark conditions decrease the likelihood that photos will be adequate. Operator error has also resulted in insufficient photographic evidence in many juris- dictions. During the first weeks of Scottsdale's freeway ASE demonstration, the challenges of captur- ing photos across up to three lanes of dense traffic contributed to inadequate photographs for about half of recorded violations. In addition to still images, some jurisdictions capture digital video of violations. Fixed units capture video clips of red light and speed violations in Toledo and Northwood. Scottsdale has this capability on all of its fixed units and is testing the use of digital video capture in mobile enforcement units. Video clips supplement, rather than replace, still photos. In Scottsdale, an alleged violator can view a 12-second video of the violation online. VIOLATION REVIEW Review Process The basic steps of the review process are similar across jurisdictions: 1. Review violation record to determine if a violation took place. 2. If the violation is valid, use the vehicle's license plate to retrieve the registration and driver's license information from motor vehicle records. 3. If registration information matches violation information (including driver appearance, if driver identification is required), send a violation notice or citation to the registered owner of the vehicle. Additional processes may be required if the vehicle photographed is registered to a business or gov- ernment agency, or if the driver of the vehicle does not match the description of the registered owner. In such cases, many jurisdictions send a violation notice to the registered owner requesting that the owner identify the driver. Some jurisdictions hold the registered owner responsible for the violation if he/she does not identify the driver or provides invalid information. In almost all jurisdictions, the violation review process is conducted by vendor staff with the guidance and oversight of police staff. Vendor staff is usually the first to view violation data. If they determine that a violation is valid, they send the vehicle's license plate information to the State department of motor vehicles, which provides the name and address of the vehicle's registered owner along with ve- hicle descriptors. At this point, a second check is usually made to ensure that the vehicle records match the information seen in the violation photograph and ASE operator log. This second check might be conducted by the vendor or the police agency. It is typically the role of the police to maintain the quality of the review process and to ensure that the vendor staff follows all jurisdiction regulations. In most jurisdictions, police staff must review and approve all citations before they can be mailed to recipients. However, in some jurisdictions, including Scottsdale and Charlotte, only a fraction of re- corded violations are spot-checked by police, though Scottsdale began using a full police review and approval process in July 2007. Driver Identification versus Vehicle Identification All United States jurisdictions follow the basic process described above, but there are some differ- ences in the details of how the process is performed. For instance, there are additional requirements if driver identification is required. Most jurisdictions that require driver identification perform a gender A-11 match, in which reviewers determine whether the gender of the vehicle's registered owner matches the gender of the observed driver in the violation photo. If there is a gender mismatch, the violation is dismissed or a violation notice is sent requesting that the recipient identify the driver at the time of the violation, though no jurisdiction that performs a gender match penalizes registered owners for failing to implicate another driver. Most jurisdictions that perform a gender match report that about 20 percent of photographed drivers do not match the gender of a registered owner of the vehicle. In jurisdictions where driver identification is not required, the registered owner of the vehicle is held responsible unless he/she successfully challenges the citation in a hearing or submits a form to certify that someone else was driving the vehicle at the time. In Washington, DC, citation recipients must provide the name, address, and driver's license number of the actual driver of the vehicle along with the certification of innocence. CITATION AND ADJUDICATION PROCESSES In most jurisdictions, the first notice mailed to the alleged violator is a citation. The citation includes information about the violation, including date, time, location, speed limit, vehicle's recorded speed, and so forth. Most jurisdictions provide at least one still photo of the vehicle at the time of the viola- tion. In jurisdictions where facial identification is required, there are often separate photos to show the vehicle and the driver's face. Most jurisdictions include at least one photo with the citation, but Para- dise Valley and San Jose require recipients to come to a court building if they choose to view the pho- tos. Portland sends reduced -quality black and white reproductions of violation photos to recipients. Recipients can view the original photos at a court building. Not all jurisdictions mail a citation as the first notice to the alleged violator. San Jose and all programs in Colorado first send a courtesy letter that informs the recipient that his/her vehicle was ob- served speeding. The letter recipient has the option to take responsibility or identify the actual driver. The citation is sent to the driver that the recipient identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. The amount of time from when the violation occurs to when the notice is mailed to the recipient varies between jurisdictions. Oregon law specifies that notices must be mailed out within six days of the vio- lation. Scottsdale originally required that notices be sent out within 30 days of the violation, but be- cause of improved procedures currently requires that notices be mailed out within 14 days of the viola- tion. In Tempe, citations are often sent about four weeks after the violation due to procedural ineffi- ciencies. Scottsdale and Washington, DC, also allow citation recipients secure online access to their citations, and other jurisdictions are considering options for online citation access. Options for Recipient of Violation Notice In all jurisdictions, notice recipients have at least three options: (1) pay the fine, (2) certify that some- one else was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, or (3) request a hearing to challenge the citation. Fines can usually be paid by mail or in person at a government building. Some jurisdictions, including Scottsdale, Beaverton, and Washington, DC, provide an online payment method. All jurisdic- tions provide a form that citation recipients can fill out to certify innocence. In jurisdictions that require driver identification, recipients typically must mail a photocopy of their driver's license to prove that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation. Some jurisdictions request that the recipient identify the actual driver of the vehicle, while others simply dismiss the citation if the driver's license photo does not match the photo of the driver at the time of the violation. In jurisdictions that do not require driver identification, recipients may be required to identify someone else as the driver at the time of the violation. A driving safety class is another option in some jurisdictions. Successful comple- tion of a driving class allows a citation recipient to avoid having license points assessed in Medford and Scottsdale. In all U.S. jurisdictions that use ASE, citation recipients have a right to a hearing to contest their cita- tions. The person who presides over the hearing may be a judge, magistrate, or civilian adjudicator, depending upon State law and type of violation (civil or criminal). Typically, there are three individuals at the hearing: the adjudicator, the defendant, and a witness for the prosecution. In most jurisdictions, the witness for the prosecution of a citation issued by a mobile unit is the person who was operating A-12 the unit at the time of the violation. If the violation was recorded by an unmanned unit, an expert wit- ness is generally provided by the vendor or the agency that manages the program (e.g., police or de- partment of transportation). The prosecution witness is present to attest to the validity of the citation and the integrity of the ASE process. If available, the information logged by the mobile unit at the time of the violation may also be used to support the prosecution. In Scottsdale, an ASE expert is provided by the vendor for all ASE hearings. The expert also submits as evidence photographs of the location where the violation occurred and a histogram of recorded speeds at the site to show that the defen- dant was traveling in excess of a reasonable and prudent speed. If a recipient fails to respond to a notice by the due date, typically between two and four weeks after citation issuance, reminder notices are sent in most jurisdictions. Washington, DC, and Charlotte also assess late fees if fines are not paid by the due date. If there is no response after multiple notices are delivered, many jurisdictions turn the case over to a collection agency or a peace officer who conducts personal service at the expense of the citation recipient. In some jurisdictions, failure to respond to a citation can result in a default guilty judgment, inability to reregister the vehicle, or loss of driver's li- cense. However, in Mesa and in all jurisdictions in Colorado (by State law), the citation must be dis- missed if the debt collector cannot complete personal service. Procedures for Government and Business Vehicles Government vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles, buses, agency vehicles) and business vehicles (e.g., commercial trucks, rental cars) pose a special challenge for an ASE program. Emergency vehicles such as police cruisers, ambulances, or fire trucks may be permitted to speed if responding to an emergency. Other official and business vehicles are rarely driven by their registered owners. Many jurisdictions have special procedures in place to ensure that the drivers of these vehicles are held re- sponsible for unauthorized speeding. For example, in Oregon and Colorado, registered owners of business vehicles are provided with a form to identify the person who was driving at the time of the violation. In Colorado, emergency vehicle drivers are held responsible for citations unless dispatch logs indicate that the driver was responding to an emergency. Drivers of government vehicles also face agency discipline for speeding violations while using an official vehicle. EVALUATIONS OF ASE There have been few formal, comprehensive evaluations of the safety effects of ASE programs in the United States. Those that have been conducted are often limited in their validity due to incomplete or misrepresentative reporting of methods and data, confounding variables, lack of statistical rigor, and a lack of suitable comparison (control) data. Formal evaluations are often conducted within six months to a year of the beginning of the ASE program, but follow-up evaluations are rarely conducted to inves- tigate longer -term effects and the effects of changes in enforcement operations. Furthermore, sub- stantial differences between jurisdictions, their practices, and their evaluation methods preclude the ability to make meaningful comparisons between the observed effects of ASE in different jurisdictions. Despite the limitations of the evaluation methods and the need for caution when interpreting results, ASE has generally been associated with positive safety effects in the communities that have evaluated their programs. Some of the most substantial evaluations of ASE in the United States are reviewed below. PORTLAND, OR AND BEAVERTON, OR Oregon Senate Bill 382, which passed in 1995, authorized a two-year demonstration of ASE and mandated an evaluation of the program (Cities of Beaverton and Portland, 1997). Both cities collected speed data before and after the ASE program began at enforced sites and at control sites. In Port- land, one photo radar van enforced 11 sites on residential streets and school zones. The first five months of data showed that there was no speed reduction due to ASE, so enforcement was focused on just five of the 11 streets for the remainder of the evaluation. During the four months of focused enforcement, the proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased from 18 percent to 13 percent. A slight increase in speeding was observed during the same time pe- riod at control sites. A-13 Beaverton recorded vehicle speeds on 8 residential streets and 8 school zone streets before and after ASE began. Half of the sites were enforced sites and half were control sites. Vehicle speeds were recorded three months prior to ASE and again in the second month of enforcement. The proportion of vehicles traveling more than 5 mph above the speed limit decreased from 19 percent to 13 percent at enforced sites. A slight increase in speeding was observed during the same time period at control sites. The project team also evaluated public awareness and acceptance of ASE. Approximately eight months after ASE began, 85 percent of Beaverton residents and 88 percent of Portland residents were aware of the demonstration project. Public approval was more widespread eight months after the pro- gram began than it was four months before it began. Over this time span, the percentage of residents who approved of photo radar in school zones increased from 81 percent to 88 percent in Beaverton, and 82 percent to 89 percent in Portland. Approval for photo radar use in residential neighborhoods increased from 68 percent to 78 percent in Beaverton, and 69 percent to 74 percent in Portland. WASHINGTON, DC An evaluation of the program in Washington, DC, compared vehicle speeds at seven ASE sites with speeds at eight loosely matched control sites in Baltimore, Maryland, where ASE was not conducted (Retting & Farmer, 2003). Speed data were collected in both cities one year before enforcement be- gan and six months after enforcement began. Relative to the control sites, enforced sites experienced an 82-percent decrease in the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph and a 14-percent decrease in mean speeds. However, the speed effects were recorded by ASE units during enforcement hours, so it is likely that speed reductions would have been less substantial if speeds were recorded without the presence of enforcement. This study does not address the effects of ASE on crash rates, but data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) do not suggest a reduction in traffic fatalities attributed to speeding since the beginning of ASE in Washington, DC, (see Table B-2). A 2003 telephone survey found that about 50 percent of Washington, DC, residents ap- proved of the ASE program and 36 percent disapproved (Retting, 2003). Table B-2. Traffic fatalities in Washington, DC, 2000 through 2004 Number of traffic fatalities involved in speed -related crashes Total number of traffic fa- talities Percent of fatal crashes that were speed- related Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 2005 17 48 35% - 2004 20 43 44% 1.15 2003 22 67 30% 1.87 2002 17 47 36% 1.33 2001* 19 68 28% 1.81 2000 21 48 42% 1.37 *Enforcement began in September, 2001 CHARLOTTE, NC The North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program mandated an evaluation of Charlotte's ASE demonstration project, which began operating in August 2004 (Cunningham, Hummer, & Moon, 2005). Speed data was collected at 14 enforcement sites on corridors known for frequent crashes and at 11 comparison sites. Data was collected about 10 months before ASE and about three months after the start of ASE. The proportion of vehicles traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit decreased 55 percent at enforced sites, relative to control sites. Mean speeds and 85t" percentile speeds de- creased by less than 1 mph at enforced sites, relative to control sites. The authors report an esti- mated crash reduction of about 12 percent at enforced sites compared to expectations based upon crash statistics from 2000 through 2003. Although this study is among the most statistically rigorous A-14 evaluations of ASE to date, there are some limitations. The authors note that the short duration of the data collection during the enforcement period and the intense media focus on ASE might have influ- enced results. The authors also failed to account for the downward trend in crashes per million vehicle miles traveled in Charlotte, which may have led to an overestimation of the crash reduction attributed to ASE. The enforced sites and the control sites were also inadequately matched; on average, en- forced sites experienced substantially higher crash rates than the control sites during the five years preceding ASE. This difference indicates that the enforced sites might have been more susceptible than the control sites to the effects of regression to the mean. The researchers also conducted focus groups with representatives from neighborhood associations, traffic engineers, and police officers. Attitudes toward ASE were generally positive, but all participants had a preexisting interest in ASE and therefore did not represent the population of Charlotte. SCOTTSDALE, AZ An independent evaluation of ASE was conducted on the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona (Washington, Shin, & Van Shalkwyk, 2007). A total of six fixed cameras operated on a 6.5-mile sec- tion of freeway with a 65 mph speed limit, with three cameras operating in each direction of travel. Preliminary findings indicate that the ASE units led to a mean speed reduction of more than 9 mph, from 73.5 mph to 64.2 mph during off-peak travel hours, a 50-percent reduction in crashes, and a 40- percent reduction in crash -related injuries. Although rear -end crashes actually increased, there was little or no increase in injuries associated with these crashes. The relatively small sample of crashes may limit the reliability of these preliminary findings. The study authors estimate the annual economic benefits of the freeway ASE program at $1.4 to $10.6 million. When enforcement was suspended at the end of the demonstration period, the rate of speeding violation detection (greater than 76 mph) increased by 836 percent. REFERENCES Cities of Beaverton and Portland (1997). Photo radar demonstration project evaluation. Prepared for The Oregon Department of Transportation. Cunningham, C.M., Hummer, J.E., & Moon, J.-P. (2005). An evaluation of the safety effects of speed enforcement cameras in Charlotte, NC. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University. Retting, R.A. (2003). Speed cameras - Public perceptions in the US. Traffic Engineering and Control, 44, 100-101. Retting, R.A., & Farmer, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in the District of Co- lumbia. Transportation Research Record 1830, 34-37. Washington, S., Shin, K., & Van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 photo enforcement demonstration program. Draft summary report. Phoenix, AZ: The Arizona De- partment of Transportation. A-15 APPENDIX C. PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS NOTICE: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration have compiled and distributed this information as a legal guide only. This material is not intended to be a complete treatment of every jurisdiction's laws and court decisions related to photo red light enforce- ment. Instead, this material includes highlights and examples of court decisions, and discusses issues that users engaged in photo red light enforcement should consider. Due to the dynamic nature of law enforcement and the evolution of technology, it is important that each department review this information to verify that it is consistent with applicable, current State and local law and regulations, and with department policy and procedure. This information is NOT in- tended to substitute for the advice of legal counsel. You should speak with your legal advisor, and/or local prosecutor, about the sufficiency of your department's manual, policy, curriculum, and training program on this subject. This material should not be used as the sole basis for compliance with any law or regulation, and departments should NOT rely on this material as a legal defense in any civil or criminal action. Remember that new court decisions and amendments to the law could change the material in this appendix. Photo red light enforcement is a relatively new law enforcement tool. Thus, case law is not well estab- lished. Although the few cases involving photo red light raised constitutional issues, the decisions were based upon procedural grounds, never answering the ultimate question — is it constitutional? The rul- ing on the motion to dismiss citations issued under San Diego, California's photo red light program (under appeal as of the preparation of this report), found the program constitutional. However, this rul- ing is not binding and only provides insight into the court's reasoning. Automated speed enforcement, a relatively new enforcement tool as well, shares common legal issues with photo red light enforcement — such as the registered owner presumption, notice, proce- dural, constitutional issues, etc. Most automated speed cases have also tended to avoid constitutional questions. Some issues (e.g., chain of custody, service of process issues, registered owner presump- tion) have been addressed, but these decisions tend to be highly fact -dependent or are based on State statutes. Many questions remain. The answer to these questions may be gleaned from cases not specific to automated enforcement. Existing case precedent dealing with evidentiary issues of older enforcement techniques will shape the use of automated enforcement evidence in the future. Law enforcement will use the same criminal procedures as are applicable to the collection (search and seizure), preserva- tion (chain -of -custody), and discovery of other types of evidence. It is most important to note that although the courts will borrow from established case law to determine case law regarding automated enforcement, the path will most likely be contorted. The law is known for nuances. Thus, subtle distinctions between photo red light programs may affect a court's decision and produce seeming inconsistencies. Most importantly, the classification of the photo red light viola- tion, as either a civil or criminal violation, will dramatically effect decisions. Similarly, as in the San Diego photo red light program, the enabling statute may impact the admissibility of the evidence (see below for enabling statutes). A State's surrounding body of law and the manner in which the program is conducted will also impact the viability of the photo red light program and the success or failure of challenges to the program. Without assessing merit, the following are some of the procedural and substantive issues that may be generated by photo red light enforcement. Procedural Issues: • Authentication of photographs • Chain of evidence of photographs • Compliance with enabling statutes • Foundation: Device reliability (maintenance, checks for accuracy, training of personnel involved in the process) A-16 • Misuse or dissemination of photographs • Municipal drafting • Notice — compliance with applicable State rules for service • Proper notice of use of photo red light enforcement (signs) • Standing — who can bring an action, when, and where Substantive Issues: • Administration of the program violates Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights • Confrontation rights (6th Amendment right) • Equal protection (disparate treatment for public, police, rental, corporate, out -of -State vehicles, mo- torists cited by police) • Fifth amendment right to remain silent (for statutes requiring affidavit as to who was driving) • Mailing a citation that requires appearance is a seizure subject to the 4th amendment • Photographing a motorist is a search subject to the 4th amendment • Pre -charging delay (delay between the violation's occurrence and receipt of notice) — 14th amend- ment due process • Presumption that the registered owner is the driver impermissibly shifts the burden of proof • Privacy — violation of State privacy laws • Revenue generation: selection criteria for photo red light enforcement, light phase timing • Substantive due process - Privacy The above are all issues that are likely to continue to be the subject of legal review and refinement. Monitoring their long-term clarification through legal proceedings is to be advised for all jurisdictions adopting red light camera enforcement systems. The remainder of Appendix C reviews current rele- vant case law examples and in doing so illuminates the types of issues that have been raised. PHOTO RED LIGHT CASE LAW SYNOPSIS Dajani v. Governor of Md., No. CCB-00-713, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 982 (D. Md. Jan. 24, 2001) (unreported). Facts: The defendant was charged with a photo red light violation and convicted. In this jurisdiction, photo red light violations are civil and not considered moving violations. Insurance companies may not consider the convictions. Issue: The defendant appealed to the Federal district court, requesting the court declare the statute unconstitutional. The defendant alleged the photo red light statute violated the 6th amendment's Con- frontation Clause and the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause. The court upheld the conviction on procedural matters (lack of Federal jurisdiction and lack of stand- ing) without comment on the constitutional issues. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. (Dajani v. Governor of Md., No. 01-1179, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17303 (4th Cir. 2001). Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957 (D.C. 2002). Facts: The defendant paid, without contesting, a photo red light citation. Subsequently, the police de- partment "decided to remove the camera because it was observing an inordinate number of people running the light, which was confusing to motorists." Id. at 959. Outstanding fines were dismissed, but those motorists who had paid were not reimbursed. Issue: The defendant appealed, alleging the District's decision to forgive some, but not all, violations violated the 5th and 14th amendments. A-17 The court upheld the conviction because "in failing to contest the infraction, appellant effectively ac- knowledged liability for running the red light." The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the confusing placement of the stoplight created "manifest injustice." The defendant "has no standing to challenge the decision unless ... he was confused ..." Id. at 962-63. Structural Components Int., Inc. v. City of Charlotte, No. COA102-200 (N.C. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2002) (unreported — not final until expiration of rehearing period). Facts: The president of Structural Components received a photo red light citation for one of its vehicles. In this jurisdiction, violations are civil. Structural Components contested the violation at a "review hearing." Issue: Upon conviction, Structural Components (plaintiff) filed suit in the superior court alleging negli- gence (by failing to establish reasonable guideline, failure to govern the program in a reasonable manner, and failure to provide a reasonable appeals process) and civil rights violations (State/Federal due process and equal protection). Upon defendant's (the City and Lockheed Martin) motion to dismiss, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Structural Components appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on procedural grounds (waiver of the negligence action for failure to properly State issue in appeals brief and, because one cannot recover monetary damage for a procedural due process violation involving a civil penalty, failure to state a claim). The court noted the proper avenue to challenge the constitutionality of the statute was by certiorari to the superior court (which Structural Components had not used) and the present statutory scheme provided an adequate method for chal- lenging the legality of the program. City of Commerce City v. Colorado, 40 P.3d 1273 (Colo. 2002). Issue: Commerce City challenged whether the Colorado statute (COLO. REV. STAT. § 42-4-110.5 (2002)), which authorized the photo red light program, infringed upon the city's "home -rule" powers. Noting that the program involved a "mix" of State and local concerns and, where conflicts arose, State concerns prevail, the court affirmed the validity of the program. People v. John Allen (In re Red Light Camera Cases), No. 57927SD (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 2001) (order denying motion to dismiss) (available at http://freedom.gov/auto/ cases/sdmotion.asp). This case remains under appeal. This order is presented to illustrate issues that may arise with photo red light enforcement. Facts: Defendants in a photo red light case filed a motion to dismiss alleging failure to comply with the authorizing statute (section 21455.5 of the California Vehicle Code). In this jurisdiction, the violation is criminal and a conviction is entered onto the driver's license record. Issue #1: The defendants contended the photo red light program was not operated by a government agency in cooperation with a law enforcement agency as required by the authorizing statute. The court noted "once the construction process was begun, there was very little City involvement." The City did not inspect the project when complete and the "entire process of installation and calibration of the camera equipment, putting film into the cameras, unloading the cameras, developing the film, maintaining the camera equipment, and reviewing the photographs to make the initial determination as to whether or not there was a violation and whether the alleged violator can be identified, is done by Lockheed Martin. Further, once Lockheed determines that a citation will not [be] issue[d], that decision is not reviewed by the City. If Lockheed decides a citation should [be] issue[d], it reviews Department of Motor Vehicles' informa- tion ... prints the citation, including printing the signature of the sergeant in charge of the program on the citation. The first time the City becomes involved is when the police department receives the cita- tion which has already been printed." The police review copies of the photographs and the digital in- formation to determine whether the citation should be issued. If a citation is issued, Lockheed mails it " The court found the City had "no involvement with, nor supervision over, with the ongoing opera- tion of the system" and "[t]he Legislature did not contemplate such a lack of participation by the City" • when it authorized a government agency to "operate an automated enforcement system." Thus, the program violated the statute. Issue #2: The defendants contended the signs were inadequate. The statute required signs "clearly indicating the system's presence, visible to traffic approaching from all directions." The posted signs were 24 inches by 30 inches. Based upon testimony of police officers as to the signs visibility and the lack of evidence drivers were not able to see the signs, the court found the signs adequate. Issue #3: A related statute (section 40520 of the California Vehicle Code) required photo red light vio- lations to be accompanied by an affidavit of non -liability, information as to what constitutes non - liability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for return. The defen- dants alleged this procedure was "unconstitutional because it requires innocent people to testify against each other." The court noted the section was a legislative attempt to prevent blanket immunity for corporate and rental agencies vehicles and provides a method for the registered owner who is not driving to avoid liability. Without elaboration, the court determined the statute compliant with due process and "a le- gitimate exercise of the police power in an attempt to issue citations to the actual driver who violated the red light." Issue #4: The California Penal Code (section 959.1) requires pleadings (citations) be sworn before an officer entitled to administer oaths. The defendants alleged that "no officer swears to the facts because the signature is affixed electronically before it is sent to the police and the officer who reviews the cita- tion is not the sergeant whose signature appears on the citation." The reviewing officer merely stamps his ID number below the signature. The court noted that pleading defects (i.e., minor errors in the pleading document) that do not preju- dice a substantial right do not justify dismissal. Issue #5: The defendants argued that because the City did not comply with statutory provisions re- garding the "operation' of the program, all citations must be dismissed. In making its determination the court looked at the following issues. Issue #5A: Was the delegation of authority constitutional? Although, the City had delegated the tasks of evidence collection and determining who will not be cited to Lockheed Martin, the police retained the "ultimate authority to determine who will be prosecuted." Thus, the delegation was not unconstitutional. Issue #5B: Is the fee paid to Lockheed Martin a contingency fee and if so, what is the legal effect? Because Lockheed's payment was contingent upon a conviction, the fee was deemed a contingency fee. The court indicated that Lockheed was "supposed to be a neutral evaluator of the evidence" and "should not have a financial interest in the outcome." The court reasoned that because the statute mandated a government agency "operate" the program, the purpose was to guarantee, "infor- mation obtained from the red light cameras would be trustworthy. The potential conflict created by a contingent method of compensation further undermines the trustworthiness of the evidence which is used to prosecute the red light violations." Issue #5C: Does the delegation, without statutory authority, which operates on a contingent fee basis violate due process such that it requires a dismissal of pending actions? The court noted that the threshold question in a due process challenge to executive action is whether the behavior is "so egre- gious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience." In this case, the court held the conduct did not rise to that level. Issue #5D: Is the photo red light evidence admissible? The court indicated that "where evidence is obtained from sources subject to legislative standards, there should be substantial compliance." The court noted that "there is no authority in the Vehicle Code for unsupervised private operation of a red light camera system. Therefore, there is not substan- A-19 tial compliance with the safeguards required by the statute. Such a lack of authority, combined with the collection based compensation, result in evidence lacking foundation. Without foundation, the evi- dence is not relevant and is not admissible." Accordingly, the court did not grant the motion to dismiss, but rather granted a motion to exclude the evidence. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Opinion No. JC-0460, 2002 Tex. Op. Atty. Gen. 20 (2002). Issue: Could a city pass an ordinance authorizing a photo red light program and could violations be civil, rather than criminal? Based on Texas law (which deemed red light violations criminal), the Attorney General opined a city could authorize a photo red light program to identify violators, but could not make violations civil. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, Opinion No. 01-004, 2001 Tenn. AG LEXIS 6 (2001) (available at http://www.attorneygen era 1. state.tn.us/op/ 2001/OP/OP4.pdf). Issue: The Attorney General's Office was tasked with determining whether, pursuant to inherent police power, a city had authority to enact ordinances allowing photo -enforcement. Without addressing specific constitutional issues, the Attorney General's opinion concluded that the use of photo -enforcement did not conflict with any State statute. In a footnote, the opinion noted photo -enforcement has "generally been viewed as a permissible exercise of State and local govern- ment police power which is not violative of Federal or State constitutional provisions." Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, Opinion No. 00001, 2000 Neb. AG LEXIS 1 (2000) (Available at http//:www.ago.state.ne.us/opinion/index.htmi). The Attorney General's office was tasked with assessing the constitutionality of proposed legislation involving photo red light enforcement. The Attorney General offered the following opinions: Issue #1: Procedural Due Process The proposed legislation permitted a defendant to contest the violation in a county court and assumed that proper notice would be provided. Thus, the Attorney General opined the proposed legislation would comply with the procedural due process requirements of reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. Issue #2: Substantive Due Process Substantive due process guarantees individuals protection from arbitrary government action. The At- torney General noted that due process is satisfied if the government has the power to act on the sub- ject matter, if they did not act capriciously or in a discriminatory manner, and if there was a reasonable relationship to a proper governmental purpose. The Attorney General opined that the proposed legislation complied with substantive due process be- cause protecting public safety is a proper subject matter and the legislation was rationally related to that interest. As to the registered owner presumption, the Attorney General opined this was also a "proper exercise of the State's police power" similar to holding the registered owner of a parked vehicle liable. Issue #3: Equal Protection The Attorney General noted the similarities of the Nebraska and U.S. Constitution in that equal protec- tion challenges not involving a suspect class or fundamental right are tested only for rationality. A Ne- braska Supreme Court decision (State v. Michalski, 221 Neb. 380, 377 N.W.2d 510 (1985)) had held that driving is not a fundamental right, and that drivers were not a suspect class. The Attorney General opined that the classification would be between two types of drivers: (1) those individuals cited directly by an officer who receive a criminal penalty, and have the conviction recorded A-20 on their driver's license; and (2) those individuals cited by the photo red light program who are sub- jected only to civil penalties and no recordation on their driver's license. The Attorney General noted that, although the purpose of the legislation was not set forth, the apparent purpose was to reduce the hazards of running red lights. Thus, the Attorney General con- cluded that, given the "wide latitude" and deference to the legislative process, the legislation met the rational basis standard and the proposed law would comply with Equal Protection rights. 45 Red Light Camera Systems RELATED AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT CASE LAW SYNOPSIS Oregon v. Dahl, 57 P.3d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit photographed the defendant's vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit. The defendant was the only registered owner. The officer observed the violation, but did not effect an enforcement stop and could not identify the driver. At trial, a witness commented that the defendant failed to provide a sworn certificate of innocence as permitted by statute. Issue #1: The defendant contended the Oregon statute which establishes a presumption that the reg- istered owner of a vehicle is the driver impermissibly shifts the burden of persuasion. An Oregon statute (OR. REV. STAT § 153.030.1) provides that unless excepted, criminal procedure laws apply to traffic violations. However, a different statute (OR. REV. STAT § 153.076.2) provides that traffic violations must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (a civil standard). Because this statute authorized a civil standard of proof, the court reasoned a civil standard also applied to the presumption. Therefore, the burden shift was permissible. Issue #2: The defendant contended that, even if the violation is civil, the Oregon presumption statute violated due process standards. The court noted that both U.S. Supreme Court (Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Ct., 284 U.S. 8 (1931)) and Oregon State court decisions required a "rational connection" between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. The defendant argued that "vehicles usually have more than one key, licensed drivers outnumber registered vehicles, and vehicles commonly are borrowed or stolen, all of which indicate that vehicle are often driven by someone other than their owner." The court, although acknowledging that vehicles are often driven by non -owners, found that "it is not irrational for the legis- lature to presume that vehicles are often driven by owners" and "we need not decide what facts are more likely to be true; the rational connection test does not require adoption of the best or most per- suasive explanation." Thus, the Oregon statute did not violate due process. Id. at 968-969. Issue #3: The defendant contended a witness reference to her failure to submit a sworn certificate of innocence violated her statutory and constitutional right to remain silent. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The court indicated that the defendant had failed to identify how she could have been exposed to any criminal responsibility. Thus, "her constitutional right was not implicated." Id. at 969. Section 810.439 provides a defendant in a traffic violation case an opportunity to avoid trial by submit- ting a certificate of innocence. The defendant may disregard that opportunity. The court "assumed without deciding" that the witness's comment impermissibly infringed on the defendant's statutory right, however, the court also stated "there was no indication that the trial court relied on that testimony in making its decision." Thus, the court found the defendant was not prejudiced by the comment. Id. McNeil v. Town of Paradise Valley, No. 01-17003, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17306 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2002). Not Published — Check with Court Rules. The case is presented to illustrate issues that may arise with photo red light enforcement. Issues: McNeil appealed the district court's dismissal of alleged civil rights and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations premised on the issuance of an automated speed citation. The facts and basis for these contentions was not clearly set forth. However, it appears that McNeil contended the mailing of a traffic citation to the registered owner was a seizure and the proc- ess was in violation of due process. A-21 Without elaboration, the court found municipalities cannot constitute a RICO enterprise. Further the court indicated that, because a seizure requires intentional physical control, the mailing of a citation is not a seizure. As for the due process claim, the court indicated that the challenge to the citation in mu- nicipal court was sufficient. Oregon v. Clay, 29 P.3d 1101 (Or. 2001). Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit photographed the defendant's vehicle speeding. The officer did not effect an enforcement stop and did not know the identity of the driver in the radar photo. Subsequently, a citation was issued and mailed to the defendant. The defendant did not appear at trial, but rather was represented by counsel. No evidence was presented on behalf of the defendant. The State presented no direct evidence that the defendant was the registered owner, but rather relied on witness testimony and an "official duty" presumption to establish the defendant as the registered owner. Upon being found guilty, the defendant appealed, contending the State had failed to prove that she was the registered owner of the vehicle. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and the defendant appealed to the State supreme court. In this jurisdiction, the registered owner is presumed to be the driver — see Oregon Law 1995, Chapter 579, sections 1-3 later codified to Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 810.438-810.439. Oregon statute sec- tion 811.123 requires proof that a particular person was speeding. Issue: The defendant contended there was insufficient evidence to permit the trier of fact to find that she was the registered owner of the vehicle. The court indicated that it did not "perceive any evidentiary basis ... that would permit a trier of fact to find that the defendant was the registered owner of the speeding car." Id. at 1103. The percipient wit- ness could not identify the driver and there was no evidence to conclude the defendant was the regis- tered owner (which would have invoked the presumption that the registered owner was the driver). The court indicated that because an officer had the authority, not a duty, to send the citation, the presumption that an "official duty had been performed" was not applicable. Because they could not prove the notice had been mailed to the registered owner, they could not prove the defendant was the registered owner. Because they could not prove that the defendant was the registered owner, the pre- sumption that the registered owner was the driver was not applicable. 47 Red Light Camera Systems Oregon v. Weber, 19 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). Facts: An officer operating a photo radar unit observed the defendant's vehicle speed. The unit photo- graphed the vehicle. Subsequently, the defendant was mailed a citation. Issue #1: The defendant contended the inscription (indicating vehicle speed) on the photograph was impermissible hearsay. The court indicated that, by statutory definition (Oregon Evidence Code 801), hearsay is a statement by a declarant and a declarant is a person who makes a statement. A machine, not a person, made the inscription on the photograph. Thus, the hearsay rule is inapplicable. Issue #2: The defendant contended the court should have excluded the photograph on chain -of - custody grounds because the State offered no evidence as to "who picked up the film from the station, what happened to the film, how it was handled, or what was done to it prior to the citation and photo- graph being returned to the police station six days later." The court indicated that, "given the totality of circumstances, the trial court was well within its discre- tion in determining that there was no appreciable likelihood of alteration or tampering and that no fur- ther foundation was required." Id. at 381-82. Issue #3: The defendant contended the automated speed enforcement unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof of the offender identity. The court ruled the defendant had failed to use the proper judicial procedure to preserve this issue. Issue #4: The defendant contended the time delay (between the occurrence of the violation and the mailing of the notice) violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. A-22 The court indicated that "for a precharging delay to give rise to a due process violation, a defendant must show both substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial and that the delay was done intentionally to gain a tactical advantage." The court found the defendant failed to establish the State intentionally delayed the notice to gain a tactical advantage. Id. at 385. Bentley v. West Valley City, 21 P.3d 210 (Utah 2001). Issue: Plaintiffs, who received automated speed enforcement citations, sought reimbursement of fines alleging the automated enforcement program violated Utah Code section 41-6-52.5. None of the plain- tiffs had challenged the program during the criminal proceedings. The court ruled on procedural grounds finding the plaintiffs failed to assert an "actionable civil theory under which criminal fines are recoverable. Anchorage v. Baxley, 946 P.2d 894 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). Facts: The defendants received automated speed enforcement citations. At trial, numerous witnesses testified to the reliability of the speed enforcement device. However, the trial court found the witnesses' financial interest in the acceptance of speed enforcement units tainted their credibility. The magistrates found that, absent independent corroboration as to the reliability of the device, results were not admissible. Issue: The city appealed seeking a ruling that automated speed enforcement evidence was admissible without corroboration. The court indicated the case was moot because "we would only review the magistrates' decision to determine whether the evidence presented would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the municipality had failed to prove its case." And, given the magistrates' dim view of the witnesses' credi- bility, no reversible error occurred. Id. at 598-99. West Valley City v. McDonald, 948 P.2d 371 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). Facts: The defendant received an automated speed enforcement citation and requested a jury trial. The State amended the complaint to a lesser charge (which did not warrant a jury trial). Subsequently, the defendant was convicted. Issue: The defendant appealed claiming that reducing the charge deprived her of her statutory right to a jury trial. The court upheld the conviction. Tonner v. Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court, 831 P.2d 448 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). Facts: An automated speed enforcement citation was mailed to General Motors Acceptance Corpora- tion (GMAC), the registered owner. GMAC forwarded the notice to Tonner and mailed a copy of its transmittal letter to the court. The court reissued the notice to Tonner. Tonner failed to reply or appear. The court entered an order for a civil sanction (fine). Issue: Tonner filed an action to vacate the sanction arguing lack of personal jurisdiction based upon improper service of notice. The court indicated that under Arizona civil procedure rules (ARIZ. R. CIV. P. 4.1 c), service is not complete unless acknowledged. As Tonner failed to reply, service was not complete. Without service, the court lacked jurisdiction by which to sanction Tonner. Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, (No Opinion No.) 2002 S.C. AG LEXIS 209 (2002). The Attorney General re-evaluated) the use of automated traffic enforcement and concluded that "general case law and other authority reviewed herein support the conclusion that a properly drafted statute authorizing use of photo -radar or similar forms of automated traffic enforcement would pass constitutional muster. These authorities have reviewed automated traffic enforcement from a variety of constitutional perspective include the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the 4th amend- ment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 6th amendment's right to present A-23 an adequate defense, as well as the federal and State constitution's right to privacy. The general con- sensus is that automated traffic enforcement is constitutional." "Of course, the constitutionality of any statute authorizing automated traffic enforcement would de- pend, in part, upon a well drafted statute." See also: 1. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, Opinion No 2000-0068, 2000 Miss. AG LEXIS 113 (2000) indicated that, prior to implementing a photo red light program, a municipality would need statutory authority allowing citation of the registered owner of a violator's vehicle. 2. Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 1996 S.C. AG LEXIS 54 (1996) re- garding municipalities use of photo -radar in South Carolina. Though the opinion notes that no State statute prohibited photo -radar enforcement, the Attorney General nevertheless expressed concerns about the registered owner presumption, concluding that the Legislature was the appropriate authority to authorize use of the presumption. 3. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Montana, 45 Op. Atty Gen. Mont. 7 (1993) regarding a municipality enacting a photo -radar ordinance. The Attorney General's opinion noted "a presumption exists that legislative acts are constitutional" and "the constitutionality of a proposed legislative act is not an appropriate subject for an Attorney General's Opinion." 4. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, 239 Op. Atty Gen. Ala. 52 (1995) regarding the use of photo radar devices. The Attorney General indicated that, "while the use of such devices is legal, the use of such devices to mail speeding citation to motorists would not comply with substantive or procedural requirement of Alabama law." 5. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, No. 82000-7, 2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 13 (2000) concluding the "Home Rule Act" allowed municipalities to enact photo enforcement programs. 6. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia, No. U2000-12, 2000 Ga. AG LEXIS 23 (2000) concluding counties may enact ordinances permitting photo enforcement and whether such devices may be used within the State highway system. 1 See Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 1996 S.C. AG LEXIS 54 (1996). 7. Tarr, Andrew N. J., Picture It: Red Light Cameras Abide by the Law of the Land, 80 N.C. L. REV., 1879 (2002). 8. Lehman, Mark. Are Red Light Cameras Snapping Privacy Rights?, 33 U. TOL. L. REV., 815 (2002). 9. Naumchi, Steven Tafoya, Review of Selected 1998 California Legislation, Transportation and Motor Vehicles: Stop Photographic Enforcement of Red Lights, 30 MCGEORGE L. REV., 833 (1999). 10. Stanek, Thomas M., Comment, Photo Radar in Arizona: Is it Constitutional?, 30 ARIZ ST. L.J., 1209 (1998). A-24 AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT RELATED STATUTES AND ORDINANCES Model Statute: National Committee of Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Model Law-www.ncutlo.org/autoenforce622.htm. State Statutes: 1. California Vehicle Code- CAL. VEH. CODE §§ 210, 21455.5, 21455.6, 40518, 40520 (2003). 2. Colorado Revised Statutes - COLO. REV. STAT. § 42-4-110.5 (2002). 3. Delaware Code Annotated - DEL. CODE. ANN. TITL 21 § 4101(d) (2002). 4. Official Code of Georgia Annotated - GA. CODE. ANN. § 40-6-20 (2002). 5. Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated - 625 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/1-105.5, 5/11-306 (2002). 6. Annotated Code of Maryland - MD. CODE ANN. TRANSP. § 21-202.1 (2002). 7. Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated - NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 484.910 (2002). 8. New Jersey Annotated Statutes - N.J. STAT. ANN. § 39:4-103.1 (2002). 9. New York Consolidated Laws Service - N.Y. VEH. & TRAF. LAW § 1111-a (2002). 10. General Statutes of North Carolina - N.C. GEN. STAT. § 160A-300.1 (2002). 11. Oregon Revised Statutes - OR. REV. STAT. §§ 810.434 - 36, 438 - 439 (2001). 12. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes - 75 PA.C.S. §§ 102, 3116 (2002). 13. Utah Code Annotated -UTAH CODE ANN. § 41-6-52.5 (2002). 14. Code of Virginia - VA. CODE. ANN. §§ 46.2-819.1, 833.01 (2002). 15. Wisconsin Statutes - WIS. STAT. § 349.02 (2002). Ordinances: 1. TOLEDO, OHIO, MUN. CODE § 313.12 (1999) and ORDINANCE NO. 451-00 (2000). 2. DAYTON, OHIO, REV. CODE OF GEN. ORDINANCES NO. 70.121 (2002). 3. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE ANN. §§ 50-2209.01, 03 (2002). 4. CHARLOTTE, N. C., ORDINANCE NO. 966 (1998) - see www.charmeck.org/Departments/transportation/special+programs/city+ordinance.asp A-25 APPENDIX D: ASE UNIT SETUP CHECKLIST FOR BEAVERTON, OREGON City of Beaverton Photo Radar Deployment Form FDATE: VEHICLE: OPERATOR NAME: IWey-AIII [ffl 104[K0797 110Z07G\111N7►111=01VIaIII NLF DPSST #: # OF LANES ENFORCED: SPEED LIMIT: TRIGGER SPEED: Q CHECKLIST (Check In Sequence) Surveying the Site Starting the Deployments ❑ Confirm location of the van and offense is with the City ❑ Turn main power switch ON" limits of Beaverton ❑ Enter your operator's details (user name and password) ❑ Verify that no large, metallic objects in radar's field of view ❑ Enter the deployment details (Settings) ❑ Set out warning sign between 100 — 400 yards before ❑ Take a Manual Shot to test the cameras. Photo Radar Van ❑ Take next vehicle shots to test image alignment ❑ Verify that sunlight is not shining directly into camera lens ❑ Verify the correct camera settings ❑ Verify that both the flashes fire properly Positioning the Vehicle ❑ Press the Start button to begin the deployment ❑ Park the vehicle facing the direction of travel ❑ Ensure vehicle is parallel with the road Ending the Deployment ❑ Record statistical data as displayed Radar Alignment ❑ Press the Shut Down button to shut down system ❑ Verify that the radar is locked in place. ❑ Turn the power switch to "OFF" position ❑ Level the radar unit by checking the position of the level ❑ Collect warning signs bubble and using the key and level provided. Approach Sign feet Exit Sign feet DEPLOYMENT TIMES: [From Operating Screen] STATISTICAL INFORMATION Deployment Start Time: (Hour: Mm) TRAFFIC COUNT: Deployment End Time: (Hour: Mm) IMAGE COUNT: TRAFFIC: LIGHT MODERATE HEAVY WEATHER: COMMENTS: I, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSE & SAY: I HAVE BEEN PROPELY TRAINED & QUALIFIED TO OPERATE THE RTS SPEED CAMERA SYSTEM. ON THE DATE & TIME RECORDED ABOVE I PARKED THE SPEED CAMERA SYSTEM AT THE ABOVE LOCATION & USING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, OPERATED THE TRAFFIC CAMERA TO MONITOR TRAFFIC. I CERTIFY THAT UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS I BELIEVE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS COMPLAINED AGAINST ON THIS DATE UPON THE BASIS OF THE TRAFFIC CAMERA COMMITTED THE ACT DESCRIBED CONTRARY TO LAW & I HAVE CAUSED A NOTICE WITH A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO BE MAILED TO EACH DEFENDANT. 1 • APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CITATION FOR CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA (FRONT) • City of Charlotte Safe Speed Camera Enforcement Program A 229 South Brevard Street, Suite 102, Charlotte. NC 28202 SAFE PEED (.I 11111.[l7Tl (704)375-3177 y� NOTICE OF CITATION AVISO DE CSTACIGN Payment Due Date: 09/0712004 Citation Number 3710927 Internet Password. 7C9VS11111111111I Fecha de vencimiento de pago Numero de citation Cenimsena del Internet Svif iltl Amount YAid i aultidad p:��,�,4� S �IIIII 111 �lll lull ll�� ll�l `I III I �II� tact us on the Internet for 1 I 1 1 4iiati rn illionntniun mid paymculs al: 1 p 9 hn i p.: • � ix�hnwiula[�ai.umileQl�x[n�u srnedmp Pongavv I'm cunta<cto Con mavoirgs por Inlcruo pxra Charlotte. NC 28227 obteiler [nfor[nnciom eobrec.taoianes y papsem' hn�; �: od�ne7'��I W icm�axnr�ivafullvtrrsprJmg Dclach Ikcre and rrtunt the aN*e Inm[[m 1Auh y[xa pny,,..,tt — -- Alme aqm is hi" y Lkv who Is parse agr:rxx Lw w MCI Sped fimil J miec Jc vclocidad Spccd VQbJc Tag Numbcr w CSI("C d:ld Nurnero do caLom knit dC1 vchiculll Dalc ,' Tmw 1"Cha : I von.[ Locatica orviulatwa Ubtowion d,1 vehickilo 45.011 S9.410 119MM211M 11:54 AH 3S110-37110 Independence Blvd wexl On August 03. 2004 at 1 1:54 AM your vehicle was photographed (see below) while exceeding the posted speed limit in violation of Charlotte City Code Section 14-203. The civil fine for this violation is S50.00. No points will be assessed against your driving record or insurance as a result of this violation. Please see the reverse Side for payment and the process to appeal this citation. This program has been initiated to increase roadway safety and reduce accidents. injuries and fatalities. Important Notice: Failure to pay this civil fine by the due date shown above will result in an additional late penalty of S50.00. Request for appeal, transfer of responsibility, or payment must be received prior to the due date to be considered. Online payments and appeal is available at the internet address noted above. El August 03. 2004 a las 1 1:54 AM su vehiculo fue fotormfiado (vease abajo) mientras excedia el limited anunciade de velocidad en violacion a la Seccion del Codigo de 1a Ciudad de Charlotte 14-203. La muita civil por esta violacion es de S54.N. No se agregaran puntos a su historial de infracciones de transite o a su seeum corno resultado de esta violacion. Favor de ver el lads reverso pats saber sabre el pago y el proceso de apelaciou de esta citation. Este programa se ha 'tnciado Para aumentar la seguridad de tr nsito y para reducir accidentes. lesiomzs y muenes. A%iso importante: No pagar esta multa civil antes de la fecha de vencimiento arriba tendra como resultado una multa por retraso de S5D.00. Se dehen recibir las peticiones par apelacion, las transferencias de responsabilidad. o los pagos. antes de la fecha de vencimiento Mara que se tomen en consideration. Los pagos y las apelaciones en I inea estan disponibles en la dimccion del Internet escrita arriba. Safe Speed S"ves I.i,o m S'harlvitc --Lkts rCloddkdes syagrin, sahan ,idas cu C harl�-(w A-27 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CITATION FOR CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA (BACK) E - ❑ 22 N ❑❑ E C C •❑ t0 q,•G... t U G O p 6 ao m aim � ,p J �yom�vns LLJ tO a _0 U di W G m U ❑ ❑ di 'G V C •O .p O' N U V rq � ❑ [� +h V ❑ •N u CL O m U a d uaj m m a c=a o c Lu LF- m p v o W y Il y Nam.. ❑ C Q1 ,� C '} O C m ,� ❑ Eaadov Z C .c L L i4 Q N Q x J G Q G� j Gp N 0 ~❑ .t.. N C U� p¢ y LLJ ,N ❑ 4a r d co C t N 3 rz m ❑ LLJ w E a - 4 Gp v o , ❑,L m.o y rra E ❑ O} dL 0 O Q O E Q7 G .O RG O ;❑ QSEg tv }" Z LL . CD N O L�6 U ? N O }r ❑ +`+ 47 N❑ Qa ❑. W E 7 pp w -0 7 O O Z< e .�+ Y Cf} � 4' .�-2 -V U 7 Z❑ e w 0 n CV x to ,C7 Q1 N [4 L4 v a c N Q7 ❑ 0 .❑ m O t c_ U) rn-V L C a N C n`� .p E"6 M O ray ❑ m zi N U U O ❑ Q' U CU rC Qa m a .LD11 �.. 'r U O❑ O❑'� Q7 VL N-Qd Lu Lu � m G U -0 U, � N }ry SO CL QS 7 O m r N m. ro d LLJ • C L. ` E O m m q, U `«� N 41 11 � N. [] C N a W O N N N ❑ V E -m m 4 CIS `O N'o N .N i6 m V ❑ C Q G m 7— tpN J N O N 4" CO ❑ m +n ~ C C 4 N U U C C 7 ❑ - •- iR C7 E9 •Lfl N C U N (D _ m CL E 0- w � min m m am �2 m ID CL m E m c v Q� �= m= $� j �.pU7 ¢'� rOn 't+ C mU❑v�_ _ Lys _ m o m °} so N=:m rn- rnv.� � CD 0 CM 0 _ d O rc.-i❑]1 '.¢ ? ¢' C p� d U) L ° C E C C¢ Q d� G V N c m W «s N 01 4' ,N N ,C u - d N 7 m.O `m E G N° N O C .r O O 9 d1 �4 N fZ 4 Q1 c❑ m '� 05 � 7 C❑ a N < O U O O td m L N } H D a Cm a co i5 O to -i O �- ro m r 5 �� w E a O G7 d C N .4'cp � Q Cim +S v 11-(9 U-0 N Q U CD a N 0 E q�, r.E"Ln 0-0C 2 C N tU 4 Z 2 T� N v N O U) E W 3 m a c m V m O M 47 ¢E U o Z V O v N❑ v m v Q r � v+ O .. O c �� . `m m 'a 7 d m q m C.-= C ym' Gm �ifl _pm LLJ m o V n0.O N N C L Qi ro m �_ m E N U .m C C ❑ Z � m 0 w IS N N 4� , _ G7 N (i} N N � I N ul N L1J U � �? � '� O 4 °V O 7.� � ❑ N � 4 'm [tl y 4+} O O U O -E q¢ O o .° m N C N a FL O° m v �� m c ,° rn N N N b m ° o.� v ° 7 ❑ °mmi5u5� m� Q, E S0 m Qm z E V m= ° 3 4 U a o as m o m G c y U c a a ❑ 4 ❑ 4— c] = U O co m¢ a Cf] ¢ U m p. N "� c N G O U) m y ifl ¢ 3 N L — p c" }' �V 07 �V L Q, c] G C ,p C Q' ❑ 6 fv, C� " co Q1 p) �t = a fp m Q' V E � v -11 a L .- N a L u� d .p .4 m. N q, N a L 4� N L V m UU -� ¢ UNCf}U �eNU n Q y C 7 +� ,vU Nif]U CL U m yl U 7 m N O7 m m C v •� tm } N •- ci Q N} d L J C L v i} U U Q7 d L W co } APPENDIX F: LIST OF JURISDICTIONS USING ASE PROGRAMS Organization Location Phone San Jose Department of San Jose, CA 08-975-3725 Transportation Charlotte -Mecklenburg Po- Charlotte, NC 704-336-4197 lice Department Portland Police Bureau Portland, OR 503-823-2151 California Highway Patrol Sacramento, CA 916-657-9090 ext 4022 Tempe Police Department Tempe, AZ 80-350-8065 City of Boulder — Transpor- Boulder, CO 303-441-4054 ation Division Scottsdale Police Depart- Scottsdale, AZ 80-312-7014 ment Metropolitan Police De- Washington, DC 202-576-9260 partment Chevy Chase Village Po- Chevy Chase, MD 301-654-7300 lice Department Montgomery County Police Montgomery County, �MD 301-840-2881 Department This list is comprised of jurisdictions that participated in an expert panel convened to as- sist in the development of the Speed -Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guide- lines. They are available to assist with concerns pertaining to ASE matters. &. • DOT HS810916 March 2008 Caw U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Highway Administration NHTSA www.nhtsa.gov National Transportation Safety Board Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles w M Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01 PB2017-102341 NTSB/SS-17/01 PB2017-102341 Notation 56821 Adopted July 25, 2017 Safety Study Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles Y National 1967 �� Transportation 0� Safety Board 490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2017. Reducing Speeding -Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles. Safety Study NTSB/SS-17/01. Washington, DC. Abstract: In this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding -related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes. The countermeasures presented represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding -related crashes. They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding -related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes. The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding: (1) speed limits, (2) data -driven approaches for speed enforcement, (3) automated speed enforcement, (4) intelligent speed adaptation, and (5) national leadership. As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The NTSB makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews. The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, "accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties ... and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person." 49 C.F.R. § 831.4. Assignment of fault or legal liability is not relevant to the NTSB's statutory mission to improve transportation safety by investigating accidents and incidents and issuing safety recommendations. In addition, statutory language prohibits the admission into evidence or use of any part of an NTSB report related to an accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. 49 U.S.C. § I I54(b). For more detailed background information on this report, visit http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/dms.html and search for NTSB accident ID DCA15SS002. Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at http://www.ntsb.gov. Other information about available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting: National Transportation Safety Board Records Management Division, CIO-40 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 (800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551 NTSB publications may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this publication, order product number PB2017-102341 from: National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd. Alexandria, VA 22312 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000 hllp://www.ntis.aov/ NTSB Safety Study Contents Figures.............................................................................................................................................v Tables............................................................................................................................................ A Acronymsand Abbreviations.................................................................................................... vii ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................I 1.1 Goals.........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Scope of the Study....................................................................................................................1 1.3 Methodology............................................................................................................................1 1.3.1 Literature Survey...........................................................................................................2 1.3.2 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................2 1.3.3 Stakeholder Interviews...................................................................................................2 1.4 Previous NTSB Investigations and Recommendations............................................................3 2 Speeding....................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Definitions................................................................................................................................6 2.2 Scope of the Problem...............................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Fatalities and Injuries.....................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Vehicle Types................................................................................................................9 2.3 Risks.......................................................................................................................................10 2.3.1 Injury Severity.............................................................................................................10 2.3.2 Crash Involvement.......................................................................................................11 2.4 Characteristics of Speeding -Related Crashes.........................................................................13 2.4.1 Road Types and Land Use...........................................................................................13 2.4.2 Alcohol -Impaired Driving...........................................................................................15 2.4.3 Driver Age...................................................................................................................16 2.5 Attitudes Toward Speeding....................................................................................................17 2.6 Countermeasures....................................................................................................................18 2.7 National, State, and Local Roles............................................................................................19 3 Safety Issues............................................................................................................................21 3.1 Speed Limits...........................................................................................................................21 3.1.1 Background..................................................................................................................21 3.1.2 Engineering Studies, Speed Surveys, and the 85th Percentile Speed ..........................23 3.1.3 Unintended Consequences of Using the 85th Percentile Speed..................................24 3.1.4 Expert System..............................................................................................................26 3.1.5 Vulnerable Road Users on Urban Roads.....................................................................27 3.1.6 Rethinking How to Set Speed Limits...........................................................................29 3.2 Data -Driven Approaches for Speed Enforcement..................................................................30 3.2.1 Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety................................................30 3.2.2 Limitations of Speeding -Related Crash Data..............................................................32 3.3 Automated Speed Enforcement..............................................................................................34 NTSB Safety Study 3.3.1 Historical and Current Usage.......................................................................................35 3.3.2 Effectiveness................................................................................................................36 3.3.3 Stakeholder Perceptions...............................................................................................38 3.3.4 Enabling Legislation....................................................................................................39 3.3.5 Best Practices...............................................................................................................41 3.3.6 Point -to -Point Enforcement.........................................................................................42 3.4 Intelligent Speed Adaptation..................................................................................................43 3.4.1 Current Passenger Vehicle Implementations...............................................................44 3.4.2 Effectiveness................................................................................................................45 3.4.3 Stakeholder Perceptions...............................................................................................46 3.4.4 Performance and Equipage..........................................................................................46 3.5 National Leadership...............................................................................................................47 3.5.1 Traffic Safety Campaigns and Public Awareness........................................................48 3.5.2 Funding for Speed Management Programs..................................................................51 3.5.3 DOT Cross -Agency Coordination...............................................................................52 4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................54 4.1 Findings..................................................................................................................................54 5 Recommendations..................................................................................................................56 BoardMember Statement...........................................................................................................59 Appendixes....................................................................................................................................61 Appendix A: Speeding -Related National Transportation Safety Board Investigations .................61 Appendix B: Road Function Classifications..................................................................................64 Appendix C: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Speed Limit Guidance ......................68 AppendixD: Speeding Categories.................................................................................................71 Appendix E: State Laws Regarding Automated Speed Enforcement............................................72 References.....................................................................................................................................74 iv NTSB Safety Study Figures Figure 1. Speeding vehicles involved in speeding -related fatal crashes, by type, 2014........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2. Percent of passenger vehicle occupants sustaining serious or fatal injuries in speeding -related and all crashes, by reported travel speed, 2014............................................. 10 Figure 3. Fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by reported speed limitand land use, 2014................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4. Fatalities involving passenger vehicles, by crash factors, 2014.................................... 15 Figure 5. Age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, all passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and licensed drivers, 2014......................................... 16 Figure 6. Drivers responding that speeding is a threat to personal safety, by road type, 2015...................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Maximum speed limits by state and the District of Columbia in 2016 and changes in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016................................................................. 25 Figure 8. Passenger vehicles in fatal crashes, by speeding category, 2014.................................. 32 Figure 9. US communities with ASE programs, by year.............................................................. 36 u NTSB Safety Study Tables Table 1. Total and speeding -related traffic fatalities, 2005-2014................................................... 7 Table 2. Estimated injuries in speeding -related crashes, by person type and injury severity, 2014.................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Number and percent of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by road type and land use, 2014.................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Examples of speeding countermeasures......................................................................... 18 Table 5. Federal -aid programs for traffic safety........................................................................... 20 Table 6. AASHTO's recommended minimum design speeds and typical posted speedlimits, by road type............................................................................................................. 22 Table 7. ASE state laws and active programs as of April 2017.................................................... 40 Table 8. 2016 NHTSA Traffic Safety Marketing events.............................................................. 49 Table 9. Federal funds allocated to states for behavioral traffic safety programs, fiscalyear 2016............................................................................................................................. 51 Table 10. Status of DOT Speed Management Program Plan actions as of December2016............................................................................................................................. 53 vi NTSB Safety Study Acronyms and Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASE automated speed enforcement BAC blood alcohol concentration CFR Code of Federal Regulations DDACTS Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety DOT US Department of Transportation FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration GES General Estimates System GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HVE high -visibility enforcement IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ISA intelligent speed adaptation ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers km/h kilometers per hour LIDAR light detection and ranging MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria vii NTSB Safety Study MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices MV PICCS Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States NASS National Automotive Sampling System NCAP New Car Assessment Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NSA National Sheriffs' Association NSC National Safety Council NTSB National Transportation Safety Board RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SCOHTS Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety TSM Traffic Safety Marketing USC United States Code VMT vehicle miles traveled NTSB Safety Study Executive Summary Speeding —exceeding a speed limit or driving too fast for conditions —is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. In this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding -related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes. Why the NTSB Did This Study From 2005 through 2014, crashes in which a law enforcement officer indicated a vehicle's speed was a factor resulted in 112,580 fatalities, representing 31 % of all traffic fatalities. Speeding or speed has been cited as a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor in 49 major NTSB highway accident investigations since 1967. Although recent speeding -related NTSB investigations have primarily involved large trucks and buses, most speeding -related crashes involve speeding passenger vehicles. In 2014, passenger vehicles constituted 77% of speeding vehicles involved in fatal crashes, and 78% of all speeding -related fatalities involved a speeding passenger vehicle. This study leverages prior NTSB investigations, together with other research, to address the national safety issue of speeding among passenger vehicle drivers. In this study, the NTSB used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to summarize the risks of speeding, describe the scope of the problem, and promote the use of proven and emerging speeding countermeasures. This included a literature survey; analyses of speeding -related crash data; and interviews with national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders. The stakeholders were representatives from transportation and highway safety agencies, law enforcement agencies, automobile manufacturers, research institutions, advocacy groups, equipment vendors, personal auto insurance providers, and professional associations. This study assessed speeding among passenger vehicle drivers in a broad sense, as a factor that contributes to crashes and injury severity. Several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding -related crashes are discussed. The solutions do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding -related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes. What the NTSB Found Speed —and therefore speeding —increases crash risk in two ways: (1) it increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash, and (2) it increases the severity of injuries sustained by all road users in a crash. The relationship between speed and crash involvement is complex, and it is affected by factors such as road type, driver age, alcohol impairment, and roadway characteristics like curvature, grade, width, and adjacent land use. In contrast, the relationship between speed and injury severity is consistent and direct. Higher vehicle speeds lead to larger changes in velocity in a crash, and these velocity changes are closely linked to injury severity. This relationship is especially critical for pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle crash, due to their lack of protection. ix NTSB Safety Study Typically, speed limits are set by statute, but adjustments to statutory speed limits are generally based on the observed operating speeds for each road segment —specifically, the 85th percentile speed of free -flowing traffic. Raising speed limits to match the 85th percentile speed can result in unintended consequences. It may lead to higher operating speeds, and thus a higher 85th percentile speed. In general, there is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile speed within a given traffic flow equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate for all road types. Alternative approaches and expert systems for setting speed limits are available, which incorporate factors such as crash history and the presence of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. Speed limits must be enforced to be effective, and data -driven, high -visibility enforcement is an efficient way to use law enforcement resources. The success of data -driven speed enforcement programs depends on the ability to measure and communicate their effectiveness. However, law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes is inconsistent, which leads to underreporting of speeding -related crashes. This underreporting leads stakeholders and the public to underestimate the overall scope of speeding as a traffic safety issue nationally and hinders the effective implementation of data -driven speed enforcement programs locally. Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is also widely acknowledged as an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding -related crashes, fatalities, and injuries. However, only 14 states and the District of Columbia use it. Many states have laws that prohibit or place operational restrictions on ASE, and federal guidelines for ASE are outdated and not well known among ASE program administrators. Point-to-point enforcement, which is based on the average speed of a vehicle between two points, can be used on roadway segments many miles long. This type of ASE has had recent success in other countries, but it is not currently used in the United States. Vehicle technologies can also be effective at reducing speeding. Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) uses an onboard global positioning system or road sign -detecting camera to determine the speed limit; it then warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit, or prevents drivers from exceeding the speed limit by electronically limiting the speed of the vehicle. Although passenger vehicle manufacturers are increasingly equipping their vehicles with technologies relevant to speeding, these technologies often are not standard features and require the purchase of certain option packages. New car safety rating systems are one effective way to incentivize the manufacture and purchase of passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems such as ISA. Finally, the current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted. Current federal -aid programs do not ensure that states fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries. Also, unlike other traffic safety issues with a similar impact (such as alcohol -impaired driving) there are no nationwide programs to increase public awareness of the risks of speeding. Although the US Department of Transportation (DOT) has established a multi -agency team to coordinate speeding -related work throughout the DOT, this team's work plan does not include means to ensure that the planned actions are completed in a timely manner. x NTSB Safety Study Recommendations As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association. xi NTSB Safety Study 1 Introduction Speeding —exceeding a speed limit or driving too fast for conditions —is one of the most common factors in motor vehicle crashes in the United States (Blincoe and others 2015). Over the past 15 years, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has identified speeding as a safety issue among drivers of heavy vehicles (NTSB 2012), in work zones (NTSB 2015), and at locations with site specific hazards (NTSB 2006; NTSB 2005a; NTSB 2005b). However, the NTSB has not often addressed this pervasive safety issue among passenger vehicle drivers.' This study examines speeding -related crashes involving passenger vehicles and countermeasures to prevent these crashes in the United States.2 1.1 Goals The goals of this study are to summarize the risks of speeding, describe the scope of the problem, and promote the use of proven and emerging speeding countermeasures. In particular, this study focuses on countermeasures addressing passenger vehicle driver behavior. 1.2 Scope of the Study This study assessed speeding among passenger vehicle drivers in a broad sense, as a factor that contributes to crashes and injury severity. Other crash factors, environmental conditions, and driver characteristics are known to be associated with speeding -related crashes, such as alcohol impairment, nighttime driving, and young male drivers (Council and others 2010; Neuner and others 2016). Some of these features of speeding -related crashes are discussed to highlight misconceptions about speeding and to illustrate the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash risk, but this study generally does not consider the many other factors that cause crashes and crash -related injuries, such as distraction or drug impairment. The countermeasures presented in this study represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding -related crashes. They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding -related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes. 1.3 Methodology The NTSB used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods for this study, including a literature survey; analyses of speeding -related crash data; and interviews with national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders. As defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), passenger vehicles include automobiles, utility vehicles, and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 10,000 pounds. For a detailed list of vehicle types, refer to appendix C of the FARS Analytical User's Manual (NHTSA 2015a). 2 As defined by NHTSA, a speeding -related crash is a crash in which the speed of at least one vehicle was related to the crash, as indicated "by the police issuing a citation for a speed offense, by their indicating a related or contributing factor, or through a description in the narrative" (NHTSA 2016a). The national crash databases used for this study do not indicate the probable cause of a crash. NTSB Safety Study 1.3.1 Literature Survey To identify speeding countermeasures with demonstrated effectiveness, the NTSB conducted a literature survey of relevant recent and foundational US studies. The NTSB also reviewed recent studies performed in other countries to identify successful speeding countermeasures. Information gathered from the literature survey also helped the NTSB develop topics for discussion with stakeholders. 1.3.2 Data Analysis The NTSB analyzed data from the following national databases to summarize the scope of the speeding problem, illustrate the variability of speeding -related crashes, and confirm viewpoints expressed in stakeholder interviews: • The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of fatal motor vehicle crashes occurring on US public roads since 1975, which is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and based on data extracted from police crash reports (NHTSA 2015a). • The National Automotive Sampling System (MASS) General Estimates System (GES) is a nationally representative sample of fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle crashes occurring on US public roads since 1988. Like FARS, NASS GES is also maintained by NHTSA and based on police crash reports (NHTSA 2015b). The majority of the analyses in section 2 used 2014 FARS data, as these were the most recent data available when the NTSB conducted this study. 1.3.3 Stakeholder Interviews The NTSB conducted semi -structured interviews with representatives from the following traffic safety stakeholder organizations.' The purpose of these interviews was to identify areas of common concern among stakeholders, including obstacles to the effective implementation of speeding countermeasures. • Federal Government: The NTSB interviewed members of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Speed Management Team (which consists of subject matter experts within NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA]) and the NHTSA Office of Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection. Interview topics included current and recently completed speeding -related research projects, public awareness programs, and the federal role in addressing speeding. • State Government: The NTSB interviewed employees of five state transportation departments, seven state highway safety offices, one office of the attorney general, and one public health department. Interview topics included methods for setting speed limits, engineering countermeasures, enforcement, federal and state highway safety grant program ' Semi -structured interviews primarily consist of open-ended questions. Interview topics and potential questions are developed beforehand. However, the order and wording of the questions may vary among interview subjects, and questions may be added as the interview progresses to explore topics in greater detail (Britten 2006, 12-20). 2 NTSB Safety Study administration, the role of the courts, and procedures for recording and analyzing crash data. • State Law Enforcement: The NTSB interviewed officers from five different state law enforcement agencies.4 Most of the officers were in a supervisory role and were familiar with statewide speed enforcement activities. Interview topics included in -person and automated speed enforcement (ASE); the use of data to target enforcement; and coordination with other state agencies, states, and localities. • Local Government: The NTSB interviewed employees of seven city transportation departments, one planning and zoning department, and one public health department. Interview topics included methods for setting speed limits, engineering countermeasures, enforcement, coordination with state and federal agencies, the impact of speeding on vulnerable road users such as bicyclists and pedestrians, and local initiatives to reduce traffic fatalities. • Local Law Enforcement: The NTSB interviewed officers from nine city and county law enforcement agencies. The interviews included supervisors of traffic enforcement divisions (for those departments with discrete traffic enforcement divisions), officers responsible for traffic enforcement, and data analysts. Interview topics included in -person enforcement and ASE, the use of data to target enforcement, the role of speed enforcement within other law enforcement duties, and coordination with other state and local agencies. • Automobile Manufacturers: The NTSB interviewed four US automobile manufacturers. Interview topics included speeding -related vehicle technologies and technologies designed to prevent unsafe behaviors by teen drivers. The NTSB also interviewed representatives from traffic safety research institutions, advocacy groups, equipment vendors, personal auto insurance providers, and professional associations. The NTSB selected stakeholders for interviews with a goal of gathering varied input, in terms of both geography (urban, suburban, and rural) and the types of countermeasures used. For example, some cities had extensive automated enforcement programs, whereas others had a strong focus on engineering countermeasures. Likewise, the automobile manufacturers selected for interviews offered varying levels of automation and driver support systems in their vehicles. Information gathered from the stakeholder interviews helped the NTSB identify the safety issues examined in this study. 1.4 Previous NTSB Investigations and Recommendations Speeding or speed has been cited as a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor in 49 major NTSB highway accident investigations, including the NTSB's first highway accident investigation, which involved a series of collisions among 11 vehicles in dense fog in Joliet, Illinois, on August 12, 1967 (NTSB 1967).5 The NTSB conducts major highway accident investigations when the accident involves an issue related to a current NTSB safety study or special 4 Throughout the remainder of this report, the term officer will be used to refer to law enforcement officers in local police, county sheriff, constable, state police, state patrol, and highway patrol agencies. 5 Appendix A provides a complete list of NTSB major highway accident investigations in which speeding or speed was found to be a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor. 3 NTSB Safety Study investigation, has a significant impact on the public confidence or highway safety, or is determined by the NTSB to be catastrophic. Generally, NTSB highway investigations focus on commercial vehicles; as a result, most of the recent speeding -related NTSB investigations have primarily involved large trucks and buses. The following are examples of recent NTSB accident investigations that resulted in speeding -related safety recommendations. Each of these safety recommendations is currently classified by the NTSB as having an acceptable status, indicating that planned or completed actions satisfy the intent of the recommendation. On March 12, 2011, in New York City, New York, a motorcoach departed from interstate highway travel lanes, struck a guardrail, overturned, and struck a highway signpost, resulting in 15 fatalities. The motorcoach was traveling 64 mph on a highway with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. As a result of its investigation, the NTSB identified heavy vehicle speed limiters as a safety issue and issued recommendations to NHTSA to develop performance standards for advanced speed limiting technology for heavy vehicles and to require this technology on newly manufactured heavy vehicles (NTSB 2012).6 These recommendations were later reiterated in the NTSB's investigative report on a June 7, 2014, accident in Cranbury, New Jersey, in which a tractor -trailer struck the rear of a limo van at the end of a work zone traffic queue, resulting in one fatality. The NTSB found that the tractor -trailer was traveling 65 mph in a work zone with a posted speed limit of 45 mph, and the traffic in the queue had slowed to less than 10 mph. The NTSB identified reducing vehicle speeds in work zones as a safety issue in this accident (NTSB 2015). On May 1, 2003, a Mercedes Benz CLK320 crossed a raised highway median in Linden, New Jersey, and struck a Ford Taurus head-on, resulting in six fatalities. The NTSB identified speed enforcement as a safety issue and issued a recommendation to the city of Linden to develop a speed enforcement plan for the road segment on which the accident occurred (NTSB 2006).' On February 14, 2003, in Hewitt, Texas, the driver of a motorcoach was unable to maintain control of the vehicle while traveling on Interstate 35 in overcast weather with reduced visibility and heavy rain. The motorcoach crossed the interstate highway median and collided with a Chevrolet Suburban, resulting in seven fatalities. Among the safety issues identified in the NTSB investigation were (1) sight distance and speed as they relate to roadway design, and (2) the need to better identify areas with a high risk of wet weather accidents and implement the necessary roadway improvements. The NTSB recommended that the FHWA issue guidance for the use of variable speed limits in wet weather at locations where the operating speed exceeds the design speed and the stopping distance exceeds the available sight distance. The NTSB also recommended 6 The motorcoach in this accident was equipped with a fixed speed limiter, but because it was set to 78 mph, it was ineffective at limiting the speed of the motorcoach to the posted speed limit at the accident location. NTSB Safety Recommendations H-12-20 (to develop performance standards) and H-12-21 (to require speed limiters) are currently classified "Open —Acceptable Response." These recommendations and all NTSB recommendations referenced in this report as well as relevant excerpts of associated correspondence are available via the NTSB safety recommendations database. 7 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-06-14 is classified "Closed —Acceptable Action. M NTSB Safety Study that the Texas Department of Transportation install variable speed limit signs at such locations (NTSB 2005a).8 These examples illustrate that the NTSB has a long history of investigating individual speeding -related accidents, particularly involving bus and truck drivers. This study extends that prior work by addressing the national safety issue of speeding among passenger vehicle drivers. As shown in section 2, these drivers are involved in the majority of speeding -related fatal crashes.9 8 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-05-14 (for the FHWA to issue guidance) is classified "Closed —Acceptable Action" and Safety Recommendation H-05-20 (for the Texas Department of Transportation to install variable speed limit signs) is currently classified "Open —Acceptable Response." 9 A fatal crash is a crash in which there was at least one fatality. 5 NTSB Safety Study 2 Speeding This section provides definitions of speeding, describes the scope of speeding as a traffic safety issue, examines the risks of speeding, and describes the characteristics of speeding -related crashes that are relevant to effective speeding countermeasures. Public attitudes toward speeding and the roles federal, state, and local governments play in addressing speeding are also discussed. 2.1 Definitions The traffic safety community, including NHTSA, considers drivers to be speeding if their vehicles are traveling at a speed that (1) exceeds the speed limit or (2) is too fast for conditions (NHTSA 2013).10 The first definition (exceeds the speed limit) refers to legal speed limits —known as statutory speed limits —established by states for each road type." These limits generally apply to all roads of a given type even if no physical speed limit signage is present, but they can be superseded by speed limits posted for specific road segments. The second definition (too fast for conditions) is based on the basic speed law.12 All states have a variation of this law, which typically requires drivers to operate at a speed that is reasonable and prudent, taking into account weather, road conditions, traffic, visibility, and other environmental conditions (Goodwin and others 2015). 10 The third category is racing (Goodwin and others 2015). Racing (on a roadway) is defined as "driving any vehicle in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, exhibition of speed or acceleration, or for the purpose of making a speed record" (NHTSA 2013). 11 (a) Some states may set statutory speed limits for cars and trucks differently. (b) Examples of road types include rural interstates, urban freeways, urban collectors, and local residential streets. These road types are also referred to as road (or highway) function classes. Appendix B provides descriptions of the FHWA road function classifications. 12 Basic speed law is also known as the basic speed rule. "This rule requires vehicle operators to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. As a corollary to this rule, State laws usually provide that every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic, or by reason of weather or highway conditions" (NHTSA 2013). n NTSB Safety Study 2.2 Scope of the Problem From 2005 through 2014, FARS data show that speeding -related crashes accounted for 112,580 fatalities (see table 1). Although the annual numbers of total traffic fatalities and speeding -related fatalities both decreased during this period, speeding -related fatalities have consistently accounted for about 3 1 % of all traffic fatalities (NCSA 2016a; NCSA 2017). During the same period, there were 112,948 traffic fatalities involving alcohol -impaired driving, which represents 31% of all traffic fatalities (NCSA 2015; NCSA 2016b).13 Thus, speeding -related fatalities represent a large portion of the total traffic fatalities in the United States; this portion is comparable to that attributed to alcohol -impaired driving. Table 1. Total and speeding -related traffic fatalities, 2005-2014 Year Total Fatalities Speeding -Related Fatalities % Speeding Related 2005 43,510 13,583 31.2 2006 42,708 13,609 31.9 2007 41,259 13,140 31.8 2008 37,423 11,767 31.4 2009 33,808 10,664 31.5 2010 32,999 10,508 31.8 2011 32,479 10,001 30.8 2012 33,782 10,329 30.6 2013 32,894 9,696 29.5 2014 32,744 9,283 28.4 Total 363,606 112,580 31.0 Sources: NCSA 2016a; NCSA 2017 13 (a) The crash categories of "speeding -related" and "alcohol -impaired driving" are not mutually exclusive. From 2005 through 2014, FARS data show that 49,023 traffic fatalities involved both speeding and alcohol -impaired driving. The overlap of these two categories is addressed in section 2.4.2. (b) The analyses presented in this study used NHTSA data, in which drivers are considered to be alcohol -impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are 0.08 gram per deciliter or higher. 7 NTSB Safety Study 2.2.1 Fatalities and Injuries Of the 9,283 speeding -related fatalities in 2014, 5,933 (64%) were the drivers of the speeding vehicles; 1,835 (20%) were passengers in the speeding vehicles; 1,136 (12%) were occupants in other vehicles; 314 (3%) were pedestrians; and 46 (0.5%) were bicyclists, as shown in table 2. This table also includes NASS GES data indicating that an estimated 336,742 people sustained nonfatal injuries due to speeding in 2014. More than 40% of the people injured were occupants of non -speeding vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Therefore, speeding poses a significant risk of death and injury to not only the drivers and passengers of speeding vehicles but also other road users. Table 2. Estimated injuries in speeding -related crashes, by person type and injury severity, 2014 Person Type Fatala Number % Seriousb Number % Possible/Minorb Total Nonfatal Injuries Number % Number % Drivers in 51933 63.9 18,745 62.3 128,466 41.9 147,211 43.7 speeding vehicles Passengers in 1,835 19.8 5,499 18.3 43,310 14.1 48,809 14.5 speeding vehicles Occupants in 1,136 12.2 5,171 17.2 132,408 43.2 137,579 40.9 other vehicles Pedestrians 314 3.4 510 1.7 1,285 0.4 1,795 0.5 Bicyclists 46 0.5 134 0.4 555 0.2 689 0.2 Other/Unknown° 19 0.2 24 0.1 633 0.2 657 0.2 Total 91283 100.0 30,084 100.0 306,658 100.0 336,742 100.0 I Source: FARS b Source: GES ° The fatal injuries category includes other non -occupants. The serious and possible/minor injuries categories include occupants of a motor vehicle not in transport, persons on personal conveyances, and persons in or on buildings. NTS13 Safety Study 2.2.2 Vehicle Types In 2014, 8,393 speeding vehicles were involved in fatal crashes. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these vehicles by type. Of these speeding vehicles, 6,422 (77%) were passenger vehicles, which were involved in 6,369 fatal crashes, resulting in 7,273 fatalities. These fatalities represented 78% of all speeding -related fatalities in 2014. According to the FHWA, there were about 240 million registered passenger vehicles and 8 million motorcycles in 2014, which respectively represented 92% and 3% of the total number of registered vehicles. Buses and trucks represented 0.3% and 4% of the total, respectively. Figure 1 also shows that 1,548 speeding motorcycles (18% of all speeding vehicles) were involved in fatal crashes in 2014. This safety study focused on passenger vehicles, which constitute the majority of vehicles involved in speeding -related fatal crashes. Some of the countermeasures examined in this study are applicable to both passenger vehicles and other types of motor vehicles, including motorcycles. Passenger Vehicles 76.5% (6,422) Motorcycles 18.4% (1,548) Large Trucks 3.1 % (263) Other/Unknown 1.8% (154) Buses 0.1 % (6) Source: FARS Figure 1. Speeding vehicles involved in speeding -related fatal crashes, by type, 2014 0 NTSB Safety Study 2.3 Risks Risk is quantified as the product of the likelihood of exposure to an adverse event and the consequence of such exposure. Countermeasures to improve traffic safety are used to reduce the likelihood of exposure (that is, crash involvement rates) and to mitigate the consequence (that is, injury severity). 2.3.1 Injury Severity The severity of a crash, as typically measured in injury severity, is linked to the velocity change in a crash.14 As the speed prior to a crash increases, the velocity change in a crash also increases (TRB 1998). Therefore, higher vehicle speeds lead to larger changes in velocity, which, in turn, lead to higher injury severity in a crash. This relationship can be seen in figure 2, which uses 2014 NASS GES data to show the estimated percentage of passenger vehicle occupants involved in non -pedestrian single vehicle crashes who died or sustained serious injuries, as a function of reported vehicle speed.15 The slopes of the two curves shown in figure 2 indicate that occupants were more likely to experience serious injury at higher vehicle speeds when they were reported as speeding. 9.8% 10% M m o Speeding Passenger Vehicles sv, Non -Speeding Passenger Vehicles m � Lj 0% d 3 � 'L 2 s a ds 6% d v c a tU .- M 4.4% 0�> C > o N a 4/0 �� ��.00000 4.3% r 2.5% 00 .00000 ♦ o �_Z 00i o � 2% — — 2.3% V LL a `0 1.6% 0% 21-40 41-60 >_61 Reported Travel Speed (mph) Source: NASS GES Figure 2. Percent of passenger vehicle occupants sustaining serious or fatal injuries in speeding -related and all crashes, by reported travel speed, 2014 14 Velocity change in a crash is also known as Delta V. 15 Vehicle speed in the NASS GES refers to the vehicle traveling speed prior to the crash as reported by the investigating officer. Therefore, it is reported, not measured, speed prior to the crash. This serves as the best estimate available of potential velocity change in a crash. 10 NTSB Safety Study Other studies have also confirmed that as speed increases, so does injury severity. A study of sample crashes between 1980 and 1986 using NASS data (limited to passenger cars of model years 1980 and later) showed a statistically significant relationship between the fatality risk of drivers and velocity change in a crash. This relationship showed that as the velocity change in a crash increases, the fatality risk increases, and the rate at which the risk increases also increases (Joksch 1993). More recently, using crash data between 1983 and 2010, a United Kingdom study examined the fatality risk of belted drivers in non -rollover, frontal- and side -impact crashes. The study established that the estimated fatality risk in a frontal impact crash was 3%, 17%, and 60% at 30 mph, 40 mph, and 50 mph velocity change in a crash, respectively. For side -impact crashes, the estimated fatality risk was 25% and 85% at 30 mph and 40 mph velocity change, respectively (Richards 2010). Further, the link between injury severity and speed extends to pedestrians involved in a motor vehicle crash. According to the European Transport Safety Council, 5% of pedestrians struck by a vehicle at 20 mph are fatally injured. This likelihood increases to 45% at 30 mph, and 85% at 40 mph (ETSC 1995). The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety similarly found that the average risk of severe injury to a pedestrian increased from 10% at 16 mph, to 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph (Tefft 2011). 2.3.2 Crash Involvement Unlike the straightforward relationship between speed and injury severity, the association between speed and crash involvement is more complex, often leading to conflicting results. However, research has generally shown that the crash involvement rate increases with speed (Baruya and Finch 1994; Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening 1991; Kloeden, McLean, and Glonek 2002; Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000). A comprehensive analysis of 98 studies confirmed the statistical relationship between speed and crash involvement; the speed -crash relationship was consistent among crashes of all injury severity levels (Elvik, Christensen, and Amundsen 2004). A driver -based study that combined on -road observation and questionnaire surveys of over 10,000 drivers in the United Kingdom in the 1990s showed that "drivers who habitually travel faster than average are involved in more accidents in a year's driving" (Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000). The relationship that the crash involvement rate increases with speed can be explained by the fact that increased speed reduces the available time for the driver to receive and process information (AASHTO 2011). Further, the stopping distance of a vehicle and the chance of a vehicle being driven off the road while negotiating a curve both increase with vehicle speed (Srinivasan and others 2006). Some older research has illustrated that the crash involvement rate decreases with speed (Baruya 1998; Garber and Gadirau 1988), whereas other research has not demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between speed and crash involvement (Kockelman and Ma 2007; Quddus 2013). There are many reasons for these contradicting results. The relationship between speed and crash involvement can be affected by traffic flow and roadway geometry, such as curvature, grade, and width (Milton and Mannering 1998; Abdel-Aty and Radwan 2000; Chang 2005; Anastasopoulos and Mannering 2009). Other factors may include geography, road type, land use, driver age, and alcohol -impairment. Further, different research methodologies may contribute 11 NTSB Safety Study to the inconsistency of the relationship found between speed and crash involvement. For example, one study found that the crash involvement rate decreases with speed using distance -based measures (for example, crashes per vehicle mile), but it also found that the crash involvement rate increases with speed using time -based measures (for example, crashes per vehicle hour) (Pei, Wong, and Sze 2012). More recently, based on an analysis of the naturalistic driving data of 3,500 participants, researchers showed that the odds ratio of speeding was 12.8, meaning speeding increased the odds of crash involvement by a factor of almost 13 relative to control situations (Dingus and others 2016). Another factor that contributes to the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash involvement is speed variance.16 Two studies from the 1960s showed that vehicles traveling at much lower and higher speeds than average contributed to increased rates of crash involvement (Solomon 1964; Cirillo 1968). In the 1980s, another study showed that it was speed variance, not speed, that contributed to fatalities (Lave 1985). However, there were several limitations in these studies. The speed data and crash data were not collected during the same time period; crashes involving turning vehicles were included in the crash analysis; and speed prior to the crash was self -reported by the driver (TRB 1998). Research has also shown that "when turning vehicles were removed from the analysis only those driving at speeds significantly above the traffic speed remained over -involved in crashes" (Fildes and Lee 1993). Another often cited study was conducted in Virginia in the 1980s and demonstrated that the crash involvement rate increased with speed variance on all road types (Garber and Gadirau 1988). However, this study and later research pointed out that speed variance increases as the difference between roadway design speeds and speed limits increases (Garber and Gadirau 1989; Stuster, Coffman, and Warren 1998).17 These studies generally provided consistent evidence that driving faster than the surrounding traffic increased crash involvement rates; the evidence was less conclusive with respect to driving slower than the surrounding traffic (Aarts and van Schagen 2006). There are numerous interrelated factors that complicate the relationship between speed and crash involvement. Although speed variance within a traffic flow exists and is often cited as a concern, the degree to which speed variance contributes to crash involvement is inconclusive. However, the link between speed and injury severity in a crash is consistent and direct. 16 Speed variance refers to the variability of individual vehicle speeds within the overall traffic flow. Similar terms include speed dispersion and speed variation. 17 See section 3.1.1 for further discussion of design speeds and speed limits. 12 NTSB Safety Study 2.4 Characteristics of Speeding -Related Crashes In this section, the NTSB focuses on fatal crashes in 2014 to highlight some characteristics of speeding -related crashes, including how they vary by road type, land use, alcohol -impairment, and driver age. The purpose of these analyses is not to describe in detail all factors associated with speeding, but to address some common misconceptions and illustrate the complexity of the relationship between speed and crash involvement.18 2.4.1 Road Types and Land Use Different road types serve different functions and they have different characteristics, such as traffic volume, access, geometry, and speed limits.19 Table 3 illustrates that the percentage of fatal crashes that involved a speeding passenger vehicle in 2014 varied among the different road and land use types. One misconception about speeding -related crashes is that they primarily occur on high-speed roads such as interstate highways. However, local roads had the highest percentage (30%) of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles. Collector roads had the second -highest percentage (29%). Twenty-six percent of fatal crashes that occurred on freeways involved a speeding passenger vehicle. Table 3 also shows that a higher percentage of fatal crashes involved speeding passenger vehicles on rural roads (27%) than on urban roads (22%) in 2014. Local roads experienced the largest difference by land use; 35% of fatal crashes on rural local roads involved speeding passenger vehicles, whereas 25% of fatal crashes on urban local roads involved speeding passenger vehicles. Table 3. Number and percent of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by road type and land use, 2014 Rural Urban Road Type Number % Interstate and Freeway 316 24.9 Other Principal Arterial 598 18.9 Minor Arterial 687 25.6 Collector 1,019 29.3 Local 808 35.2 All Number % Number % 711 26.6 1,027 26.1 699 16.6 1,297 17.6 551 21.3 1,238 23.5 282 28.2 1,301 29.0 626 25.4 1,434 30.1 Total 3,469 26.7 2,892 22.2 6,369 24.4 Source: FARS 18 For more detailed discussions of crash characteristics related to speeding, see the FHWA reports Development of a Speeding -Related Crash Typology (Council and others 2010) and Integrating Speed Management within Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Focus Areas (Neuner and others 2016). 19 Appendix B provides descriptions of the FHWA road function classifications (road types). NHTSA also uses this classification system to tally fatality statistics. 13 NTSB Safety Study Further, of the 6,369 fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, 3,469 occurred on rural roads (55%). According to the FHWA, 920 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) occurred on rural roads, which represented 30% of the total VMT in 2014 in the United States. Among all of the rural road types, 18% of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles occurred on local roads while such roads comprised only 14% of all rural VMT. Similarly, in urban areas, it was local roads that had the largest over -involvement of speeding passenger vehicles (22% of fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles versus 15% of all urban VMT). These observations indicate that the risk attributed to speeding among passenger vehicles varies among road types and land uses. Figure 3 shows the distribution of fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles by land use and reported speed limit.20 On rural roads, most of these crashes occurred on roads with reported speed limits of 55 to 60 mph, whereas in urban areas most occurred on roads with reported speed limits of 35 to 40 mph. Eighty-two percent of all fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles on rural roads (2,796 of 3,418) occurred at locations with reported speed limits of 45 mph and above. In contrast, these reported speed limits accounted for 40% of all urban fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, a total of 1,383 such crashes. Therefore, speeding as a contributing factor represented different percentages of fatal crashes involving passenger vehicles on roads that serve different functions, with different speed limits, and in different land use areas. 2,000 N N tM 2 1,500 c t o> >W y 1,000 t N N M U LL m � a 500 Cn 520 25-30 35-40 45-50 55-60 >_65 Reported Speed Limit (mph) Source: FARS Figure 3. Fatal crashes involving speeding passenger vehicles, by reported speed limit and land use, 2014 20 Speed limit is reported in FARS data at the vehicle level. This variable represents the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle was traveling before the crash. 14 NTSB Safety Study 2.4.2 Alcohol -Impaired Driving Another misconception about speeding is that it is a problem that can be largely solved by focusing on alcohol impairment. The NTSB examined alcohol -impairment information for 6,409 speeding passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014 and found that 2,739 (43%) were alcohol -impaired .21 The remaining 3,670 speeding passenger vehicle drivers (57%) were not alcohol -impaired. For comparison, among all passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes, 22% were alcohol -impaired. Thus, although there is considerable overlap between alcohol impairment and speeding, more speeding drivers in fatal crashes are not alcohol -impaired than impaired. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of fatalities in crashes involving passenger vehicles by speeding and alcohol -impairment categories. In 2014, 28,615 fatalities involved passenger vehicles. Of these, 3,958 fatalities (14%) were attributed to crashes in which speeding was identified as a factor while alcohol impairment was not. Fatalities involving speeding passenger vehicles represent a pervasive and complex safety issue that cannot be mitigated by reducing alcohol -impaired driving alone. Speeding 13.8% (3,958) Neither Speeding nor Alcohol 56.3% (16,108) Source: FARS Figure 4. Fatalities involving passenger vehicles, by crash factors, 2014 21 Because a large number of drivers do not have their BAC level reported in FARS, NHTSA uses a statistical algorithm known as multiple imputation to estimate the BAC level. Ten BAC estimates are produced for each driver. The NTSB performed the same analysis 10 times using each set of imputed BAC estimates. The counts and percentages reported here are the average values of the 10 analyses. In addition, of the 6,422 speeding passenger vehicle drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2014, 13 drivers had no person -level information (such as imputed BAC), so the results presented here are based on 6,409 drivers. 15 NTSB Safety Study 2.4.3 Driver Age Driver age is also an important factor in speeding -related crashes. Figure 5 illustrates the age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and driver license counts. The three age groups with the most speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes are under 20, 20- to 24-year-olds, and 25- to 29-year-olds. Just these three groups include 3,167 drivers, representing 50% of all speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes. For comparison, these three age groups comprised 33% of crash involvement in all fatal crashes and 21% of licensed drivers. These observations indicate that the risk of speeding is higher among younger drivers. 0 O A 25% 20% 5% o Speeding Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes - ♦- All Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes • • ♦ • Licensed Drivers o •. O ��r 0% i O O �tx Driver Age Source: FARS, FHWA Figure 5. Age distribution of speeding passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, all passenger vehicle drivers in fatal crashes, and licensed drivers, 2014 Although factors such as speed variance, road type, land use, alcohol impairment, and driver age affect the specific relationship between speed and crash involvement, there is strong evidence indicating that fatal and serious injury crash involvement rates increase with speed. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that speed increases the likelihood of serious and fatal crash involvement, although the exact relationship is complex due to many factors. In comparison, existing research literature and crash data illustrate a more straightforward and direct relationship between speed and crash severity. Therefore, the NTSB further concludes that speed increases the injury severity of a crash. 16 NTSB Safety Study 2.5 Attitudes Toward Speeding The NTSB reviewed two large-scale, periodic surveys of individual attitudes toward speeding in the United States. In both surveys, participants consisted of a nationally representative sample of drivers. The first survey, the National Survey of Speeding Attitudes and Behavior, was most recently conducted by NHTSA in 2011.22 This self -reporting survey examines several aspects of speeding, including drivers' attitudes about speeding and various speeding countermeasures (Schroeder, Kostyniuk, and Mack 2013). The survey results reveal a general contradiction among US drivers between what is considered acceptable in society and individual behavior. For example, most drivers (91 %) agreed (either strongly or somewhat) that everyone should obey the speed limits because it is the law, and 87% agreed that it is unacceptable to exceed speed limits by more than 20 mph. Yet, 27% of respondents agreed that speeding is something they do without thinking, and 42% agreed that driving at or near the speed limit makes it difficult to keep up with traffic. The second survey, the Traffic Safety Culture Index, has been conducted annually since 2008 by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. The NTSB examined the results for the most recent survey, conducted in 2015 (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2016).23 Figure 6 illustrates that 70% and 80% of respondents stated their opinion that drivers speeding on freeways and residential streets, respectively, are a very serious or somewhat serious threat to their personal safety. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Freeways Residential Streets Road Type ❑ Somewhat Serious Threat ❑Very Serious Threat Source: AAA Foundation Figure 6. Drivers responding that speeding is a threat to personal safety, by road type, 2015 22 This survey was previously conducted in 2002 and 1997. 23 The surveys for 2011 through 2014 were also examined; the speeding -related responses showed little year-to-year variation. 17 NTSB Safety Study However, the perceived risks and acceptance of speeding were not reflected in the drivers' own behaviors. For example, 89% of respondents considered it unacceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit on a residential street, yet 45% reported having done so in the past 30 days. Similarly, 74% of respondents considered it unacceptable to drive 15 mph over the speed limit on freeways, yet 48% admitted to having done so in the past 30 days. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that drivers report understanding that speeding is a threat to safety but acknowledge it is a common driving behavior in the United States. 2.6 Countermeasures Strategies for improving traffic safety in general, and addressing speeding in particular, have traditionally been grouped into three categories: engineering, enforcement, and education (Donnell and others 2009).24 Engineering refers to roadway infrastructure changes. Enforcement refers to strategies to ensure drivers obey existing laws. Education refers to efforts to inform drivers and other stakeholders about traffic safety laws and the consequences of risky behavior. Table 4 lists examples of speeding countermeasures in these three categories. Some emerging speeding countermeasures researched for this study expand these three categories beyond their current definitions. For example, vehicle technologies are becoming available to prevent drivers from speeding, which may be considered an engineering countermeasure. Table 4. Examples of speeding countermeasures Countermeasure Type Examples Variable speed limits Speed feedback signs Engineering Roundabouts Speed humps Road dietsa Regular traffic patrols Enforcement High -visibility enforcement Automated enforcement Driver education courses Education Public awareness campaigns Judicial education a Road diets 'reallocate travel lanes and utilize the space for other uses and travel modes," for example, by converting a four -lane roadway to one with two through lanes and a center left -turn lane (FHWA 2016). A comprehensive approach to speeding typically involves multiple countermeasures. For example, NHTSA states that "no single strategy will be appropriate for all locations, and combinations of treatments may be needed to obtain speed limit compliance and achieve crash reduction goals" (Goodwin and others 2015). 24 Some organizations add other categories, such as emergency medical services, evaluation, and encouragement (Cambridge Systematics 2010; State of Vermont 2016). IN NTSB Safety Study 2.7 National, State, and Local Roles National, state, and local organizations all play roles in addressing speeding -related crashes. Speeding countermeasures are typically implemented at the state and local level, while federal government agencies conduct research, issue guidance material, set standards, and coordinate activities among states. Three DOT agencies play critical roles in addressing speeding -related issues: the FHWA, NHTSA, and the FMCSA.25 The FHWA's responsibilities include engineering and roadway infrastructure topics, NHTSA's responsibilities include driver behavior research and vehicle safety, and the FMCSA's responsibilities include large truck and bus operations.26 To coordinate speeding -related work across these agencies, the DOT established a Speed Management Team in 2000, composed of representatives from the FHWA, NHTSA, and the FMCSA. The Speed Management Team works to "reduce speeding -related fatalities, injuries, and crashes through the application and promotion of enforcement, engineering, educational, and evaluative approaches in a collaborative manner among member agencies in support of the US DOT goal of reducing the number of traffic fatalities" (DOT 2011). Congress establishes and provides funding for traffic safety programs through legislation. Most recently, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Public Law 114-94), was signed into law in December 2015. This law superseded the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21) (Public Law 112-141), which was signed into law in July 2012. DOT agencies are responsible for implementing these traffic safety programs, including the following federal -aid programs designed to encourage traffic safety activities at the state and local levels: • Highway Safety Improvement Program: The FHWA administers this program in conjunction with state departments of transportation; it provides grants to states for engineering countermeasures (Title 23 United States Code (USC) section 148). • Highway Safety Program: NHTSA administers this program in conjunction with state highway safety offices; it provides grants to states for behavioral (that is, non -engineering) countermeasures in 10 areas, including projects "to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicles being driven in excess of posted speed limits" (23 USC section 402). • National Priority Safety Programs: NHTSA also administers this program in conjunction with state highway safety offices; it provides incentive grants to states for non -engineering projects in seven priority areas, each of which is specified in legislation along with a funding amount (23 USC section 405).27 Speeding is not one of the seven priority areas. Funds distributed under these federal -aid programs are then awarded by the state departments of transportation and highway safety offices to individual state and local projects 25 The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) also provides research support to these and other DOT agencies. 26 Because the FMCSA does not focus on passenger vehicles, its speeding -related activities were not examined in detail for this study. 27 The seven priority areas are impaired driving, occupant protection, state traffic safety information system improvement, motorcycle safety, distracted driving, graduated driver licensing, and nonmotorized safety. 19 NTSB Safety Study through selection committees and competitive application processes. Table 5 summarizes the federal -aid traffic safety programs. Table 5. Federal -aid programs for traffic safety Program Type of Projects Responsible Responsible Funds Speeding - Funded Federal Agency State Agency Related Projects? Highway Safety Engineering- Department of Improvement based FHWA Transportation Yes Program countermeasures Highway Safety Non -engineering NHTSA Highway Yes Program countermeasures Safety Office Non -engineering National Priority countermeasures NHTSA Highway No Safety Programs in seven priority Safety Office areas In addition, several non -governmental organizations play significant roles in setting standards and providing guidance. For example, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), which represents state highway safety offices, works with NHTSA to produce standards for states to report crash data (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which represents state departments of transportation, produces standards for roadway design, and provides guidance for predicting crash frequency and the effects of engineering countermeasures on roadway segments (AASHTO 2011; AASHTO 2010). The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which is an international association of transportation professionals, publishes guidance on traffic engineering studies (ITE 2016). 20 NTSB Safety Study 3 Safety Issues The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding: (1) speed limits, (2) data -driven approaches for speed enforcement, (3) ASE, (4) intelligent speed adaptation, and (5) national leadership. The NTSB identified these issues in part because stakeholders repeatedly and consistently expressed concerns about them during study interviews.28 3.1 Speed Limits NHTSA states that speed limits are an effective way to control driving speeds (Goodwin and others 2015). Speed limits represent the driving speeds above which the risk is deemed by transportation officials as unacceptable, and the act of driving above those speeds is discouraged. Such limits form the legal basis upon which speed enforcement activities are implemented. Despite being recognized as an effective method to control driving speeds, there is no standard approach to setting or adjusting speed limits in the United States. In practice, the operating speed of free -flowing traffic is the most prominent factor used. Other factors, such as crash experience and the risk of injury to vulnerable road users, are not given similar emphasis as operating speed. 3.1.1 Background This section provides a general discussion of the relationship among design speed, operating speed, and speed limits. The publication Speed Concepts: Informational Guide provides explanations of many terms and concepts used in this study (Donnell and others 2009). Speed is an important consideration in the design phase of a road. Design speed refers to a selected speed for a road upon which all geometric design features are based, and it is selected according to anticipated traffic characteristics, such as operating speed and traffic volume, along with topography, adjacent land use, and road type (AASHTO 2011).29 Because many of these factors are based on anticipated use, a design speed does not always match the actual operating speed of a road. Table 6 shows the ranges of minimum design speeds for level roads by road type according to the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets and examples of posted speed limits provided by the FHWA (AASHTO 2011; FHWA 2000). These minimum design speeds range from 20 mph for local urban streets to 75 mph for rural 28 The NTSB examined other countermeasures, but stakeholder concerns about their implementation were not as substantial. For example, there are many engineering countermeasures for speeding, including roundabouts, speed bumps, and road diets. However, the effectiveness of these countermeasures is well established and information about them is available in several sources, including the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2010) and the FHWA's online Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. Engineering countermeasures for speeding are also promoted in the National Association of City Transportation Planners' Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO 2017) and are increasingly being adopted by state and local transportation departments. For instance, about $96 million in Highway Safety Improvement Project funds were used for 70 projects to convert intersections to roundabouts in 2014; this increased to $103 million for 91 projects in 2015 (Smith 2015; Smith and Signor 2016). 29 Title 23 CFR Part 625 provides design standards for highways. Design speed is 1 of 10 "controlling criteria" for which state transportation departments are required to evaluate and document any decision to deviate from the standard. The FHWA's May 5, 2016, memorandum, Revisions to the Controlling Criteria for Design and Documentation for Design Exceptions, provides a detailed listing of these criteria. 21 NTSB Safety Study arterial roads. These are called minimum design speeds because AASHTO encourages road designers to select design speeds equal to or greater than the design speed values (AASHTO 2011). Once the design speed is selected for a new road, various design criteria (such as minimum sight distances, maximum grade, and minimum horizontal curve radii) for geometric features of a roadway are determined. AASHTO recommends using above -minimum criteria when practical (AASHTO 2011; Donnell and others 2009). Thus, a road designer often selects a design speed above the minimum design speed associated with the road type, its function, and predicted traffic volume, and then uses design criteria above the minimum criteria associated with the selected design speed. Therefore, some roads are built to accommodate traffic flows and speeds above what was originally anticipated. Table 6. AASHTO's recommended minimum design speeds and typical posted speed limits, by road type Road Type Minimum Design Speeds (mph)a Typical Posted Speed Limits (mph)" Freeway° 50-70 55-75 Rural arterial 40-75 50-70 Urban arterial 30-60 50-70 Rural collector 40-60 35-55 Urban collector 30 35-55 Local rural road 30-50 20-45 Local urban street 20-30 20-45 a Minimum design speeds are dependent upon design volume. High design speed values are typically associated with anticipated volume greater than 2,000 vehicles per day; other factors may include available right of way, terrain, likely pedestrian presence, adjacent development, and other area control (AASHTO 2011). In this table, only those values for level roads are used. b Source: FHWA 2000 Freeways include interstate highways and expressways. Once a road is built, speed limits are established by state or local authorities. For example, a state may have a statutory speed limit of 65 mph for all rural freeways (such as interstates) and 55 mph for all rural undivided arterial roads. Ideally these statutory speed limits are lower than the design speeds established during the design phase. However, some road segments may have speed limits that are higher or lower than the statutory speed limits. These road segments are generally known as speed zones, and their speed limits, which can be higher or lower than the statutory speed limits, are commonly known as posted speed limits. 30 Once a newly built road is open for traffic, over time a traffic flow develops with diverse vehicle types and drivers. Each driver is influenced by the geometric characteristics of a roadway (for example, curvature and width), roadside development, the surrounding traffic flow, topography, and the posted speed limit, and they individually choose operating speeds. Because each driver is different, driver operating speeds vary, which results in a speed distribution (that is, a range of operating speeds). The range of operating speeds may not match the anticipated 30 The FHWA Speed Concepts: Informational Guide provides an in-depth discussion of these terms (Donnell and others 2009). 22 NTSB Safety Study operating speeds. When a mismatch occurs, an adjustment of the posted speed limit may be appropriate. 3.1.2 Engineering Studies, Speed Surveys, and the 85th Percentile Speed Stakeholders can request adjustments to speed limits. Requests can come from private citizens, from local or state transportation officials, or as a result of legislation. When such a request is made (that is, to set up a speed zone, whether it is above or below the statutory speed limit), state and local transportation departments typically require that an engineering study of the road segment be conducted to determine if raising or lowering the speed limit is appropriate. Although the specific procedures may vary, state and local transportation departments typically refer to the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which states that "speed zones shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free -flowing vehicles" (FHWA 2012a).31 The ITE publication Manual of Transportation Studies provides guidance on conducting an engineering study and the ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook outlines the professional practices of traffic engineering studies (ITE 2010; ITE 2016). Although there is guidance on conducting engineering studies, "a universal process for conducting these studies does not exist" (Donnell and other 2009). Still, FHWA guidance states that "when a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free -flowing traffic" (FHWA 2012a). As a result, the predominant factor used in establishing posted speed limits remains the 85th percentile speed of free -flowing traffic (Donnell and others 2009; TRB 1998). The 85th percentile speed refers to the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are traveling (FHWA 2012a). This measurement is obtained by conducting a speed survey, which is part of an engineering study. Each state transportation department has its own procedure for conducting a speed survey.32 However, it generally consists of measuring a sample of vehicles representative of the overall traffic along the road segment for which a proposed speed limit change is requested. The locations where speed measurements are made must represent free -flowing speeds (that is, avoiding intersections or narrowing road segments), and they must be appropriately spaced along the proposed segment. The 85th percentile speed is then computed by analyzing the speed measurements of the sample vehicles at these locations. The use of the operating speed, more specifically the 85th percentile speed, is based on the assumption that the majority of drivers (1) are capable of selecting appropriate speeds according to weather conditions, traffic, road geometry, and roadside development; and (2) operate at reasonable and prudent speeds (Krammes and others 1996). The use of the 85th percentile speed for adjusting speed limits emerged as early as the 1940s (TRB 1998). Support for its use came from empirical research of self -reported crashes on 2- or 4-lane rural highways in the late 1950s. This research showed that drivers operating at much lower and much higher speeds than the majority of drivers were involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes (Solomon 1964). Focusing on higher speeds, the research therefore indicated that a small group of drivers traveling 31 Appendix C provides the relevant sections of the MUTCD. 32 For example, Chapter 3 of the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits provides a detailed description of what an engineering study and speed survey include (California Department of Transportation 2014). 23 NTSB Safety Study at speeds much higher than average were responsible for more crashes. By definition, 15% of all drivers were traveling above the 85th percentile speed. This small fraction of drivers was considered to be operating at unsafe speeds that disproportionately contributed to crash risk. "The 85th percentile speed not only represents the upper bound of the preferred driving speed of most drivers, but, according to some studies, for some roads it also corresponds to the upper bound of a speed range where crash involvement rates are lowest" (TRB 1998). Over time, setting the speed limit near the 85th percentile speed has become common practice and is considered "the traffic engineers' traditional rule of thumb" (Shinar 2017). However, it is unclear whether this relationship between crash involvement rates and the 85th percentile speed applies to all road types (TRB 1998). Further, "the original research between speed and safety which purported that the safest travel speed is the 85th percentile speed is dated research and may not be valid under scrutiny" (Forbes, Gardner, McGee, and Srinivasan 2012). Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the MUTCD guidance for setting speed limits in speed zones is based on the 85th percentile speed, but there is not strong evidence that, within a given traffic flow, the 85th percentile speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate on all road types. 3.1.3 Unintended Consequences of Using the 85th Percentile Speed Using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits on road segments may have unintended consequences. Raising the speed limit to match the 85th percentile speed may lead to higher operating speeds, and hence a higher 85th percentile speed. This generates an undesirable cycle of speed escalation and reduced safety (Donnell and others 2009). As a 2016 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) report stated, "The 85th percentile speed is not a stationary point. It is, rather, a moving target that increases when speed limits are raised" (Farmer 2016). In recent years, several western US states have raised speed limits in segments of their rural interstate highways. For example, the Texas Transportation Code states that the speed limit is 70 mph for a highway numbered by Texas (for example, State Highway 130) or the United States (for example, Interstate 10) outside an urban area.33 It also gives authority to the Texas Department of Transportation to increase or reduce the posted speed limit as long as it is supported by an engineering study.34 The Texas Transportation Code requires that such engineering studies follow the "Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones," which emphasizes the use of the 85th percentile speed (Texas Department of Transportation 2015).35 In 2011, Texas raised the posted speed limit from 70 to 75 mph on a 45-mile long segment of State Highway 130. One year later in 2012, the limit was increased to 80 mph on the same segment (Texas Department of Transportation 2017). Currently, the toll portion of this segment has a posted speed limit of 85 mph, the highest posted speed limit in the United States. 33 See Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Subtitle C, Chapter 545, Section 352. 34 See Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Subtitle C, Chapter 545, Section 353. 35 Specifically, the "Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones" states "speed limits on all roadways should be set based on spot speed studies and the 85th percentile operating speed" (Texas Department of Transportation 2015). 24 NTSB Safety Study The trend of raising speed limits is not limited to Texas. In 2012, 35 states had maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph (GHSA 2012).36 By 2016, the number of states with maximum speed limits at or above 70 mph had increased to 41. Figure 7 shows the maximum speed limits by state in 2016, along with the respective increases in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016. There are seven states with maximum speed limits at or above 80 mph; they are all located in the western half of the United States. Texas and Utah, which are highlighted in figure 7, already had maximum speed limits at or above 80 mph in 2012. The remaining five states all had 5 mph increases between 2012 and 2016. Figure 7 also highlights the regional trend of maximum speed limit increases in the Northwest. Maximum Speed Number of States and DC Limit (mphr 2012 2014 2016 0 _ s 65 16 13 10 70 20 23 25 A 75 13 11 9 - ado 2 4 7 'Maximum speed limit refers to day time speed limit on rural interstates and may appty only to specified segments on the interstates. Figure 7. Maximum speed limits by state and the District of Columbia in 2016 and changes in maximum speed limits from 2012 to 2016 36 Maximum speed limit refers to the maximum posted daytime speed limit on any segment of any road within a state. Such segments are most likely located on rural interstates and the speed limit is applied to passenger cars only. For example, Texas has a maximum speed limit of 85 mph and it is limited to the 41-mile toll portion of State Highway 130. The IIHS maintains a regularly updated summary of maximum posted speed limits by state (IIHS 2017). 25 NTSB Safety Study When speed limits are raised along segments of roads, such as those in rural Texas and Utah, the overall impact on vehicle speeds may not be limited to those segments. Impacts to road segments adjacent to the speed zones are known as spillover effects. These effects are supported by the theory of speed adaptation, which suggests that a driver perceives a lower traveling speed after operating the vehicle at a higher speed earlier (Schmidt and Tiffin 1969; Matthews 1978). A case control study of the effects of raising the speed limit from 75 to 80 mph on segments of rural interstate highways in Utah found that passenger vehicle speeds within the 80 mph speed zones increased by an average of 3.1 mph, and the probability of passenger vehicles exceeding 80 mph was 122% higher after the speed limit increase than would have been expected without it. The study also illustrated spillover effects because passenger vehicle speeds increased by 2.6 mph, and the probability of passenger vehicles exceeding 80 mph was 89% higher at three nearby locations where speed limits remained 75 mph (Hu 2016). Therefore, there is often an unintended increase in operating speeds in areas outside of the speed zones where the speed limit has been raised. Further, California raised the speed limit on some rural interstates from 55 mph to 65 mph in 1987. Researchers found that higher vehicle speeds were observed in both the freeway and the connecting road locations in 1988, compared to 1985. However, the freeways used in the studies were not eligible for the speed limit increase and the nearest rural interstates with an increased speed limit of 65 mph were 2 hours driving distance away. This research showed that speed limit increases on roads in highly rural areas may have significant impacts on other roads that are geographically distant and disconnected (Casey and Lund 1992). The NTSB concludes that unintended consequences of the reliance on using the 85th percentile speed for changing speed limits in speed zones include higher operating speeds and new, higher 85th percentile speeds in the speed zones, and an increase in operating speeds outside the speed zones. 3.1.4 Expert System Although the 85th percentile speed is the predominant factor used in establishing speed limits, the MUTCD indicates several additional factors that may be considered. Specifically, it includes the following factors as options to the standard engineering study: "(A) road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; (B) the pace; (C) roadside development and environment; (D) parking practices and pedestrian activity; and (E) reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period" (FHWA 2012a). However, the MUTCD does not provide any specific guidance on how these factors are to be considered. Engineers typically rely on their experience and judgement, which may lead to inconsistent practices in setting speed limits. The transportation research community recognized the need to provide a systematic and consistent method for setting speed limits that incorporates factors other than operating speed (National Research Council 1998; Srinivasan and others 2006). An expert system is a software program that simulates the decision -making process of an expert in solving complex problems (Srinivasan and others 2006). In the United States, the FHWA developed a web -based expert system, known as USLIMITS2, for recommending credible and enforceable speed limits in speed zones (Forbes and others 2012).37 The FHWA and AASHTO approved USLIMITS2 as a "priority, 37 The USLIMITS2 expert system can be accessed via its website page. USLIMITS2 is the second version of an expert system (the first version was named USLIMITS) that was built on the lessons learned from the XLIMITS expert system of Australia in the 1980s. Input from an expert panel consisting of traffic engineers, officers, decision makers, and researchers across the United States improved upon the first version (FHWA 2012b). 26 NTSB Safety Study market -ready technology and innovation" in 2008, and the FHWA began hosting USLIMITS2 and promoting its use to state and local agencies in 2012 (FHWA 2017). USLIMITS2 can be used as a complementary tool to validate the results of engineering studies described in section 3.1.2. One advantage of USLIMITS2 is that crash statistics are listed as required input data.38 In contrast, the MUTCD includes crash statistics as an optional factor. Therefore, in USLIMITS2, crash statistics, along with other factors such as road geometry characteristics, roadside characteristics, and traffic volume, are used to adjust the posted speed limits between the 50th and 85th percentile speeds (FHWA 2012b). The NTSB concludes that expert systems such as USLIMITS2 can improve the setting of speed limits by allowing traffic engineers to systematically incorporate crash statistics and other factors in addition to the 85th percentile speed, and to validate their engineering studies. 3.1.5 Vulnerable Road Users on Urban Roads In highly populated urban areas, there are more interactions between vehicular traffic and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. In 2014, 314 pedestrians and 46 bicyclists died in speeding -related crashes in the United States; 275 of these fatalities (76%) occurred in urban areas. Pedestrians and bicyclists are especially vulnerable because of their lack of protection. The direct relationship between vehicle speed and injury severity adversely affects pedestrians. The likelihood of pedestrian death increases from 5% at a vehicle impact speed of 20 mph, to 45% at 30 mph, and 85% at 40 mph (ETSC 1995). Similarly, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety analyzed NHTSA's NASS Pedestrian Crash Data Study data (July 1994 through December 1998), which showed that the average risk of severe injury for a pedestrian increased from 10% at a 16 mph vehicle impact speed, to 25% at 23 mph, 50% at 31 mph, 75% at 39 mph, and 90% at 46 mph (Tefft 2011). Although local residential streets typically have a 25 mph speed limit, there are many connecting roads in urban areas where speed limits are set at 35 to 45 mph, such as urban collectors and minor arterials. The vulnerability of pedestrians in urban areas is a main reason why some municipalities have adopted a strategy called Vision Zero. This strategy was first developed and implemented in the 1990s in Sweden. It acknowledges that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable and sets the goal of eliminating both in a specific time period. Vision Zero uses a multi -disciplinary approach that involves diverse stakeholders (ITE 2017). According to the Vision Zero Network, as of March 2017, there are 26 Vision Zero cities in the United States.' Research has found that lowering speed limits can lead to sustained traveling speed reductions (Kloeden and Woolley 2012; De Pauw and others 2014) and crash reductions in urban areas (Islam, El-Basyouny, and Ibrahim 2014; D'Elia, Newstead, and Cameron 2007). Several transportation officials from Vision Zero cities interviewed by the NTSB for this study stressed 38 It is possible to use USLIMITS2 to generate a speed limit recommendation without crash statistics even though it is listed as a required input variable in USLIMITS2 (FHWA 2012b). However, a warning statement is displayed recommending the input of crash statistics to regenerate the recommendation. 39 To be considered a Vision Zero city, a city must meet the following criteria: "(1) sets clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, (2) mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero, (3) Vision Zero plan or strategy is in place, or mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame, and (4) key city departments (including police, transportation, and public health) are engaged" (Vision Zero Network 2017). 27 NTSB Safety Study the importance of lowering speed limits to minimize the injury risk for vulnerable users, but they indicated this was often difficult because state transportation department policies emphasize the use of the 85th percentile speed. The growth of the Vision Zero strategy in the United States reflects the emergence of the safe system approach in traffic safety. The safe system approach is a holistic approach to prevent crashes, or to at least prevent serious injuries resulting from crashes. Setting an appropriate speed limit is one aspect of the safe system approach. It recognizes that the responsibility for crash prevention resides not only with drivers but also with all stakeholders of the road system. These include those who design, manage, and use the road; those who set and enforce the speed limit; and those who provide emergency response. Therefore, how the road is designed and how the speed limit is set both play a role in crash prevention. It calls for the strengthening of all elements so that road users are still protected if one of these elements fails (ITF 2016). Road users, such as drivers and pedestrians, are viewed in the safe system approach as the "weakest link" (OECD 2008). The safe system approach to speed limits differs from the traditional view that drivers choose reasonable and safe speeds. In the safe system approach, speed limits are set according to the likely crash types, the resulting impact forces, and the human body's ability to withstand these forces (Forbes and others 2012). It allows for human errors (that is, accepting humans will make mistakes) and acknowledges that humans are physically vulnerable (that is, physical tolerance to impact is limited). Therefore, in this approach, speed limits are set to minimize death and serious injury as a consequence of a crash (Jurewicz and others 2014). This approach is far more commonly applied outside of the United States, such as in Sweden (where it is called Vision Zero), the Netherlands (where it is called Sustainable Safety), and several jurisdictions in Australia (OECD 2008). However, it is now gaining acceptance in the United States, particularly in Vision Zero cities and municipalities. The safe system approach calls for road designers to move from the conventional design (in which the posted speed limit is determined by the anticipated operating speed) to a proactive urban street design approach (in which the posted speed limit is determined by a target speed based on a desired safety result). The safe -system -approach -recommended maximum target speeds for urban roads are typically near the low end of the AASHTO minimum design speeds shown in Table 6. For example, the target speed for urban arterial roads is 35 mph compared to a 30 to 60 mph minimum design speed; for urban collector roads, the safe system target speed and the AASHTO minimum design speed are both 30 mph (NACTO 2017). Based on an analysis of 3,603 speeding -related fatal crashes that occurred in cities in 2015, the NTSB estimated that 49% of these fatal crashes occurred on state -operated roads.40 Therefore, although these roads pass through cities, local jurisdictions have no direct authority to adjust their speed limits. Although local officials may wish to incorporate the safe system approach by proposing speed zones with lower limits in urban areas with vulnerable road users, they may be unable to do so because state transportation departments require engineering studies that are driven 40 Starting in 2015, FARS data include a variable that identifies road ownership. The NTSB used a geographic information system (GIS) analysis to estimate that 3,603 speeding -related fatal crashes occurred within city limits in 2015. NTSB Safety Study by the 85th percentile speed. The NTSB concludes that the safe system approach to setting speed limits in urban areas is an improvement over conventional approaches because it considers the vulnerability of all road users. 3.1.6 Rethinking How to Set Speed Limits Section 2B.13 of the FHWA's MUTCD serves as the standard for setting speed limits in speed zones. It requires the use of engineering studies that emphasize the use of the 85th percentile speed.41 The MUTCD also lists crash experience as one of several optional factors to be considered, but it lacks specific guidance on how to include these optional factors. In practice, most state transportation departments use the 85th percentile speed as the primary factor in setting speed limits in speed zones (Parker 1985; Fitzpatrick and others 1995; ITE 2001). The FHWA has developed, adopted, and promoted an expert system, USLIMITS2, that requires the use of crash statistics. USLIMITS2 is a valuable validation tool for engineering studies when setting speed limits, but its methods are not included in the FHWA's MUTCD. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA revise Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD so that the factors currently listed as optional for all engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. The relationship between speed and injury severity affects more than just speeding vehicle occupants. This is particularly true in urban areas where the interaction between vehicles and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians is considerably higher. A safe system approach to setting speed limits emphasizes the consideration of human biomechanical tolerances and shifts the focus from vehicles to all road users. Especially in urban areas, it has emerged as an alternative to the use of the 85th percentile speed in setting speed limits in speed zones. Transportation officials in cities, such as those represented by National Association of City Transportation Officials, are already engaged in the discussion of a shift of emphasis from vehicle -based practices to multi -modal approaches to traffic safety. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering, the National Committee on Uniform Control Devices, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers are active participants in the research and development of best practices. These organizations may be well equipped to assist the FHWA in assessing the current practices of setting and adjusting speed limits, including but not limited to examining the use of the 85th percentile speed and incorporating the safe system approach. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA revise Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD to, at a minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to strengthen protection for vulnerable road users. 41 As discussed in section 3.1.2, the ITE provides general guidance for engineering studies, which is commonly used by traffic engineers (ITE 2010; ITE 2016). 29 NTSB Safety Study 3.2 Data -Driven Approaches for Speed Enforcement Appropriately set speed limits must be enforced to be optimally effective. However, speed limit enforcement is only one of the duties of an officer. Several of the law enforcement agencies the NTSB interviewed indicated that staffing levels have been reduced, and that they have had difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. Further, according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), a speed enforcement program involves many costs; they include staffing, procuring speed measurement equipment, equipment servicing, development or improvement of data processing systems, and increased court time and its associated staffing requirements (IACP 2004). Therefore, to adequately manage such staffing and cost issues, law enforcement agencies must efficiently allocate their resources. One approach that law enforcement agencies use to promote traffic safety is high -visibility enforcement (HVE), in which conspicuous enforcement activities are conducted in areas with a high risk of crashes.42 This method has proven effective in detecting alcohol -impairment and ensuring seat belt use (Goodwin and others 2015). The most recognized type of HVE is accompanied by nationwide, large scale public media campaigns. HVE can also be integrated into the daily patrol routine, thereby indicating to the public that traffic enforcement is a law enforcement priority. 3.2.1 Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety Stakeholders interviewed for this study repeatedly stated that HVE is more effective when data are used to target the locations for enforcement. For example, in 2008, NHTSA and the US Department of Justice partnered to start an initiative known as Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) (National Institute of Justice 2014). Under this initiative, law enforcement agencies use geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze location -based crash and crime data to effectively deploy HVE to targeted areas known as hot spots, where both criminal activities and traffic incidents frequently occur (Kerrigan 2011; Hardy 2010). DDACTS specifically emphasizes data collection and analysis; disseminating information and outreach; using data to monitor, evaluate, and make adjustments; and measuring outcomes (NHTSA 2014; Hardy 2010). Many local law enforcement agencies have reported that they effectively used DDACTS to allocate enforcement resources to reduce crashes and crime. The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department implemented an HVE program in 2004 that was based on DDACTS. The program collected traffic and crime data across the city, produced multilayered crime maps overlaying traffic violations with criminal activities, and used statistics -driven methods to identify hot spots down to specific street corners. The department then used HVE in those identified areas. Between 2003 and 2009, the Nashville metropolitan area experienced 16% and 31 % decreases in fatal and injury crashes, respectively (Perry and others 2013). In 2008, the Baltimore County Police Department launched a DDACTS-based HVE program called the Crash -Crime Project. GIS mapping tools were used to build multilayered maps detailing crime, traffic violations, and crash patterns. These maps helped the police department 42 Another term for HVE is highly visible traffic enforcement. 30 NTSB Safety Study identify neighborhoods and street segments to which they should deploy high -visibility patrols and conduct vehicle stops (Hall and Puls 2010; Perry and others 2013). On December 4, 2012, the background and results of this DDACTS-based HVE program were presented at the NTSB "Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Transportation Safety" forum (Wilson and others 2012). The Baltimore County Police Department reported 6% and 15% decreases in all crashes and injury crashes, respectively, between 2007 and 2008 (Perry and others 2013). In 2010, the Shawnee Police Department of Kansas deployed a DDACTS-based HVE program. Officers were assigned to conduct HVE in hot spots during specific times based on analysis of crime and crash data. Comparing data from the 3 years before and after the 2010 implementation of the Shawnee program, vehicle crashes decreased by 24% (Bryant, Collins, and White 2015). Although some evidence suggests that data -driven, HVE programs such as DDACTS can be effective in improving traffic safety, there has been no systematic assessment of these programs. All of the reports the NTSB reviewed used aggregate performance measures such as crash counts, traffic stops, and citation issuances (Bryant, Collins, and White 2015; Perry and others 2013; Wilson and others 2012). Although these measures have some merit, an evaluation with performance measures specific to speeding would be useful for identifying best practices for law enforcement agencies when conducting speeding -related, data -driven, HVE and for communicating the benefits of these programs. Speeding -related performance measures may include the numbers and locations of speeding -related crashes, citations, warnings, and the injury severity of speeding -related crashes. Consistent evaluation methods may require the use of minimum before and after time periods for comparison. The DDACTS Operational Guide recommends using specific types of crashes and 3 to 5 years of crash data when conducting evaluations (NHTSA 2014). In addition, the guide highlights that "the findings from the data analysis are an important tool for garnering internal and external support for DDACTS implementation within identified hot spots" (NHTSA 2014). Officers interviewed by the NTSB also stated that the ability of senior officers to communicate the value of data -driven enforcement both within their agency and to the public was essential to the success of data -driven, HVE programs. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that speeding -related performance measures are needed to determine the effectiveness of data -driven, HVE programs and to communicate the value of these programs to law enforcement officers and the public. The NTSB recommends that NHTSA identify speeding -related performance measures to be used by local law enforcement agencies, including —but not limited to —the numbers and locations of speeding -related crashes of different injury severity levels, speeding citations, and warnings, and establish a consistent method for evaluating data -driven, HVE programs to reduce speeding. Disseminate the performance measures and evaluation method to local law enforcement agencies. The NTSB further recommends that NHTSA identify best practices for communicating with law enforcement officers and the public about the effectiveness of data -driven, HVE programs to reduce speeding, and disseminate the best practices to local law enforcement agencies. 31 NTSB Safety Study 3.2.2 Limitations of Speeding -Related Crash Data FARS uses seven categories to describe the type of speeding in fatal crashes: "exceeded speed limit," "too fast for conditions," "racing," "speeding but specifics unknown," "unknown if it is speeding -related," "no driver present," and "not speeding related" (NHTSA 2015a).43 Each vehicle involved in a fatal crash is assigned one of these categories.44 The assignment of these categories is based on analysts' interpretations of police crash reports. There were 35,055 passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes in 2014; figure 8 shows how they were distributed among the 7 speeding categories. The two most common types of speeding —"exceeded speed limit" and "too fast for conditions" —each represent 8% of all passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes. A very small portion (less than 1%) of vehicles were categorized as racing. There were also 888 passenger vehicles (3%) identified as speeding, but it was not possible to assign them to specific categories. In total, 6,422 passenger vehicles were identified as speeding. Jng (60) :eeded Speed Limit 7.7% (2,686) Too Fast for Conditions 8.0% (2,788) Speeding, Specifics Unknown 2.5% (888) No Driver ).5% (184) sown if Speeding 4.0% (1,411) Source: FARS Figure 8. Passenger vehicles in fatal crashes, by speeding category, 2014 Whether the vehicles were speeding could not be determined for 1,411 passenger vehicles (4%), and 27,038 passenger vehicles (77%) were categorized as not speeding. The NTSB further examined these vehicles using travel speed and posted speed limit data in FARS. Among the 27,038 vehicles categorized as not speeding, 918 were traveling at least 10 mph above the posted speed limit prior to the crash. In addition, 57 passenger vehicles categorized as "unknown if speeding" were traveling at least 10 mph above the posted speed limit. This indicates that some vehicles categorized as "not speeding" or "unknown if speeding" were traveling at speeds above the posted speed limit prior to the crash. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the involvement of speeding passenger vehicles in fatal crashes is underestimated. 43 The category "no driver present" is used when "there is no person who was controlling the associated vehicle at the time of the crash" or "when it is unknown if there was a driver present in the vehicle at the time of the crash" (NHTSA 2016a). 44 Appendix D provides definitions for each FARS speeding category. 32 NTSB Safety Study Crashes involving the speeding types "exceeded speed limit" and "too fast for conditions" are used in analyzing speeding as a safety issue and formulating strategies to address it. The numbers of vehicles for the two speeding types are comparable, yet they deal with different aspects of speeding. Although the first speeding type is objectively defined by speed limits, the second is subject to the interpretation of officers. There is a large degree of variation among states in the way they apply these definitions. For example, 85% of all speeding -related passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes were assigned "exceeded speed limit" in Massachusetts, whereas 7% of these vehicles were assigned this category in Arkansas (for comparison, the average was 42% for the United States). Although this variation can potentially be explained by posted speed limits and the physical characteristics of the states, it is unclear how much of the variation is due to inconsistencies in police crash reporting. In some states, there is little distinction between "exceeded speed limit" and "too fast for conditions." For example, although Michigan and New Mexico use these two categories in their crash report forms, 63% and 52% of all speeding -related vehicles were simply categorized as "speeding, specifics unknown" in these states, respectively. The NTSB examined all state police crash report forms and found that 14 states do not have the category "exceeded speed limit" and 7 states do not have the category "too fast for conditions." In addition, six states' police crash report forms only have the category "unsafe speed." There are three issues concerning crash reporting at the national level: (1) inconsistent categorization of "exceeded speed limit" and "too fast for conditions," (2) a lack of detailed categorization of speeding type, and (3) crashes for which speeding involvement is unknown. To develop a national strategy to address speeding as a traffic safety issue, it is essential to identify the types of speeding -related crashes (requiring consistent, detailed categorization of speeding) and to determine the scope of the problem (requiring known speeding involvement). Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the lack of consistent law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes hinders the effective implementation of data -driven speed enforcement programs. NHTSA and the GHSA jointly publish the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, which contains standards for state crash reporting (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). The guideline is periodically updated and serves as a key document used to "generate the information necessary to improve highway safety within each State and nationally" (GHSA and NHTSA 2012). Regarding speeding, it includes five attributes: "exceeded speed limit," "too fast for conditions," "racing," "unknown," and "no speeding." However, adoption of the MMUCC Guideline by states is voluntary. Even if all state crash report forms were compliant with MMUCC Guideline standards, the NTSB interviews with law enforcement agencies indicated that there would continue to be inconsistencies among officers in how the crash forms are filled out. The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and the IACP are professional associations that provide training and model policies to law enforcement agencies; as such, they may be well positioned to assist NHTSA in improving the quality of speeding -related crash data to help law enforcement agencies more effectively implement data -driven enforcement programs. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA work with the GHSA, the IACP, and the NSA to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related MMUCC Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. Further, the NTSB recommends that the GHSA, the IACP, and the NSA work with NHTSA to develop and implement 33 NTSB Safety Study a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related MMUCC Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. 3.3 Automated Speed Enforcement To use limited resources efficiently, some law enforcement agencies are employing data -driven, technology -based solutions for speed enforcement in addition to using data -driven approaches for in -person speed enforcement. ASE refers to the use of a vehicle speed detection system coupled with a camera to identify speeding vehicles.41 When a speeding vehicle is detected, the camera system is triggered to automatically take photographs of the vehicle, including the license plate and, in some implementations, the driver. Law enforcement and ASE vendor personnel then review the photographic evidence (typically off site and at a later time) to confirm that a speeding violation occurred, and state motor vehicle administration records are used to determine where to mail a speeding citation (Roadway Safety Consortium 2012). In some jurisdictions, the vehicle owner may be cited and assessed a fine (similar to a parking ticket); in others, the vehicle driver may be cited and be assessed a fine and license points (similar to a speeding citation issued in person by an officer) .41 ASE has some advantages over in -person speed enforcement by an officer. It provides a force multiplier effect that can free up limited law enforcement resources to be used for other purposes. ASE can operate in locations and under conditions that would make traffic stops dangerous or impractical, and it may reduce congestion from other drivers distracted by traffic stops. Finally, its high rate of speeding detection may provide a higher general deterrence effect (FHWA and NHTSA 2008).47 Several limitations of ASE have also been noted. Because ASE does not stop a driver at the time of the speeding offense, the driver may continue to speed and be unaware of the offense. Also, the time lag between committing a violation and receiving an ASE penalty may have a lower specific deterrence effect (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). ASE has been, and continues to be, challenged on several constitutional grounds, including that it violates rights of due process, equal protection (because penalties may differ between ASE citations and in -person citations), and privacy, but courts have consistently found ASE to be constitutional (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). ASE has also been criticized by the public as a tool to generate revenue rather than increase safety. This concern appears to stem from well -publicized cases of automated red light and speed enforcement programs not following best practices, such 45 The speed detection system typically uses radar or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) technology, similar to handheld devices used by officers for speed enforcement. 46 Many states use a point system to account for moving violations, in which greater points are assigned to more severe violations; the accumulation of a particular number of points within a set time period can lead to higher insurance premiums or license suspension. 47 In traffic law enforcement, general deterrence refers to "the impact of the threat of legal punishment on the public at large ... result[ing] from a belief in the community that traffic laws are being enforced and that a real risk of detection and punishment exists." In contrast, specific deterrence is "the influence of enforcement on the road user behaviour of convicted offenders, due to previous detection, prosecution, and punishment experiences" (Zaal 1994). 34 NTSB Safety Study as paying vendors on a per -citation basis, giving vendors responsibility for site selection, and not ensuring that yellow lights are appropriately timed (Farmer 2017). Some states have passed laws designed to increase public acceptance of ASE. For example, Maryland requires local jurisdictions to hold a public hearing prior to authorizing ASE and to designate an employee to respond to citizen concerns and review contested citations. Local jurisdictions in Maryland are also prohibited from paying ASE vendors on a per -citation basis (see Maryland Code, Transportation, Section 21-809). The concern about ASE as a revenue -generation tool was also raised at the most recent congressional hearings on automated enforcement in 2010.48 MAP-21 made it illegal for states to use federal funds to "carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic enforcement system" (Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1200.13(b)).49 This was a change from previous legislation, which stated that "the [DOT] Secretary may encourage States to use technologically advanced traffic enforcement devices (including the use of automatic speed detection devices such as photo -radar) by law enforcement officers" (Highway Safety Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240). 3.3.1 Historical and Current Usage Friendswood and La Marque, Texas, became the first US communities to use modern ASE systems when they conducted short-lived trials in 1986.50 The next year, Paradise Valley, Arizona, started the first sustained ASE program, which is still active (Town of Paradise Valley 2017). As illustrated in figure 9, in the first 20 years of ASE operations, usage grew slowly; by January 2006, 26 ASE programs were active but over one quarter of the 36 programs that had been started up to this point had been discontinued. Between 2006 and 2013, ASE usage increased dramatically, peaking at 148 active programs in 2013. Since then, ASE usage has declined slightly, with 141 active programs as of April 2017, including statewide work zone programs in Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon (IIHS 2016a). These programs are concentrated in 14 states and the District of Columbia. For example, communities in Maryland account for 46 of the ASE programs. 48 Utilization and Impacts of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, I I Ith Congress, 2nd session, June 30, 2010. 49 Title 23 USC section 402 defines an automated traffic enforcement system as "any camera which captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and speed enforcement, and does not include hand held radar and other devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an on -the -scene traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other enforcement action at the time of the violation." 50 The IIHS provided the NTSB with historical data on ASE programs, including locations, start dates, and (if applicable) end dates, covering the period from March 1986 to April 2017. 35 NTSB Safety Study 16C cn 14C E 12 C 0 10C Q a 8C s =• c N E 6C c 4C c0 M a Ew 2 0 U U) n April 2017: 141 Active ASE Programs Op 11 1986: First ASE Programs 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Calendar Year Source: IIHS Figure 9. US communities with ASE programs, by year There are four general types of ASE units (Miller and others 2016): • Fixed: These ASE units are permanently mounted in fixed locations. • Speed -on -green: These fixed units are primarily designed to detect red light violations at intersections, but they can also be used for ASE. • Semi -fixed: These units use fixed housings with removable cameras. With fewer cameras than housings, cameras are rotated among the housings to maintain a deterrent effect at a lower cost, as drivers do not know which housings have cameras at any given time. • Mobile: These units are mounted inside a vehicle (which may be occupied by law enforcement or ASE vendor personnel) or on a towed trailer, and they can be moved to different locations as needed. 3.3.2 Effectiveness A 2005 systematic review of 14 studies of ASE programs in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand found crash reductions of 5 to 69%, injury reductions of 12 to 65%, and fatality reductions of 17 to 71% at ASE locations after ASE program implementation (Pilkington and Kinra 2005). In 2007, NHTSA published a review of 13 studies of ASE programs (including 1 US program). Four of the 13 studies examined fixed ASE programs and generally found that injury crashes at fixed ASE locations declined between 20 and 25% after ASE implementation. The other 9 studies examined mobile ASE programs and found that injury crashes in mobile ASE zones declined between 21 and 51 %. Two of the studies in the NHTSA review looked at the wider effects of ASE; one Canadian study found a provincewide 25% reduction in daytime speeding -related crashes, and the other, a US study, found a statewide 30% reduction in daytime crashes resulting in injuries (Decina and others 2007). A 2010 review of 28 studies of ASE in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand determined that all 28 studies had found a lower number of crashes in ASE areas 36 NTSB Safety Study after ASE implementation. These studies reported reductions of 8 to 49% for all crashes and reductions of 11 to 44% for crashes causing serious injuries or fatalities (Wilson and others 2010). Most recently, in 2015, the IIHS published a study of the ASE program in Montgomery County, Maryland, which first began in 2007. Montgomery County operates an ASE program on residential streets and in school zones, via a combination of fixed, semi -fixed, and mobile units. Starting in 2012, some cameras were used in a corridor approach, in which semi -fixed units were rotated among various locations on signed road segments to encourage speed limit compliance along the entire segment. The IIHS study found that, 7.5 years after the program began, ASE was associated with a 10% reduction in mean speeds and a 62% reduction in the likelihood of speeding more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit at ASE sites. The likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating injury or fatality decreased by 39% on ASE-eligible roads, and the corridor approach further reduced this likelihood by 30% compared to what would have been expected without the corridor approach .51 The likelihood that a crash was speeding -related decreased by 8%. The IIHS also found that, on similar but ASE-ineligible roads in Montgomery County, the likelihood that a crash involved an incapacitating injury or fatality decreased by 27% and the likelihood that a crash was speeding -related decreased by 22%.52 This demonstrated a positive spillover effect, in which the benefits of ASE extended beyond ASE sites (Hu and McCartt 2016). Several federal agencies consider ASE to be one of the most effective speeding countermeasures. NHTSA evaluated eight speeding countermeasures and gave ASE their highest rating for effectiveness (Goodwin and others 2015).53 In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that ASE "can reduce crashes substantially" and includes ASE as the only speeding -related countermeasure in their Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS), an online tool for states to choose cost-effective interventions to prevent motor vehicle related casualties (CDC 2015a; CDC 2015b).54 Based on studies of operational ASE programs in the United States and other countries, the NTSB concludes that ASE is an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding -related crashes, fatalities, and injuries. 51 To analyze the effects of ASE on crashes, the IIHS study compared the crash experience of Montgomery County residential roads eligible for ASE (that is, those with speed limits from 25 to 35 mph, whether ASE cameras were actually installed) to the crash experience of similar roads in nearby Fairfax County, Virginia, which did not operate an ASE program. 52 To analyze spillover effects on crashes, the IIHS study compared the crash experience of Montgomery County residential roads with similar characteristics as the ASE-eligible roads (aside from having a higher, 40 mph speed limit) to residential roads in Fairfax County, Virginia, with 40 mph speed limits. 53 This rating indicates a countermeasure is "demonstrated to be effective by several high -quality evaluations with consistent results" (Goodwin and others 2015). 54 Each intervention included in MV PICCS is chosen based on (1) empirical evidence that it can substantially reduce motor -vehicle -related injuries and fatalities; (2) currently low usage across the 50 states, with a corresponding potential for additional impact through wider adoption; and (3) the ability of states to implement the intervention. 37 NTSB Safety Study 3.3.3 Stakeholder Perceptions The GHSA has advocated for ASE programs since 2005, calling for (1) states to enact enabling legislation for ASE, (2) a federal incentive grant program to encourage the use of ASE, and (3) the promotion of ASE best practices by NHTSA (GHSA 2005; GHSA 2012; GHSA 2013; GHSA 2016). AASHTO has supported the use of ASE since 2004, when it called for all states to build public support for ASE, to promote the enactment of ASE laws, and to support the use of ASE (AASHTO 2004). In 2006, the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety (SCOHTS) adopted a policy resolution to further support automated traffic law enforcement, including ASE. Citing the high percentage of crashes involving traffic law violations, the limited resources and staffing difficulties of law enforcement agencies, and the demonstrated effectiveness of automated enforcement in reducing deaths and injuries, SCOHTS encouraged "a top -down leadership approach by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to implement automated enforcement throughout the country," including incentives for states to enact enabling legislation (AASHTO 2006). The IACP, in a 2007 resolution, cited some of the same reasons as AASHTO in calling for the use of ASE in high -crash locations in conjunction with in -person traffic enforcement (IACP 2007). The IACP also included ASE as an effective enforcement strategy in its Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement guide (IACP 2003). The National Association of City Transportation Officials, in its 2016 policy document, noted that automated traffic enforcement "is a crucial tool in preventing crashes that result in serious injuries and fatalities," called for the federal government to allow states to use federal -aid grant funds for automated traffic enforcement, and encouraged states to authorize the use of ASE (NACTO 2016). The positions of these national associations are in line with the statements made during stakeholder interviews the NTSB conducted for this study. Nearly all of the representatives from state and local transportation departments expressed a positive view of their ASE programs (for those with active programs) or a desire to use ASE (for those without ASE programs). Opinions from officers were more varied. Several officers mentioned the benefits of in -person traffic stops, including the ability to discover other illegal behaviors and outstanding warrants, the ability to apply discretion and take into account mitigating factors, and the opportunity to educate drivers about traffic laws and the risks of speeding. However, only officers in communities without active ASE programs mentioned the benefits of in -person traffic stops as reasons for not implementing ASE. The NTSB interviewed representatives of five law enforcement agencies operating ASE programs. With one exception, every law enforcement representative in a community with ASE expressed the view that their programs should be maintained or expanded, and stated that they did not see ASE as limiting their ability to conduct in -person speed enforcement.ss 55 The ASE program in question (which has since been discontinued) operated in about six school zones throughout a county, with two mobile vans that rotated among the schools on a daily basis. The officer responsible for the program indicated that the daily process of moving, configuring, and removing the mobile units was too time consuming for his small force of seven officers, given their other required duties in addition to traffic enforcement. NTSB Safety Study Driver surveys have shown that public support varies depending on the roadway environment for which ASE is used and driver characteristics. In a nationally representative survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in 2015, 35% of respondents stated they supported ASE on freeways, 41% supported ASE in urban areas, 45% supported it on residential streets, and 56% supported it in school zones. These figures have not changed substantially since 2012, when the AAA Foundation started surveying drivers about this topic (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2016).56 Also, in a 2009 national public opinion survey conducted by the University of Minnesota, 64% of respondents said they were very or somewhat supportive of ASE in general. When asked about particular locations for ASE, support was higher for roads near schools (87%), roads where many people have died (81 %), and roads where many people violate speed limits (75%). However, support for ASE on all roads was lower (43%). ASE support was also higher among women and older drivers, which are groups that are less likely than males and younger drivers to be involved in speeding -related fatal crashes. In addition, 73% of all survey respondents said that ASE would be an effective way to improve road safety (Munnich and Loveland 2011). Several studies have shown maintained or increased public support for ASE after program implementation (Retting 2003). In Montgomery County, Maryland, a survey taken 6 months before the county's ASE program began in 2007 showed that 58% of drivers were in favor of ASE on residential streets. This level of support has been sustained, with followup surveys taken 6 months after the program began and again in 2014, showing 62% of drivers supporting the program (Retting, Farmer, and McCartt 2008; Hu and McCartt 2016). Surveys of drivers in Scottsdale, Arizona, in 2005 and 2006, showed that the percentage of drivers favoring ASE increased from 62% before an ASE program began to 77% after 8 months of operation (Retting, Kyrychenko, and McCartt 2008). Although most ASE public opinion surveys the NTSB reviewed were directed to drivers, non -drivers are also affected by speeding, especially in urban areas with large numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists. A 2012 survey of District of Columbia residents found support for ASE even higher among non -drivers (90% support) than drivers (71 % support) (Cicchino, Wells, and McCartt 2014). 3.3.4 Enabling Legislation Table 7 shows, as of August 2016, the number of states with laws authorizing or prohibiting ASE, and whether these states have active ASE programs operating within the state.57 Of the 14 states with ASE programs, most of these programs are operating with state legislation explicitly authorizing the use of ASE; very few ASE programs operate in states where laws are silent on the topic. This indicates that state -level enabling legislation is an important criterion for local communities to implement ASE programs. 56 It should be noted that the ASE survey questions specifically asked about citing vehicle drivers, an increasingly rare practice since newer ASE programs issue a fine to the vehicle owner. Survey respondents were asked if they support strongly, support somewhat, oppose somewhat, or oppose strongly "using cameras to automatically ticket drivers who drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit" on freeways, residential streets, urban areas, and school zones. 57 Appendix E provides a complete summary of ASE laws by state. 39 NTSB Safety Study Table 7. ASE state laws and active programs as of April 2017 States States States States Authorizing Authorizing ASE without Prohibiting Total ASE with Restrictions ASE Laws ASE States with 0a 10 4 0 14 ASE Programs States without 0 5 24 7 36 ASE Programs Total 0 15 28 7 50 Source: GHSA and INS a The District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction and operates an ASE program. The importance of state -level ASE-enabling legislation is supported by interviews the NTSB conducted with state and local transportation departments. Representatives from every state and local transportation department in a state without ASE-enabling legislation mentioned that they would like to implement an ASE program, but they were unwilling to do so without laws in place authorizing its use. The most common reason given for not implementing ASE programs without enabling legislation was that the citations issued by such a program, or the program itself, would be subject to significant legal challenges. For example, several Texas counties operated ASE programs only in unincorporated areas because state law prohibits ASE within Texas municipalities. As of April 2017, these programs have all been discontinued, and the law enforcement agency responsible for administering one such program reported a 50% dismissal rate for all ASE citations challenged in court. However, even among the states with ASE-enabling legislation, significant restrictions on its use often prevent ASE from effectively reducing speeding -related deaths and injuries in these states. In the 15 states (and the District of Columbia) that authorize ASE, every state places some limitations on the specific municipalities or roadway environments in which ASE can be used; only the District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction. Several states limit the use of ASE to school zones, work zones, roads adjacent to parks, or some combination of these. Other states limit ASE programs to particular cities. For example, outside of school zones, the state of Washington effectively limits ASE to a single camera in the city of Tacoma.58 Further, five states require that an officer or government employee be present at the time when the ASE unit captures the speeding violation. Although it may be easier to garner community and legislative support for the use of ASE in locations such as school zones, those are generally not the locations most at risk for speeding -related deaths and injuries. For example, FARS data show that only seven US speeding -related fatalities occurred in school zones in 2014. The NTSB interviewed representatives from several agencies with active ASE programs who stated that the locations where ASE was authorized did not adequately address the speeding -related crash hot spots in their 58 Any city "west of the Cascade mountains with a population of more than one hundred ninety-five thousand located in a county with a population of fewer than one million five hundred thousand" may operate a single ASE camera, and the specific site "must have first been authorized by the Washington state legislature as a pilot project for at least one full year" (see Revised Code of Washington 46.63.170). M NTSB Safety Study communities, and that they would like the ability to place ASE equipment at the locations most susceptible to speeding -related crashes. The NTSB concludes that the lack of state -level ASE-enabling legislation, and restrictions on the use of ASE in states where legislation exists, have led to underuse of this effective speeding countermeasure. However, the NTSB acknowledges that some restrictions on ASE operations (such as the Maryland prohibition against paying vendors on a per -citation basis) may reflect best practices and are intended to increase public acceptance of ASE without limiting its safety benefits. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the seven states prohibiting ASE amend current laws to authorize state and local agencies to use ASE.59 The NTSB further recommends that the 28 states without ASE laws authorize state and local agencies to use ASE.60 Finally, the NTSB recommends that the 15 states with ASE restrictions amend current laws to remove operational and location restrictions on the use of ASE, except where such restrictions are necessary to align with best practices.61 3.3.5 Best Practices At the federal level, the primary source of best practices for establishing, operating, and evaluating ASE programs is the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). These guidelines are designed to be a resource for "program managers, administrators, law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individuals responsible for the planning and operation of the program" and contain best practices in over 40 topic areas related to ASE, such as legal authorities, site selection, marketing, operator training, equipment maintenance, violation processing and adjudication, and program evaluation. However, NHTSA has found that these guidelines are neither well known, nor well adhered to, by ASE program managers. In 2011, NHTSA conducted a survey of all 107 communities identified at that time as current or recent operators of ASE programs (Miller and others 2016). The objectives of the study were to determine how aligned the ASE programs were with the federal guidelines. However, 63% of the survey respondents indicated that they were not even aware of the federal ASE guidelines.62 To determine these programs' degree of alignment to the guidelines, survey questions were developed for 35 topic areas in which the guidelines provided "clear guidance terms such as `shall,' `should,' 'critical,' and `must."' In only 7 of the 35 areas did 80% or more of the surveyed 59 These seven states are Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. See appendix E. 60 These 28 states are Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See appendix E. 61 These 15 states are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. See appendix E. 62 Survey respondents included representatives from current and recently discontinued ASE programs at the time the survey was conducted and representatives from programs that began before and after the ASE guidelines were published. Programs starting before the ASE guidelines were published in 2008 reported 7% higher awareness of the guidelines (34%) than those programs starting in 2008 or later (27%). The survey was mailed to the head of the agency responsible for ASE within each community. NHTSA stated that "it appears that most of the agency staff assigned to complete the survey had operational responsibilities and/or oversight for ASE" but "the person assigned to complete the survey may not have been involved when the program was first established" (Miller and others 2016). 41 NTSB Safety Study programs align with the guidelines. Further, in 11 of these 35 areas, less than 40% of the surveyed ASE programs aligned with the guidelines. For example, 3 1 % of ASE programs aligned with the guideline to treat speeding violations by government vehicles the same as violations by the general public, and 27% of ASE programs aligned with the guideline to establish a stakeholder committee to guide program development (Miller and others 2016). The NHTSA survey acknowledges that some of the low alignment to federal ASE guidelines may be due to changes in technology and operations that the 2008 guidelines do not reflect. For example, the guidelines recommend that the vehicle driver be identified and cited. However, in accordance with state and local laws, most recently established ASE programs send citations to the vehicle owner, a practice which has been shown to be effective (Hu and McCartt 2016). In addition, the survey noted that the increased use of unstaffed mobile units —a technology not available when the guidelines were written —could affect how an ASE program is operated and perceived. The NTSB concludes that federal guidelines for ASE programs do not reflect the latest technologies and operating practices and are not very effective because their existence is not well known among the ASE program administrators. The NTSB therefore recommends that the FHWA work with NHTSA to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest ASE technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators. 3.3.6 Point -to -Point Enforcement One particular ASE technology that is relatively new is point-to-point enforcement (also referred to as average speed enforcement or section control). The first use of point-to-point enforcement was in the Netherlands in 1997; since then, its use has spread to other European countries, Australia, and New Zealand, but such systems have not yet been implemented in the United States (Soole, Fleiter, and Watson 2012). Point-to-point enforcement uses the times a vehicle passes two points to calculate an average speed over the length of road between the points. Continuous visual observation of a vehicle is not necessary over the entire section of roadway, as a time -synchronized camera system captures vehicle images at the section endpoints and then uses automatic license plate recognition technology to match the images and determine which vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit. Thus, point-to-point enforcement can be used on highway segments many miles long, with multiple measurement points as necessary. Point-to-point enforcement technology is best suited for limited -access highways with few entry or exit points on the designated highway section, for which the designated section is the fastest route between the section endpoints. This is a road type for which ASE in general has not been used extensively in the United States, despite interstate highways and non -interstate freeways and expressways accounting for 17% of speeding -related fatalities in 2014 (NCSA 2016a). Several benefits of point-to-point enforcement have been noted in relation to fixed or mobile ASE implementations. By enforcing the speed limit over a longer segment of roadway rather than at discrete points, drivers are encouraged to drive the speed limit over longer distances. 42 NTSB Safety Study In addition, point-to-point enforcement avoids the problem of drivers slowing prior to a known ASE site and then resuming an excessive speed after passing the camera (Lahrmann and others 2016). Although it has not been evaluated as extensively as other types of ASE, studies have shown that point-to-point enforcement provides safety benefits, including some advantages over fixed ASE units. A 2013 review of studies in Europe and Australia found that point-to-point enforcement generally reduces average speeds, 85th percentile speeds, speed variability, fatal crashes, and serious injury crashes (Soole, Watson, and Fleiter 2013). A 2014 review of 15 fixed ASE studies and 4 point-to-point enforcement studies found that point-to-point enforcement was slightly more effective in reducing crashes than fixed ASE, with fatal and serious injury crashes declining by 51 % for fixed ASE and 56% for point-to-point enforcement (Hoye 2014). Based on the experience of implementing point-to-point enforcement in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Austroads (the association of Australian and New Zealand transportation agencies) has developed best practices for point-to-point enforcement, which address operational, technological, legislative, evidentiary, public education, evaluation, and privacy considerations (Soole, Reiter, and Watson 2012). However, this guidance may not be completely appropriate in the United States, where point-to-point enforcement would potentially be subject to the same types of legal arguments that have been made against other types of automated enforcement. Best practices for point-to-point enforcement in the United States would help ensure that enforcement operations are conducted in a legally appropriate manner, but US federal guidelines for ASE do not include any information on point-to-point enforcement (FHWA and NHTSA 2008). The NTSB concludes that point-to-point speed enforcement has been shown to be an effective speeding countermeasure internationally, but it is not currently used in the United States. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FHWA work with NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. 3.4 Intelligent Speed Adaptation Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is a vehicle technology that studies have shown is effective at reducing speeding. ISA systems determine the speed limit in effect by comparing a vehicle's global positioning system (GPS) location against a database of posted speed limits and using onboard cameras to recognize speed limit signs (Goodwin and others 2015). The European Commission defines three levels of ISA (European Commission 2015): • Open ISA: An advisory system that issues visual or aural alerts to the driver when the speed limit is exceeded; the driver is responsible for slowing the vehicle. • Half -Open ISA: A system that increases back pressure on the accelerator when the speed limit is exceeded, making it more difficult (but not impossible) to exceed the speed limit. • Closed ISA: A system that electronically limits the speed of a vehicle, preventing drivers from exceeding the speed limit. 43 NTSB Safety Study The primary advantage of ISA compared to conventional speed limiters (also known as speed governors) is that the limiting speed is the posted speed limit in effect at a particular location, rather than a single, fixed speed. Conventional speed limiters have been voluntarily used by US commercial truck and bus fleets for their safety and fuel efficiency benefits, and other countries have required their use on trucks and buses since the 1990s (NTSB 2012). However, because conventional speed limiters cannot prevent speeding in locations where the speed limit is lower than the governed speed, the NTSB has previously recommended that heavy vehicles, including trucks, buses, and motorcoaches, be equipped with advanced speed -limiting technology such as ISA (NTSB 2012; NTSB 2015).63 3.4.1 Current Passenger Vehicle Implementations Many manufacturers offer Open ISA capabilities for the US passenger vehicle market. The earliest and most common implementations show the current speed limit on the vehicle's navigation display. Some of these systems also change the display when the speed limit is exceeded (for example, highlighting the speed limit in amber or red). More recently, manufacturers have started displaying these speed limit alerts within the driver's instrument cluster, or projecting the information onto the windshield on a head -up display. Third -party Open ISA systems are available for retrofit (Mobileye 2017). In addition, drivers may use portable electronic devices as their source of navigation and speed limit data. Increasingly, these devices can interface directly with passenger vehicles through capabilities such as Android Auto and Apple CarPlay (Google 2017; Apple 2017). Examples of currently available US vehicle capabilities related to ISA include the following: • On General Motors vehicles with a navigation system, the current GPS-derived speed limit can be displayed on the navigation display, within the instrument cluster, or on a head -up display if so equipped, but no warnings are issued when exceeding the limit. In addition, as part of General Motors' Teen Driver system, many General Motors vehicles can issue a visual warning and chime when a user -set speed (between 40 and 75 mph) is exceeded, and owners can also enable a speed limiter fixed to 85 mph (Chevrolet 2016). • On Toyota vehicles with a navigation system, the current GPS-derived speed limit can be displayed on the navigation display or in the instrument cluster. Drivers can also enable a yellow caution indicator that is displayed in the instrument cluster when the speed limit is exceeded (Toyota Motor Sales 2016). • Testa vehicles equipped with the Autopilot driver assistance system include an ISA capability called Speed Assist (Tesla Motors 2016). Speed Assist uses sign detection and GPS data (where no signs are present) to determine the current speed limit. If the driver has enabled Speed Assist, a speed limit sign is displayed on the instrument panel whenever a speed limit can be determined; when the speed limit (plus or minus a driver -specified offset) is exceeded, this speed limit sign enlarges and a chime optionally sounds.64 Speed Assist is also integrated with Testa's Traffic -Aware Cruise Control; when the driver pulls 63 NTSB Safety Recommendation H-12-21 to NHTSA is currently classified "Open —Acceptable Response." 64 Instead of basing the speed alerts on the posted speed limit, a driver can also manually specify a fixed speed between 20 and 140 mph for alerting. NTSB Safety Study and holds the cruise control lever, the cruising speed will be set to the Speed Assist speed. However, changes in posted speed limits are not automatically followed; the driver must pull the cruise lever again for the cruising speed to match a new speed limit. • On Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with the MyKey feature, drivers can activate a set of user -configured restricted driving modes when starting the vehicle with a MyKey. These modes include visual and aural warnings when a user -set speed is exceeded, and fixed speed limits of 65, 70, 75, or 80 mph, which are also accompanied by visual and aural warnings. Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with GPS can also display the current GPS-derived speed limit in the instrument cluster (Ford Motor Company 2016). • Audi vehicles equipped with GPS, sign -detecting cameras, and adaptive cruise control include a capability called Predictive Control. When Predictive Control is activated, the adaptive cruise control will adjust the vehicle's speed to match the currently detected speed limit, and it will automatically accelerate or decelerate the vehicle when a new speed limit is detected (Audi 2017). These features are often marketed toward teen drivers and their parents. Automobile manufacturers typically only make these features available for a subset of their models, and the purchase of certain option packages (such as those that include a GPS navigation system) may be required. The systems offered by automobile manufacturers in the United States do not yet meet the definitions of Half -Open or Closed ISA. However, third -party products are available for retrofit (Speedshield Technologies 2012). In addition, Half -Open ISA capabilities are offered by automobile manufacturers in other countries. For example, since 2015, the Ford S-Max has been sold in Europe with an optional Intelligent Speed Limiter. When activated by the driver using controls on the steering wheel, the vehicle is limited to speed limits detected via sign recognition. 65 If the driver fully depresses the accelerator, the speed limiter will turn off until the vehicle speed is again below the speed limit (Ford Motor Company 2015). 3.4.2 Effectiveness ISA has been studied extensively internationally, and to a lesser degree in the United States (Blomberg and others 2015; De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014; Regan and others 2006; Varhelyi and others 2004). These studies have generally found ISA to be effective in reducing speeding. For example, in a 2014 NHTSA study, 78 "chronic speeders" in Maryland drove with an Open ISA system for 4 weeks (De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014).66 The mean percentage of each trip that study participants drove over 8 mph above the posted speed limit decreased from 18% to 13% when the Open ISA system was used. 65 The driver can also specify an offset above or below the speed limit, so that the Intelligent Speed Limiter will, for example, limit the vehicle speed to the posted speed limit plus 5 mph. 66 Study participants had received at least three speeding violations in the 3 years before the study. 45 NTSB Safety Study In Lund, Sweden, 284 vehicles were equipped with a Half -Open ISA system for 5 to 11 months in 2000 (Varhelyi and others 2004). ISA usage resulted in statistically significant changes in mean speeds (decreasing between 0.9 and 3.7 kilometers per hour (km/h)) on four of the six road types examined in the study.67 Eighty-fifth percentile speeds on these road types decreased between 1.0 and 7.6 km/h, and speed variance also decreased. In a study published by NHTSA in 2015, a Half -Open ISA system was tested with 18- to 24-year-olds in Kalamazoo, Michigan, using a fixed course of six road segments with different speed limits (Blomberg and others 2015). The Half -Open ISA system showed statistically significant reductions in both speeding 5 or more mph over the speed limit and speed variance for five of the six segments.68 The NTSB concludes that ISA is an effective vehicle technology to reduce speeding. 3.4.3 Stakeholder Perceptions Most of the automobile manufacturers the NTSB interviewed for this study did not collect usage data for their Open ISA implementations. However, one manufacturer that offers an Open ISA system with visual warnings as a standard feature (defaulted to be active) reported that 3% of vehicle owners disable the feature. Another automobile manufacturer noted that a primary motivation for developing its Open ISA system capability was customer interest. When asked about equipping vehicles with more restrictive Half -Open or Closed ISA systems, the automobile manufacturers interviewed for this study all indicated that it was technically feasible. However, they also expressed several concerns, including limitations of sign -detection cameras and speed limit databases, a desire to retain the ability to exceed the speed limit in emergency situations, and the need to support customers who operate their vehicles off public roads (for example, people who use their vehicles for racing). 3.4.4 Performance and Equipage The effectiveness of a particular ISA system depends on its underlying speed limit detection technology. For those systems that rely on GPS maps, the speed limit data must be complete, accurate, and timely. However, many vehicle map databases are updated infrequently and typically require owners to take action to purchase updated data. For example, navigation maps for Honda vehicles are typically updated once per year, and these updates cost about $150 (HERE 2016). Although the automobile manufacturers interviewed for this study could not provide quantitative data, they all estimated that the number of vehicle owners regularly purchasing map updates is quite low. For those systems that rely on sign -detecting cameras, performance is dependent on weather conditions, lighting conditions, obstructions (such as vegetation or other vehicles), speed limit sign format, and sign placement. However, the impact of these factors on the performance of 67 The four road types with statistically significant changes were arterials with speed limits between 50 and 70 km/h, and a "main street" with a speed limit of 50 km/h. The remaining two road types (a "main street, mixed traffic' with a 50 km/h speed limit and a "central street" with a 30 km/h speed limit) did not show significant differences between ISA-active and inactive test conditions. 68 Traffic congestion on the sixth segment limited the opportunities to speed. M NTSB Safety Study ISA systems is difficult to quantitatively assess, because ISA performance standards do not exist. Most manufacturers only provide a list of qualitative ISA performance disclaimers in their owner's manuals. For example, the Tesla Model S owner's manual states that owners should "not rely on Speed Assist to determine the appropriate speed limit" (Tesla Motors 2016). Finally, ISA must actively be used to be effective. Several studies that measured driving behavior before, during, and after the ISA test phase have found that speeding reverts to (or close to) pre-ISA levels once the system is turned off (Blomberg and others 2015; De Leonardis, Huey, and Robinson 2014). In addition, several subjects in a Half -Open ISA study were able to speed by pushing harder on the accelerator pedal, accelerating beyond the speed limit, and then coasting above the speed limit (Blomberg and others 2015). These observations highlight the importance of defaulting any passenger vehicle ISA implementations to be activated/on and of limiting the ability of drivers to disable or defeat the system. One way to incentivize manufacturers to include advanced safety capabilities that satisfy minimum performance standards in their vehicles is through crash testing and safety rating programs. In the United States, these include NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) (NHTSA 2016b) and the IIHS "Top Safety Pick" awards (IIHS 2016b). The European NCAP includes ISA as a rating factor and provides test protocols for evaluating a manufacturer's ISA implementation (Euro NCAP 2015). However, ISA is not incorporated into the US NCAP. One automobile manufacturer interviewed for this study stated that the inclusion of ISA in the European NCAP was a primary reason why an ISA capability was developed for its vehicles sold in Europe. In addition, safety ratings programs like the NCAP have been shown to increase sales of high -rated vehicles relative to lower -rated vehicles (IIHS 2013). The NTSB concludes that new car safety ratings are effective in incentivizing consumers to purchase passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems. The NTSB therefore recommends that NHTSA incentivize passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt ISA systems by, for example, including ISA in the NCAP. 3.5 National Leadership In interviews the NTSB conducted, national, state, and local traffic safety stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that —unlike other crash factors such as alcohol impairment or unbelted occupants —speeding has few negative social consequences associated with it, and it does not have a leader campaigning to increase public awareness about the issue at the national level. Stakeholders further stated that they thought the dangers of speeding are not well -publicized, that society therefore underappreciates the risks of speeding, and that the resulting complacency among drivers has led to speeding becoming a common behavior even though surveys indicate that drivers generally disapprove of other drivers speeding. Stakeholders also expressed the belief that, to gradually change public perceptions of speeding, a coordinated effort among safety advocacy groups, with strong leadership from the federal government, is needed. This section describes several ways that national organizations can take a greater leadership role in addressing speeding. 47 NTSB Safety Study 3.5.1 Traffic Safety Campaigns and Public Awareness Traffic safety campaigns use communications and outreach to increase public awareness of a traffic safety topic. When campaigns also include increased enforcement, they have been shown to be highly effective countermeasures for several traffic safety issues, such as impaired driving and occupant protection (Goodwin and others 2015). For example, a key component of the NHTSA-coordinated campaign to increase seat belt usage is "Click It or Ticket," an annual, 2-week enforcement mobilization that has been conducted nationally since 2003 (Hinch, Solomon, and Tison 2014). NHTSA has stated that traffic safety campaigns for speeding show promise; however, the safety benefits have varied greatly among campaigns that have been studied (Goodwin and others 2015). For example, pilot tests of two campaigns in Peoria and Phoenix, Arizona, showed 17 and 3 1 % increases, respectively, in the proportion of drivers complying with the posted speed limit, and 14 and 29% decreases, respectively, in the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit by 7 mph or more (Blomberg and Cleven 2006). Also, a 4-week trial of increased speeding enforcement in London in 2008 found that 85th percentile speeds decreased by 1.9 mph on the targeted section of roadway, and 1.1 mph at nearby sites not subject to increased enforcement. There were also greater reductions at those sites where pre-trial mean speeds were highest, and the reductions persisted for 2 weeks after the trial concluded (Walter, Broughton, and Knowles 2011). In contrast, a study of two 6-month campaigns focusing on aggressive driving in Tucson, Arizona, and Marion County, Indiana, found that the proportion of crashes related to aggressive driving decreased by 8% during the Tucson campaign but increased by 6% during the Marion County campaign (Stuster 2004). The varying benefits of these traffic safety campaigns for speeding can be explained by two factors: inconsistent implementations and low levels of awareness of the campaigns among drivers. For example, the Marion County campaign relied on overtime hours by 42 officers from six different law enforcement agencies, operating on average 1 out of every 3 days, whereas the Tucson campaign used two full-time and two part-time officers who operated almost every day. These two campaigns also differed in their relative expenditures for labor, equipment, and publicity, and in their focus on single or multiple traffic violations. In a survey conducted after the Peoria and Phoenix campaigns, 26% of neighborhood residents mentioned the campaigns' "Heed the Speed" slogan. In contrast, a 2012 survey of the long -running national occupant protection campaign found that 85% of respondents were aware of its "Click It or Ticket" slogan (Hinch, Solomon, and Tison 2014). Research has shown that the communications component of a traffic safety campaign increases safety benefits. One review of 67 studies on traffic safety campaigns in 12 countries found that public information and education reduced crashes by 9% on average (Phillips, Ulleberg, and Vaa 2011). A study of an ASE program in North Carolina likewise found that 8 to 9% of the crash reduction effects were due to media coverage of the program (Moon and Hummer 2010). These results highlight the importance of public media efforts to the success of traffic safety campaigns. NHTSA, through its Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) group, provides marketing materials and advice for states to use in developing traffic safety campaigns, and coordinates national traffic NTSB Safety Study safety events (NHTSA 2016c). Table 8 shows the traffic safety events that NHTSA sponsored in 2016, including three national enforcement mobilizations, which addressed distraction, occupant protection, and alcohol impairment. None of the events addressed speeding. Table 8. 2016 NHTSATraffic Safety Marketing events Event Type Date(s) April Official Month May July August May 29-June 4 Official Week September 18-24 October 16-22 April 8-13 National Enforcement May 16-30 Mobilization August 17-September 5 Description (Slogan) National Distracted Driving Awareness Month Bicycle Safety Month Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month Vehicle Theft Prevention Month Back to School Safety Month Tire Safety Week Child Passenger Safety Week National Teen Driver Safety Week Distracted Driving (U Drive. U Text. U Pay.) Occupant Protection (Click It or Ticket) Impaired Driving (Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over) Super Bowl, St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, Holiday with Fourth of July, Halloween, Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Emphasis Holiday Season (November 25-Jan 1) Thanksgiving Occupant Protection Although NHTSA does not currently coordinate any national activities related to speeding, TSM does make available marketing materials that state and local agencies can use in their own campaigns, using the slogans "Stop Speeding Before It Stops You" and "Obey the Sign or Pay the Fine" (NHTSA 2016c). However, in the absence of a national speeding campaign, there is incomplete participation among states, and little consistency among the individual state campaigns. A 2011 study found that 32 states funded public awareness efforts for speeding; 25 of these states reported using a total of 30 different campaign slogans, and 8 states used the NHTSA slogans (GHSA 2012). In contrast, all 50 states participate in the national occupant protection campaign, and they all use the campaign's "Click It or Ticket" slogan. Participation in the NHTSA-coordinated, national traffic safety campaigns is high because states are required to participate in order to receive some federal highway safety grant funds. For example, under the Highway Safety Program, each state must "provide satisfactory assurances" that the state will implement all "national law enforcement mobilizations and high -visibility law enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the Secretary" of Transportation (23 USC section 402). In addition, a state is only eligible to receive National Priority Safety Programs occupant protection grants if it "participates in the Click It or Ticket national mobilization" (23 USC section 405). During NTSB interviews with stakeholders, including safety advocates, state transportation officials, and officers, the lack of a national traffic safety campaign was cited as a NTSB Safety Study key issue hindering the effective implementation of speeding prevention programs in the United States. The GHSA has also called for NHTSA to "sponsor a national high visibility enforcement campaign and support public awareness efforts to address the issues of speed and aggressive driving" (GHSA 2012). The NTSB concludes that traffic safety campaigns that include highly publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding countermeasure, but their inconsistent and infrequent use by states hinders their effectiveness. Despite the lack of a national speeding campaign, recently developed national efforts to achieve zero US traffic fatalities (called Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths) recognize the impact of speeding on traffic safety. For example, the Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee consists of eight "organizations and agencies that own, operate, enforce and maintain our nation's roads" with technical support from the FHWA, the FMCSA, and NHTSA.69 The committee has developed Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety, which identifies six strategies to move toward safer drivers and passengers: increasing seat belt use, reducing speeding -related fatalities, reducing impaired driving, reducing driver distraction, increasing the safety of teen drivers, and increasing the safety of older drivers (The Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee 2014). Except for the topics of speeding and older drivers, all of these strategies have NHTSA-coordinated traffic safety events. The international traffic safety community has also recognized speeding as an important problem to address. For example, speeding is included in the United Nations' Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020, and the Fourth United Nations Global Road Safety Week (May 8-14, 2017) focused on speed management (WHO 2011; WHO 2017). However, this level of importance is not reflected in the schedule of national traffic safety events coordinated by NHTSA. The NTSB concludes that the current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted and insufficient to achieve the goal of zero traffic fatalities in the United States. In October 2016, NHTSA, along with the FHWA and FMCSA, joined the National Safety Council (NSC) to launch the "Road to Zero" initiative and coalition (NHTSA 2016d). The purpose of the initiative is "to eliminate traffic fatalities within 30 years" (National Safety Council 2017). This growing coalition has over 200 members with a steering committee that includes the three aforementioned DOT agencies, the NSC, AASHTO, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and others. All of these organizations have their own diverse initiatives and programs to increase traffic safety in the United States. Also, safety advocacy organizations have had success in developing, launching, and implementing nationwide public awareness, education, and media efforts. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited to, initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding drivers. 69 The eight organizations on the Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee are the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AASHTO, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the GHSA, the IACP, the National Association of County Engineers, the National Association of State Emergency Medical Service Officials, and the National Local Technical Assistance Program Association. 50 NTSB Safety Study 3.5.2 Funding for Speed Management Programs Another way to increase public awareness of speeding as a traffic safety issue is by providing states incentives to be more engaged in addressing speeding. As discussed in section 2.7, the three primary federal -aid programs for traffic safety are the Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Program, and National Priority Safety Programs. The latter two both fund non -engineering (that is, behavioral) countermeasures, but their funding methods differ in several important ways. Highway Safety Program grants are allocated based on the population and road miles in each state, and these funds can be spent on any of 10 different focus areas (of which speeding is one) according to a state's Highway Safety Plan. It is not possible to determine, at the national level, how these grants are designated for speeding. In contrast, National Priority Safety Programs funds are directed toward seven different priority areas, the funding level for each priority area (rather than the overall total) is established by Congress, and each priority area has specific eligibility requirements that incentivize states to conduct particular traffic safety activities.70 Speeding is not one of the seven priority areas. Table 9 shows how funds for these programs were allocated in fiscal year 2016. Table 9. Federal funds allocated to states for behavioral traffic safety programs, fiscal year 2016 Allocated Fundsb Program Focus/Priority Area Amount ($) % Highway Safety Program (All Grants) 260,034,506 44.8 Impaired Drivinga 231,558,630 39.9 Occupant Protection 43,136,833 7.4 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 39,016,291 6.7 National Priority Motorcycle Safety 4,075,075 0.7 Safety Programs Distracted Driving 2,334,950 0.4 Graduated Driver Licensing 0 0.0 Nonmotorized Safety n/a n/a Total $580,156,285 100.0 Source: GHSA a Includes open container (23 CFR Part 154) and repeat offender (23 CFR Part 164) funds. b Excludes Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Indian Nations. Nonmotorized Safety was added as a priority area with the passage of the FAST Act in 2015, and Nonmotorized Safety grants were first awarded in fiscal year 2017. 70 For example, to receive occupant protection funds, all states must meet certain criteria, including participating in the "Click It or Ticket" national campaign. However, states with lower rates of seat belt use must meet additional criteria and their use of the funds is restricted to particular activities involving enforcement, child safety seats, and information systems (23 CFR Part 405). Thereby, National Priority Safety Program grants encourage states with lower safety performance to take specific actions to improve their outcomes in each priority area. 51 NTSB Safety Study The Highway Safety Program allows states significant leeway to spend funds according to their particular traffic safety priorities, including speeding; it does not provide a means to encourage states to focus on national priorities. In contrast, National Priority Safety Program grants are specifically designed to encourage states to focus additional traffic safety efforts in areas of national importance, but these funds currently cannot be used for speed management. The NTSB concludes that current federal -aid programs do not require or incentivize states to fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries. Thus, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA establish a program to incentivize state and local speed management activities. 3.5.3 DOT Cross -Agency Coordination In 2005, the DOT Speed Management Team produced a strategic plan to reduce speeding -related fatalities; that plan was updated in 2014 (DOT 2005; DOT 2014). The 2014 Speed Management Program Plan includes 71 planned actions to be completed within 5 years in the areas of data and data -driven approaches, research and evaluation, technology, enforcement and adjudication, engineering, and education and communications. Twenty-nine of the actions are in "priority areas that warrant immediate, more focused attention," and 22 of the actions are carryovers from the 2005 plan (DOT 2014). The focus areas in the Speed Management Program Plan address several of the same safety issues identified in this study, and the planned actions complement the recommendations the NTSB makes as a result. For example, actions related to ASE include developing a model contract for states and municipalities to use when working with a vendor, and identifying "practices that contribute to public acceptance and reinforce fairness" of ASE (DOT 2014). Additionally, actions related to a national traffic safety campaign for speeding include evaluating the existing communications materials, developing new creative concepts, and launching a new communications campaign. However, progress on the Speed Management Program Plan actions has been slow. Table 10 shows the status of the 71 planned actions as of December 2016, which members of the Speed Management Team manually compiled in response to the NTSB's request. Halfway through the 5-year plan timeline, 8 of the 71 planned actions have been completed, 35 are ongoing, 25 have yet to start, and 3 actions have been discontinued due to the MAP-21 prohibition on using federal grant funds for ASE. 52 NTSB Safety Study Table 10. Status of DOT Speed Management Program Plan actions as of December 2016 All Actions Priority Actions Status Number % Number % Discontinued 3 4.2 0 0.0 Pending 25 35.2 7 24.1 Ongoing 35 49.3 18 62.1 Completed 8 11.3 4 13.8 Total 71 100.0 29 100.0 Source: DOT Speed Management Team Members of the DOT Speed Management Team stated that there is no one responsible for tracking the overall progress of the planned actions or ensuring that they are incorporated into DOT agency work plans. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the DOT Speed Management Program Plan identifies important actions to reduce speeding -related fatalities, but the DOT has not tracked or ensured the timely implementation of these actions. Consequently, the NTSB recommends that the DOT complete the actions called for in its 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, and periodically publish status reports on the progress it has made. 53 NTSB Safety Study 4 Conclusions 4.1 Findings 1. Speed increases the likelihood of serious and fatal crash involvement, although the exact relationship is complex due to many factors. 2. Speed increases the injury severity of a crash. 3. Drivers report understanding that speeding is a threat to safety but acknowledge it is a common driving behavior in the United States. 4. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices guidance for setting speed limits in speed zones is based on the 85th percentile speed, but there is not strong evidence that, within a given traffic flow, the 85th percentile speed equates to the speed with the lowest crash involvement rate on all road types. 5. Unintended consequences of the reliance on using the 85th percentile speed for changing speed limits in speed zones include higher operating speeds and new, higher 85th percentile speeds in the speed zones, and an increase in operating speeds outside the speed zones. 6. Expert systems such as USLIMITS2 can improve the setting of speed limits by allowing traffic engineers to systematically incorporate crash statistics and other factors in addition to the 85th percentile speed, and to validate their engineering studies. 7. The safe system approach to setting speed limits in urban areas is an improvement over conventional approaches because it considers the vulnerability of all road users. 8. Speeding -related performance measures are needed to determine the effectiveness of data -driven, high -visibility enforcement programs and to communicate the value of these programs to law enforcement officers and the public. 9. The involvement of speeding passenger vehicles in fatal crashes is underestimated. 10. The lack of consistent law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes hinders the effective implementation of data -driven speed enforcement programs. 11. Automated speed enforcement is an effective countermeasure to reduce speeding -related crashes, fatalities, and injuries. 12. The lack of state -level automated speed enforcement (ASE) enabling legislation, and restrictions on the use of ASE in states where legislation exists, have led to underuse of this effective speeding countermeasure. 13. Federal guidelines for automated speed enforcement (ASE) programs do not reflect the latest technologies and operating practices and are not very effective because their existence is not well known among the ASE program administrators. 54 NTSB Safety Study 14. Point-to-point speed enforcement has been shown to be an effective speeding countermeasure internationally, but it is not currently used in the United States. 15. Intelligent speed adaptation is an effective vehicle technology to reduce speeding. 16. New car safety ratings are effective in incentivizing consumers to purchase passenger vehicles with advanced safety systems. 17. Traffic safety campaigns that include highly publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding countermeasure, but their inconsistent and infrequent use by states hinders their effectiveness. 18. The current level of emphasis on speeding as a national traffic safety issue is lower than warranted and insufficient to achieve the goal of zero traffic fatalities in the United States. 19. Current federal -aid programs do not require or incentivize states to fund speed management activities at a level commensurate with the national impact of speeding on fatalities and injuries. 20. The US Department of Transportation (DOT) Speed Management Program Plan identifies important actions to reduce speeding -related fatalities, but the DOT has not tracked or ensured the timely implementation of these actions. 55 NTSB Safety Study 5 Recommendations As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations: To the US Department of Transportation: Complete the actions called for in your 2014 Speed Management Program Plan, and periodically publish status reports on the progress you have made. (H-17-18) To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Identify speeding -related performance measures to be used by local law enforcement agencies, including —but not limited to —the numbers and locations of speeding -related crashes of different injury severity levels, speeding citations, and warnings, and establish a consistent method for evaluating data -driven, high -visibility enforcement programs to reduce speeding. Disseminate the performance measures and evaluation method to local law enforcement agencies. (H-17-19) Identify best practices for communicating with law enforcement officers and the public about the effectiveness of data -driven, high -visibility enforcement programs to reduce speeding, and disseminate the best practices to local law enforcement agencies. (H-17-20) Work with the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. (H-17-21) Work with the Federal Highway Administration to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest automated speed enforcement (ASE) technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators. (H-17-22) Work with the Federal Highway Administration to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. (H-17-23) Incentivize passenger vehicle manufacturers and consumers to adopt intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) systems by, for example, including ISA in the New Car Assessment Program. (H-17-24) 56 NTSB Safety Study Collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding as a national traffic safety issue. The program should include, but not be limited to, initiating an annual enforcement mobilization directed at speeding drivers. (H-17-25) Establish a program to incentivize state and local speed management activities. (H-17-26) To the Federal Highway Administration: Revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices so that the factors currently listed as optional for all engineering studies are required, require that an expert system such as USLIMITS2 be used as a validation tool, and remove the guidance that speed limits in speed zones should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. (H-17-27) Revise Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to, at a minimum, incorporate the safe system approach for urban roads to strengthen protection for vulnerable road users. (H-17-28) Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines to reflect the latest automated speed enforcement (ASE) technologies and operating practices, and promote the updated guidelines among ASE program administrators. (H-17-29) Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to assess the effectiveness of point-to-point speed enforcement in the United States and, based on the results of that assessment, update the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, as appropriate. (H-17-30) To the seven states prohibiting automated speed enforcement: Amend current laws to authorize state and local agencies to use automated speed enforcement. (H-17-31) To the 28 states without automated speed enforcement laws: Authorize state and local agencies to use automated speed enforcement. (H-17-32) To the 15 states with automated speed enforcement restrictions: Amend current laws to remove operational and location restrictions on the use of automated speed enforcement, except where such restrictions are necessary to align with best practices. (H-17-33) 57 NTSB Safety Study To the Governors Highway Safety Association: Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. (H-17-34) To the International Association of Chiefs of Police: Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. (H-17-35) To the National Sheriffs' Association: Work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to develop and implement a program to increase the adoption of speeding -related Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline data elements and improve consistency in law enforcement reporting of speeding -related crashes. (H-17-36) BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD ROBERT L. SUMWALT, III Acting Chairman Adopted: July 25, 2017 CHRISTOPHER A. HART Member EARL F. WEENER Member T. BELLA DINH-ZARR Member NTSB Safety Study Board Member Statement Member T. Bella Dinh-Zarr filed the following statement on August 1, 2017, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Speeding has long been an important but difficult safety issue to address. This publication is the first study on speeding undertaken by the NTSB in our 50-year history. I commend staff for proposing and completing this study and for their careful analysis of current research. As staff explained in response to my questions during the Board Meeting, this study was meant to cover certain aspects of speeding and certain solutions. Nevertheless, although it does not appear in the Executive Summary and Conclusions, it is important to underscore that the full report does briefly review two topics of great interest and importance: road design and vulnerable road users. I would like to further discuss these issues and their importance to speeding and to preventing speeding -related deaths and injuries. Road design is integral to the analysis of speeding and, while the report focuses on countermeasures that staff considered less widely accepted, it is important to note that road design to address speed -related crashes is not yet widely implemented, but should be. Some states (and other types of jurisdictions such as cities and counties) are already addressing speed -related crashes using road design, by using FARS data related to infrastructure and other data -driven measures. Other states can learn from them. Some states, as I have seen first-hand, are already including speed as an emphasis area in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP). Some jurisdictions are using AASHTO's Green Book and other design manuals and some jurisdictions are using road design features that enhance compliance for lower speed limits rather than simply lowering speed limits. Federal government agencies can, and should, be given the ability to foster these types of best practices in which jurisdictions take a systemic approach to identifying locations prone to speeding -related crashes and correcting them in the manner they have determined is most effective using data. Although this report focuses on passenger vehicles, current discussions about speeding must necessarily include people who walk and bike. The safe systems approach discussed in the report incorporates the needs of all road users, especially vulnerable ones. It is widely acknowledged among road safety professionals that interventions that prevent the deaths of the most vulnerable road users will benefit all road users. Some states and other jurisdictions have acknowledged this safety tenet by including pedestrians and cyclists in their SHSPs. Other jurisdictions should be encouraged to follow these best practice examples. Overall, it is important to recognize that states, cities, and other jurisdictions already may be addressing speed in effective ways — even if we were not able to include it in our report due to the focus. Automated speed enforcement (ASE) was covered thoroughly in the report and three different recommendations were made to states, depending on the status of their laws related to ASE. I proposed, and still strongly believe, that combining the 3 recommendations into one recommendation to all 50 states and D.C. to examine current laws and implement ASE "to the fullest extent possible" would allow each state to advance ASE and safety most effectively, rather than focusing simply on reducing the prohibitions to ASE. By allowing states the freedom to be creative in implementing an effective technology (such as ASE), we are giving states a proven 59 NTSB Safety Study safety tool rather than prescriptively telling states how to use it. States (and other jurisdictions) know their communities best and our safety recommendations should give them the information and the freedom to advance safety in the manner they choose. M NTSB Safety Study Appendixes Appendix A: Speeding -Related National Transportation Safety Board Investigations Table A-1 lists 49 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) major highway investigations in which speeding or speed was found to be a safety issue, or a causal or contributing factor. Table A-1. Speeding -related NTSB major highway investigations Date Location Description Report Number 6/25/2015 Chattanooga, TN Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 75 HAR-16/01 6/7/2014 Cranbury, NJ Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95 HAR-15/02 2/16/2012 Chesterfield, NJ School Bus and Truck Collision at Intersection HAR-13/01 3/12/2011 New York City, NY Motorcoach Run -Off -the -Road and Collision with HAR-12/01 Vertical Highway Signpost, Interstate 95 Southbound 1/6/2008 Mexican Hat, UT Motorcoach Rollover HAR-09/01 10/1/2003 Hampshire, IL Multivehicle Collision on Interstate 90, Hampshire- HAR-06/03 Marengo Toll Plaza 5/1/2003 Linden, NJ Passenger Vehicle Median Crossover and Head -On HAR-06/02 with Another Passenger Vehicle 2/14/2003 Hewitt, TX Motorcoach Median Crossover and Collision with Sport HAR-05/02 Utility Vehicle 1/17/2003 Fairfield, CT Multiple Vehicle Collision on Interstate 95 HAR-05/03 2/1/2002 Largo, MD Ford Explorer Sport Collision with Ford Windstar HAR-03/02 Minivan and Jeep Grand Cherokee on Interstate 95/495 10/13/2001 Omaha, NE School Bus Run -Off -Bridge Accident HAR-04/01 2/12/1997 Slinger, WI Multiple Vehicle Crossover Accident HAR-98/01 1/9/1995 Menifee, AR Multiple Vehicle Collision with Fire During Fog near HAR-95/03 Milepost 118 on Interstate 40 12/11/1990 Calhoun, TN Multiple -Vehicle Collisions and Fire During Limited HAR-92/02 Visibility on Interstate 75 7/26/1990 Sutton, WV Multiple Vehicle Collision and Fire in a Work Zone on HAR-91/01 Interstate Highway 79 11/19/1988 Nashville, TN Greyhound Lines, Inc., Intercity Bus Loss of Control and HAR-89/03 Overturn Interstate Highway 95 5/4/1987 Beaumont, TX Tractor-Semitrailer/Intercity Bus Head -On Collision, HAR-88/01 Interstate 10 9/29/1986 Carney's Point, NJ Charter Bus/Tractor-Semitrailer Rear -End Collision HAR-87/03 7/14/1986 Brinkley, AR Trailways Lines, Inc., Intercity Bus Collision with Rising HAR-87/05 Fast Trucking Company, Inc., Interstate Highway 40 5/30/1986 Walker, CA Intercity Tour Bus Loss of Control and Rollover Into the HAR-87/04 West Walker River 61 NTSB Safety Study Date Location Description Report Number Schoolbus Loss of Control and Collision with Guard Rail 11/11/1985 St. Louis County, MO and Sign Pillar, US Highway 70 near Lucas and Hunt HAR-87/02 Road 8/25/1985 Frederick, MD Intercity Bus Loss of Control and Collision with Bridge HAR-87/01 Rail on Interstate 70 6/21/1985 Van Buren, AR Tractor-Semitrailer/Station Wagon Runaway, Collision, HAR-86/03 and Fire 11/30/1983 Livingston, TX Trailways Lines, Inc., Bus/E.A. Holder, Inc., Truck, Rear HAR-84/04 End Collision and Bus Run -Off -Bridge, US Route 59 Valley Supply Co. Truck Towing Farm Plow/Anchor 4/5/1983 Holmesville, NY Motor Freight Inc. Car Carrier Truck/New York State HAR-84/01 Association for Retarded Children Bus Collision and Fire, State Route 8 3/25/1983 Newport, AR Jonesboro School District Schoolbus Run -Off -Road and HAR-83/03 Overturn, State Highway 214 at State Highway 18 2/28/1983 Ocala, FL Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fires Under Limited HAR-83/04 Visibility Conditions, Interstate Route 75 10/8/1982 Lemoore, CA J.C. Sales, Inc., Tractor-Semi-Trailer/Calvary Baptist HAR-83/02 Church Van Collision, State Route 198 at 19th Avenue 4/7/1982 Oakland, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fire, Caldecott Tunnel HAR-83/01 Pacific Intermountain Express Tractor Cargo Tank 11/14/1981 Canon City, UT Semitrailer Eagle/F.B. Truck Lines, Inc., Tractor Lowboy HAR-82/03 Semitrailer Collision and Fire, US Route 50 2/18/1981 Frostburg, MD Direct Transit Lines, Inc., Tractor-Semitrailer/Multiple HAR-81/03 Vehicle Collision and Fire, US Route 40 11/10/1980 San Bernardino, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions and Fire in Fog, Interstate 50 HAR-81/02 2/23/1980 Perry, OK ad -On Collision of Auto and Pickup Truck, US Route HAR-80/04 64 9/22/1979 Indiana, PA Two -Vehicle Collision and Fire, US Route 422 HAR-80/03 8/22/1979 Laramie, WY Multiple Vehicle Collision in a Construction Zone, US HAR-80/01 Interstate 80 6/8/1979 New York, NY Multiple Vehicle Median Barrier Crossover and HAR-79/08 Collision, Grand Central Parkway 4/23/1979 Crofton, MD Ford Courier Pickup Truck/Fixed Object Collision, HAR-79/06 Patuxent Road 11/11/1978 Alhambra, CA Stationwagon Penetration of Bridgerail, 1-10 HAR-79/05 8/22/1978 Littleton, NH Ross Ambulance Service, Ambulance Overturn, State HAR-79/04 Route 116 Gateway Transportation Company, Inc., Tractor- 9/25/1977 St. Louis, MO Semitrailer Penetration of Median Barrier and Collision HAR-79/03 with Automobile, 1-70 9/24/1977 Beattyville, KY Usher Transport, Inc., Tractor -Cargo -Tank -Semitrailer HAR-78/04 Overturn and Fire, State Route 11 Transport Company of Texas, Tractor Semitrailer (Tank) 5/11/1976 Houston, TX Collision with Bridge Column and Sudden Dispersal of HAR-77/01 Anhydrous Ammonia Cargo 62 NTSB Safety Study Date Location Description Report Number 12/4/1975 Seattle, WA Union Oil Company of California, Tank Truck and Full HAR-76/07 Trailer Overturn and Fire 6/6/1975 Hamilton, GA Collision of Hubert Roten Trucking Company Truck and HAR-76/05 Skinner Corporation Bus 2/28/1975 Corona, CA Multiple Vehicle Collisions in Fog HAR-75/07 7/11/1970 San Francisco, CA Two Car Collision, Southern Approach to Golden Gate HAR-71/05 Bridge 11/29/1969 New Jersey Turnpike, NJ Multiple Vehicle Collisions Under Fog Conditions, HAR-71/03 Followed by Fires 11/24/1969 Petersburg, IN Interstate Bus/Automobile Collision and Rollover on HAR-71/04 Indiana Route 57 8/12/1967 Joliet, IL Motor Carrier Highway Accident HAR-1967 63 NTSB Safety Study Appendix B: Road Function Classifications This appendix summarizes the Federal Highway Administration guidance on road function classification for arterial, collector, and local roads, and provides the corresponding attributes of the "road _fnc" data element in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database (FHWA 2013; NHTSA 2015a). Arterials Arterials are roadways that provide a high level of mobility, primarily serve long-distance travel, are typically designed as either access -controlled or partially access -controlled, and have higher posted speed limits than most other types of roads. Principal arterials and minor arterials are subcategories of arterials. Principal arterials include interstates (which are access -controlled), other freeways and expressways (which look very similar to interstates and are also access -controlled), and other principal arterials (which are unlike interstates and other freeways and expressways in that abutting land uses can be served directly). Table B-1 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of principal arterials by land use. Table B-1. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for principal arterials, by land use Principal Arterials Roadway Characteristics FARS "road fnc" Attributes Land Use Urban • Serve major activity centers, highest traffic volume corridors and longest trip demands • Carry high proportion of total urban travel on minimum of mileage • Interconnect and provide continuity for major rural corridors to accommodate trips entering and leaving urban area and movements through the urban area • Serve demand for intra-area travel between the central business district and outlying residential areas • Interstates (11) • Other freeways and expressways (12) • Other principal arterials (13) Rural • Serve corridor movements having trip length and travel density characteristics indicative of substantial statewide or interstate travel • Connect all or nearly all urbanized areas and a large majority of urban clusters with 25,000 and over population • Provide an integrated network of continuous routes without stub connections (that is, dead ends) • Interstates 0 ) • Other principal arterials (2) M NTSB Safety Study Minor arterials provide service for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their principal arterial counterparts, and offer connectivity to the principal arterial system. Table B-2 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of minor arterials by land use. Table B-2. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor arterials, by land use Minor Arterials Roadway Characteristics FARS "road_fnc" Attributes Land Use Urban • Interconnect and augment the higher -level arterials • Serve trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials • Distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas than those served by higher -level arterials • Provide more land access than principal arterials without penetrating identifiable neighborhoods • Provide urban connections for rural collectors • Minor arterial (14) Rural Link cities and larger towns (and other major destinations such as resorts capable of attracting travel over long distances) and form an integrated network providing interstate and inter -county service Be spaced at intervals, consistent with population density, so that all developed areas within the state are within a reasonable distance of an arterial roadway Provide service to corridors with trip lengths and travel density greater than those served by rural collectors and local roads and with relatively high travel speeds and minimum interference to through movement • Minor arterial (3) 65 NTSB Safety Study Collectors Collectors provide a balanced blend of mobility and access; collect traffic from local roads; connect traffic to arterial roadways; and provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial, industrial, and civic districts. Major collectors and minor collectors are subcategories of collectors. Table B-3 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for major collectors by land use. Table B-4 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor collectors by land use. Table B-3. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for major collectors, by land use Major Collectors Roadway Characteristics FARS "road_fnc" Attributes Land Use Urban • Serve both land access and traffic circulation in higher density residential, and commercial/industrial areas • Penetrate residential neighborhoods, often for significant distances • Distribute and channel trips between local roads and arterials, usually over a distance of greater than three-quarters of a mile • Operating characteristics include higher speeds and more signalized intersections • Collector (15) Rural • Provide service to any county seat not on an arterial route, to the larger towns not directly served by the higher systems and to other traffic generators of equivalent intra-county importance such as consolidated schools, shipping points, county parks, and important mining and agricultural areas • Link these places with nearby larger towns and cities or with arterial routes • Serve the most important intra-county travel corridors • Major collector (4) Table B-4. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes for minor collectors, by land use Minor Collectors Roadway Characteristics FARS "road_fnc" Attributes Land Use Urban • Serve both land access and traffic circulation in lower density residential and commercial/industrial areas • Penetrate residential neighborhoods, often only for a short distance • Distribute and channel trips between local roads and arterials, usually over a distance of less than three-quarters of a mile • Operating characteristics include lower speeds and fewer signalized intersections • Collector (15) Rural • Be spaced at intervals, consistent with population density, to collect traffic from local roads and bring all developed areas within reasonable distance of a collector • Provide service to smaller communities not served by a higher -class facility • Link locally important traffic generators with their rural hinterlands • Minor collector (5) NTSB Safety Study Locals Local roadways provide a high level of accessibility and direct access to multiple properties. They are lined with intersecting access points and constitute the mileage not classified as part of the arterial or collector systems. Speed limits on local roads are kept low to promote safe traffic operations. Table B-5 shows roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of locals, by land use. Table B-5. Roadway characteristics and FARS attributes of locals, by land use Land Use Locals Urban Rural • Provide direct access to adjacent land • Serve primarily to provide access to Roadway Provide access to higher systems adjacent land Characteristics Carry no through traffic movement • Provide service to travel over short distances as compared to higher classification categories FARS "road_fnc" Local road and street (16) • Local road and street (6) Attributes 67 NTSB Safety Study Appendix C: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Speed Limit Guidance This appendix includes Section 2B.13 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which serves as the standard for setting speed limits in speed zones (FHWA 2O12a). Page 56 2009 Edition 02 Highway agencies may develop and apply criteria for determining the applicability of In -Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. Standard: 03 If used, the In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed in the roadway at the crosswalk location on the center line, on a lane line, or on a median island. The In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be post -mounted on the left. hand or right-hand side of the roadway. 04 If used, the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be placed over the roadway at the crosswalk location. 05 An In -Street or Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be placed in advance of the crosswalk to educate road users about the Stale law prior to reaching the crosswalk, nor shall it be installed as an educational display that is not near any crosswalk. Guidance: ac If an island (see Chapter .31) is availably the In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, if used, should be placed on the island. Option: 07 If a Pedestrian Crossing (Wll-2) warning sign is used in combination with an In -Street or an Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign, the W11-2 sign with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (Wt6-7P) plaque may be post -mounted on the right-hand side of the roadway at the crosswalk location. Standard: oa The In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign and the Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall not be used at signalized locations. 08 The STOP FOR legend shall only be used in States where the State law specifically requires that a driver must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. 10 The In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend (except for the red STOP or YIELD sign symbols) and border on a white background, surrounded by an outer yellow or fluorescent yellow -green background area (see Figure 2B-2). The Overhead Pedestrian Crossing sign shall have a black legend and border on a yellow or fluorescent yellow -green background at the top of the sign and a black legend and border on a white background at the bottom of the sign (see nigure 2B-2). ti Unless the In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign is placed on a physical island, the sign support shall be designed to bend over and then bounce back to its normal vertical position when struck by a vehicle. Support: 12 The Provisions of Section 2A.18 concerning mounting height are not applicable for the In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign. Standard: 13 The top of an In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the pavement surface. The top of an In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign placed in an island shall be a maximum of 4 feet above the island surface_ Option: 14 The In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign may be used seasonably to prevent damage in winter because of plowing operations, and may be removed at night if the pedestrian activity at night is minimal. Is In -Street Pedestrian Crossing signs. Overhead Pedestrian Crossing signs, and Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs may be used together at the same crosswalk. Section 2B.13 Sneed Limit Sign (R 2-1) Standard: 01 Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traf fie engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free -flowing vehicles. 02 The Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 213-3) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering study. The speed limits displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph. 03 Speed Limit (R 2-1) signs, indicating speed limits for which posting is required by law, shall be located at the points of change from one speed limit to another. Sacs 213.I2 m 213,13 Dec W r 2009 NTSB Safety Study 2009 Edition Figure 2B-3. Speed limit and Photo Enforcement Signs and Plaques SPEED LIMIT "TRUCKS 54Q R2-1 R2-2P Page 57 SPEED LIMIT MINIMUM 50 SPEED MINIMUM uNLl ss 40 OTHERWISE .1 3POSTED R2-3P R2-4P R2-4a R2-5P FINES FINES $150 CITYWFDE 1iE16NBORHOUn RE51DEliTIAL HIGHER DOUBLE FINE L I R2.543P R2-5bP R2-5cP R2.6P R2-6aP R2-6bP BEGIN END HIGHER HIGHER ' FINES FINES TRAFFICW5 I PHOTO ZONE ZONE PHOTO ENFORCED ENFORCED R2-10 R2.11 Rio -is Rio-19P R10-19aP oa At the downstream end or the section to which a speed limit applies, a Speed Limit sign showing the next speed limit shall be installed Additional Speed Limit signs shall be installed beyond major intersections and at other locations where it is necessary to remind road users of the speed Iimit that is applicable. ns Speed Limit signs indicating the statutory speed limits shall be installed at entrances to the State and, where appropriate, at jurisdictional boundaries in urban areas. Support: 06 In general. the maximum speed Iimils applicable to rural and urban roads are established: A. Statutorily -a maximum speed limit applicable to a particular class of road, such as freeways or city streets, that is established by State law; or B. As altered speed zones - based on engineering studies. 07 State statutory limits might restrict the maximum speed limit that can be established on a particular road, notwithstanding what an engineering study might indicate. Option: 03 If a jurisdiction has a policy of installing Speed Limit signs in accordance with statutory requirements only on the streets that enter a city, neighborhood, or residential area to indicate the speed limit that is applicable to the entire city, neighborhood, or residential area unless otherwise posted, a CITYWIDE (R2-5aP), NEIGHBORHOOD (R2-5bP), or RESIDENTIAL (R2-5cP) plaque may be mourned above the Speed Limit sign and an UNLESS OTHERWISE POSTED (R2-M plaque may be mounted below the Speed Limit sign (see Figure 2133). December 2009 S-L 2B. 13 W NTSB Safety Study Page 58 2009 Edition Guidance: 09 A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5 or W3-5a) sign (see Section 2C.38) should be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph, or where engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead. 10 States and local agencies should conduct engineering studies to reevaluate non-statutoryspeed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or significant changes in traffic volumes. 11 No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly. 12 When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 851-percentile speed of free flowing traffic. 13 Speed studies for signalized intersection approaches should be taken outside the influence area of the traffic control signal, which is generally considered to be approximately 112 mile, to avoid obtaining skewed results for the 851-percentile speed. Support: 14 Advance warning signs and other traffic control devices to attract the motorist's attention to a signalized intersection are usually more effective than a reduced speed limit zone. Guidance: is An advisory speed plaque (see Section 2C,08) mounted below a warning sign should be used to warn road users of an advisory speed for a roadway condition. A Speed Limit sign should not be used for this situation. Option: is Other factors that may be considered when establishing or reevaluating speed limits are the following: A. Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; B. The pace; C. Roadside development and environment; D. Parking practices and pedestrian activity; and E. Reported crash experience For at least a 12-month period. 17 Two types of Speed Limit signs may be used: one to designate passenger car speeds, including any nighttime information or minimum speed limit that might apply; and the other to show any special speed limits for trucks and other vehicles. is A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is displayed at the proper times. is A changeable message sign that displays to approaching drivers the speed at which they are traveling may be installed in conjunction with a Speed Limit sign. Guidance: 20 If a changeable message sign displaying approach speeds is installed, the legend YOUR SPEED XX MPH or such similar legend should be displayed. The color of the changeable message legend should be a yellow legend on a black background or the reverse of these colors. Support: 21 Advisory Speed signs and plaques are discussed in Sections 2C.08 and 2C.14. Temporary Traffic Control Zone Speed signs are discussed in Part 6. The WORD ZONE (G20-5aP) plaque intended for installation above a Speed Limit sign is discussed in Section 6F.12. School Speed Limit signs are discussed in Section 78.15. Section 2B.14 Truck Speed Limit Plaque (RI-2P) Standard: 01 Where a special speed liinit applies to trucks or other vehicles, the legend TRIUCKS XX or such similar legend shall be displayed below the legend Speed Limit XX on the same sign or on a separate R2.2P plaque (see Figure 211-3) below the standard legend. Section 2B.15 Night Sneed limit Plagine (R2-3P) Standard: Where different speed limits are prescribed for day and night, both limits shall be posted. 5eet.2n.1a w 21B.15 Dote-b-2009 70 NTSB Safety Study Appendix D: Speeding Categories This appendix lists the attributes of the "speeding related" data element in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline and the corresponding attributes of the "speedrel" data element in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database. The MMUCC Guideline and FARS definitions for speeding are both based on the determination of officers, with the MMUCC Guideline stating that these categories are an "indication of whether the investigating officer suspects that the driver involved in the crash was speeding based on verbal or physical evidence and not on speculation alone," and FARS documentation stating that each category "records whether the driver's speed was related to the crash as indicated by law enforcement" (GHSA and NHTSA 2012; NHTSA 2015a). See table D-1. Table D-1. Speeding categories in MMUCC Guideline and FARS database Speeding Category Not Speeding MMUCC Guideline "speeding related" Data Element Attribute Definition No (none) FARS "speedrel" Data Element Attribute Me When a motor vehicle is traveling above the posted/statutory speed limit Exceeding Exceeded on certain designated roadways or by Speed Limit Speed Limit certain types of vehicles (for example, Yes, Exceeded Speed Limit for trucks, buses, motorcycles, on bridge, at night, in school zone, and so on) Too Fast for Too Fast for Traveling at a speed that was unsafe Conditions Conditions for the road, weather, traffic or other Yes, Too Fast for Conditions environmental conditions at the time When two or more motor vehicles are Racing Racing engaged in a speed -related competition on the trafficway Speeding of Unspecific n/a n/a Type No Driver n/a n/a Information Unknown if Unknown Speeding (none) Yes, Racing Yes, Specifics Unknown No Driver Present / Unknown if Driver Present Unknown 71 NTSB Safety Study Appendix E: State Laws Regarding Automated Speed Enforcement Table E-1 summarizes state laws regarding automated speed enforcement (ASE) and notes whether any ASE programs are active in each state (IIHS 2016a). The District of Columbia allows ASE throughout its jurisdiction and operates an ASE program. Table E-1. ASE state laws and active programs, April 2017 State ASE State Law Active ASE Notes Programs Alabama No state law Yes Alaska No state law No Arizona Allowed with Yes Prohibited on state highways; contractors must be licensed restrictions as private investigators, Arkansas Allowed with No Officer must be present and citation issued at time of restrictions violation California No state law No Allowed with Restricted to construction and school zones, residential Colorado restrictions Yes areas, and streets that border a municipal park; officer or government employee must be present at time of violation. Connecticut No state law No Delaware No state law No Florida No state law No Georgia No state law No Hawaii No state law No Idaho No state law No Allowed with Restricted to construction zones; allowed in school zones Illinois restrictions Yes and park districts in municipalities with a population of 1,000,000 or more Indiana No state law No Iowa No state law Yes Kansas No state law No Kentucky No state law No Louisiana Allowed with Yes Restricted to specified jurisdictions and interstate work restrictions zones Maine Prohibited No Allowed with Restricted to school zones, work zones on expressways or Maryland restrictions Yes controlled access highways, and Montgomery County residential areas Massachusetts No state law No Michigan No state law No Minnesota No state law No Mississippi Prohibited No Missouri No state law Yes 72 NTSB Safety Study State ASE State Law Montana No state law Nebraska No state law Nevada Allowed with restrictions New Hampshire Prohibited New Jersey Prohibited New Mexico No state law New York Allowed with restrictions North Carolina No state law North Dakota No state law Ohio Allowed with restrictions Oklahoma No state law Oregon Allowed with restrictions Pennsylvania No state law Rhode Island Allowed with restrictions South Carolina Allowed with restrictions South Dakota No state law Tennessee Allowed with restrictions Texas Prohibited Utah Allowed with restrictions Vermont No state law Virginia No state law Washington Allowed with restrictions West Virginia Prohibited Wisconsin Prohibited Wyoming No state law Active ASE Notes Programs No No No Equipment must be hand-held by officer or installed within law enforcement vehicle or facility No No Yes Yes Restricted to specified jurisdictions No No Yes Officer must be present No Restricted to specified jurisdictions, state highway Yes construction zones, and Portland urban high crash corridors No No Restricted to school zones No Restricted to use during declared states of emergency No Yes Restricted to school zones and s-curves inhibiting driver vision No No Restricted to school zones with speed limit of 30 mph or lower; officer must be present No No Restricted to school zones and a single camera for any city Yes west of the Cascade mountains with a population of more than 195,000 located in a county with a population of fewer than 1,500,000 No No No 73 NTSB Safety Study References AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2016. 2015 Traffic Safety Culture Index. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Aarts, Letty, and Ingrid van Schagen. 2006. "Driving Speed and the Risk of Road Crashes: A Review." Accident Analysis & Prevention 38 (2): 215-224. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2004. "Proposed Policy Resolution PPR-04SM-4: Use of Automated Traffic Law Enforcement to Improve Safety." 2006. "Policy Resolution 2006-02: Automated Traffic Enforcement," http : //scohts.transportation. org-/Paaes/Resolutions. aspx. 2010. Highway Safety Manual, First Edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. Washington, DC: AASHTO. Abdel-Aty, Mohamed A., and A. E. Radwan. 2000. "Modeling Traffic Accident Occurrence and Involvement." Accident Analysis & Prevention 32 (5): 633-642. Anastasopoulos, Panagiotis Ch., and Fred L. Mannering. 2009. "A Note on Modeling Vehicle Accident Frequencies with Random -Parameters Count Models." Accident Analysis & Prevention 41 (1): 153-159. Apple. 2017. "CarPlay," hqp://www.gpple.com/ios/cgMlay. Audi. 2017. Owner's Manual: 2018 A4. Ingolstadt, Germany: Audi AG. Baruya, A. 1998. "Speed -Accident Relationships on European Roads." Paper presented at 9th International Conference Road Safety in Europe, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, September 21-23. Baruya, A., and D. J. Finch. 1994. "Investigation of Traffic Speeds and Accidents on Urban Roads." In Proceedings of Seminar JHeld at the 22nd PTRC European Transport Forum, 219-230. London: PTRC Education and Research Services Limited. Blincoe, Lawrence, Ted R. Miller, Eduard Zaloshnja, and Bruce A. Lawrence. 2015. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised). DOT HS 812 013. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Blomberg, Richard D. and Arlene M. Cleven. 2006. Pilot Test of Heed The Speed, a Program to Reduce Speeds in Residential Neighborhoods. DOT HS 810 648. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 74 NTSB Safety Study Blomberg, Richard D., Ron Van Houten, F. Dennis Thomas, Kristopher T. Korbelak, and Bryan W. Hilton. 2015. Automated Feedback to Foster Safe Driving in Young Drivers, Phase 2. DOT HS 812 230. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Britten, Nicky. 2006. "Qualitative Interviews." In Qualitative Research in Health Care, edited by Catherine Pope and Nicholas Mays, 12-20. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Bryant, Kevin M., Gregory M. Collins, and Michael D. White. 2015. Shawnee, Kansas, Smart Policing Initiative: Reducing Crime and Automobile Collisions through Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS). California Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual for Setting Speed Limits. Cambridge Systematics. 2010. Transportation Planner's Safety Desk Reference. FHWA-HEP-10-001. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Casey, Steven M., and Adrian K. Lund. 1992. "Changes in Speed and Speed Adaptation Following Increase in National Maximum Speed Limit." Journal of Safety Research 23 (3): 135-146. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2015a. "Intervention Fact Sheets: Automated Speed -Camera Enforcement," htt2://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/ factsheet/speed.html. 2015b. "Motor Vehicle Prioritizing Interventions and Cost Calculator for States (MV PICCS): Project Report and User Guide," http://www.cdc.gov/ motorvehiclesafety/calculator/doc/index.html. Chang, Li -Yen. 2005. "Analysis of Freeway Accident Frequencies: Negative Binomial Regression Versus Artificial Neural Network." Safety Science 43 (8): 541-557. Chevrolet. 2016. "Teen Driver Technology: New Driver Safety," http://www.chevrolet.com/teen- driver-technology.html. Cicchino, Jessica B., Joann K. Wells, and Anne T. McCartt. 2014. "Survey About Pedestrian Safety and Attitudes Toward Automated Traffic Enforcement in Washington, DC." Traffic Injury Prevention 15 (4): 414-423. Cirillo, Julie A. 1968. "Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II." Public Roads 35 (3): 71-75. Council, Forrest M., Martine Reurings, Raghavan Srinivasan, Scott Masten, and Daniel Carter. 2010. Development of a Speeding -Related Crash Typology. FHWA-HRT-10-024. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. D'Elia, Angelo, Stuart Newstead, and Max Cameron. 2007. Overall Impact During 2001-2004 of Victorian Speed -Related Package. Report No. 267. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. 75 NTSB Safety Study De Leonardis, D., R. Huey, and E. Robinson. 2014. Investigation of the Use and Feasibility of Speed Warning Systems. DOT HS 811 996. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. De Pauw, Ellen, Stijn Daniels, Melissa Thierie, and Tom Brijs. 2014. "Safety Effects of Reducing the Speed Limit from 90 km/h to 70 km/h." Accident Analysis & Prevention 62: 426-431. Decina, Lawrence E., Libby Thomas, Raghavan Srinivasan, and Loren Staplin. 2007. Automated Enforcement: A Compendium of Worldwide Evaluations of Results. DOT HS 810 763. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Dingus, Thomas A., F. Guo, S. Lee, J.F. Antin, M. Perez, M. Buchanan -King, and J. Hankey. 2016. Driver Crash Risk Factors and Prevalence Evaluation Using Naturalistic Driving Data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (10): 2636-2641. Donnell, Eric T., Scott C. Hines, Kevin M. Mahoney, Richard J. Porter, and Hugh McGee. 2009. Speed Concepts: Informational Guide. FHWA-SA-10-001. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. DOT (US Department of Transportation). 2005. Speed Management Strategic Initiative. DOT HS 809 924. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. . 2011. "Speed Management Team Charter," http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ spd_mgtt charter.cfm. 2014. Speed Management Program Plan. DOT HS 812 028. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Elvik, Rune, Peter Christensen, and Astrid Amundsen. 2004. Speed and Road Accidents: An Evaluation of the Power Model. TOI report 740/2004. Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics. ETSC (European Transport Safety Council). 1995. Reducing Traffic Injuries Resulting From Excess and Inappropriate Speed. Brussels: ETSC. Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme). 2015. Assessment Protocol - Safety Assist: Version 7.0. Brussels: Euro NCAP. European Commission. 2015. "Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)," h!tp:Hec. europa. eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/new_technologies_n ew_ opportunities/intelligent _speed_adaptation isa_en.htm. Farmer, Charles M. 2016. A Point -by -Point Response to "Speed or Greed: Does Automated Traffic Enforcement Improve Safety or Generate Revenue? " Arlington, VA: IIHS. 2017. "Automated Traffic Enforcement: Responding to the Critics." Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 5: 1-7. 76 NTSB Safety Study FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2000. FHWA Safety: Road Function Classifications. Washington, DC: FHWA. 2012a. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways: 2009 Edition Including Revision I dated May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. 2012b. User Guide for USLIMITS. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. . 2013. Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. FHWA-PL-13-026. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. . 2016. Road Diet: Policies. FHWA-SA-16-074. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. 2017. "USLIMITS2 Frequently Asked Questions," https:Hsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/ documents/FAO.htm. FHWA and NHTSA. 2008. Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines. DOT HS 810 916. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA and NHTSA. Fildes, B. N., G. Rumbold, and A. Leening. 1991. Speed Behaviour and Drivers' Attitude to Speeding. Report No. 16. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Fildes, B. N. and Stephen Lee. 1993. The Speed Review: Road Environment, Behaviour, Speed Limits, Enforcement and Crashes. Report No. CR 127, Clayton, Victoria: Monash University Accident Research Center. Fitzpatrick, Kay, Joseph D. Blaschke, C. Brian Shamburger, Raymond A. Krammes, and Daniel B. Fambro. 1995. Compatibility of Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed. FHWA/TX-95/1465-2F. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute. Forbes, Gerald R., Teresa Gardner, Hugh McGee, and Raghavan Srinivasan. 2012. Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report. FHWA-SA-12-004. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Ford Motor Company. 2015. 2015 Ford Galaxy / S-Max Owner's Manual. Part Number: CG3646en 01/2015 20150223151541. Brentwood, Essex, United Kingdom. 2016. "MyKey," http:Howner.ford.com/how-tos/vehicle-features/locks-and-s mykey.html. Garber, Nicholas J. and Ravi Gadirau. 1988. Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 77 NTSB Safety Study Garber, Nicholas J. and Ravi Gadirau. 1989. Factors Affecting Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. Transportation Research Record (1213): 64-71. GHSA (Governors Highway Safety Association). 2005. National Forum on Speeding: Strategies for Reducing Speeding -Related Fatalities & Injuries, Summary Report. Washington, DC: GHSA. 2012. Survey of the States: Speeding and Aggressive Driving. Washington, DC: GHSA. 2013.2014-2015 Policies and Priorities. Washington, DC: GHSA. 2016. "GHSA Issues: Speed and Red Light Cameras," http://www. hg sa.org/ html/issues/auto enforce.html. GHSA and NHTSA. 2012. MMUCC Guideline: Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, Fourth Edition. DOT HS 811 631. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Goodwin, Arthur, Libby Thomas, Bevan Kirley, William Hall, Natalie O'Brien, and Kate Hill. 2015. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, Eighth Edition. DOT HS 812 202. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Google. 2017. "Android Auto," http://www.android.com/auto. Hall, Howard, and Emily Puls. 2010. "Implementing DDACTS in Baltimore County: Using Geographic Incident Patterns to Deploy Enforcement." Geography and Public Safety 2 (3): 5-7. Hardy, Earl. 2010. "Data -Driven Policing: How Geographic Analysis Can Reduce Social Harm." Geography and Public Safety 2 (3): 1-2. HERE. 2016. "The Official Honda Map Update Site," https://hondanavi.navigation.com/ home/en US/HondaNA/USD. Hinch, Mary, Mark Solomon, and Julie Tison. 2014. The Click It or Ticket Evaluation, 2012. DOT HS 811989. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Hoye, Alena. 2014. "Speed Cameras, Section Control, and Kangaroo JumpsA Meta -Analysis." Accident Analysis & Prevention 73: 200-208. Hu, Wen. 2016. Raising the Speed Limit from 75 to 80 mph on Utah Rural Interstates: Effects on Vehicle Speeds and Speed Variance. Arlington, VA: IIHS. Hu, Wen, and Anne T. McCartt. 2016. "Effects of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland, on Vehicle Speeds, Public Opinion, and Crashes." Traffic Injury Prevention 17: 53-58. NTSB Safety Study IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police). 2003. Traffic Safety Strategies for Law Enforcement: A Planning Guide for Law Enforcement Executives, Administrators and Managers. Alexandria, VA: IACP Highway Safety Committee. 2004. Highway Safety Desk Book. Alexandria, VA: IACP. 2007. "Resolution S&P.033.07: Automated Speed Enforcement," http://www.iacp.org/ Resolutions -Search. IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). 2013. "Subaru, Volvo Dealers Report Sales Boost from Good Crash Test Ratings." Status Report 48 (7). 2016a. "Automated Enforcement Laws with Map," http://www.iihs.org/iihs/tQpics/ laws/automated enforcement. 2016b. "Safety Ratings," hLp://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings. 2017. "Speed Limit Laws," hllp://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/speedlimits. Islam, M. T., Karim El-Basyouny, and Shewkar E. Ibrahim. 2014. "The Impact of Lowered Residential Speed Limits on Vehicle Speed Behavior." Safety Science 62: 483-494. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2001. Survey of Speed Zoning Practices: An Informational Report. Washington, DC: ITE. 2010. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies, 2nd edition, Washington, DC: ITE. 2016. Traffic Engineering Handbook, 7th edition, Washington, DC: ITE. 2017. "Vision Zero," http://www.ite.org/visionzero. ITF (International Transport Forum). 2016. Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System. Paris: OECD Publishing. Joksch, Hans C. 1993. "Velocity Change and Fatality Risk in a Crash -A Rule of Thumb." Accident Analysis & Prevention 25 (1): 103-104. Jurewicz, Chris, Cara Phillips, Michael Tziotis, and Blair Turner. 2014. Model National Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits at High -risk Locations. Sydney, Australia: Austroads. Kerrigan, Heather. 2011. "Data -Driven Policing," http://www.goveming.com/topics/public- justice-safety/Data-driven-Policing html. Kloeden, C. N., A. J. McLean, and G. Glonek. 2002. Reanalysis of Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement in Adelaide South Australia. CR 207. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Kloeden, C. N. and J. E. Woolley. 2012. Vehicle Speeds in South Australia 2010. CASR097. Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide. 79 NTSB Safety Study Kockelman, Kara M., and Jianming Ma. 2007. "Freeway Speeds and Speed Variations Preceding Crashes, Within and Across Lanes." Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 46 (1): 43-61. Krammes, Raymond A., Kay Fitzpatrick, Joseph D. Blaschke, and Daniel B. Fambro. 1996. Understanding Design, Operating, and Posted Speed. 1465-1. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Lahrmann, Harry, Bo Brassoe, Jonas W. Johansen, and Jens C. O. Madsen. 2016. "Safety Impact of Average Speed Control in the UK." Journal of Transportation Technologies 6 (5): 312-326. Lave, Charles A. 1985. "Speeding, Coordination, and the 55 mph Limit." The American Economic Review 75 (5): 1159-1164. Matthews, Michael L. 1978. "A Field Study of the Effects of Drivers' Adaptation to Automobile Velocity." Human Factors 20 (6): 709-716. Miller, Richard J., J. Scott Osberg, Richard Retting, McKenzie Ballou, and Randolph Atkins. 2016. System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation. DOT HS 812 257. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Milton, John, and Fred Mannering. 1998. "The Relationship Among Highway Geometrics, Traffic -Related Elements and Motor -Vehicle Accident Frequencies." Transportation 25 (4): 395-413. Mobileye. 2017. "Mobileye Features," http://www.mobileye.com/en-us/technology/features/. Moon, Jae-Pil, and Joseph Hummer. 2010. "Speed Enforcement Cameras in Charlotte, North Carolina: Estimation of Longer -Term Safety Effects." Transportation Research Record 2182: 31-39. Munnich, Lee W., and Joseph D. Loveland. 2011. "Do Americans Oppose Controversial Evidence -Based Road Safety Policies?" Transportation Research Record 2213: 9-12. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2016. "NACTO Policy 2016: Creating Safe, Sustainable, Multi -Modal Urban Transportation," http://nacto.org// olicy- 2016/. 2017. "Urban Street Design Guide: Speed Reduction Mechanisms," https://nacto.org/ publication/urban-street-design-guide/design-controls/design=speed/speed-reduction- mechanigms/_ National Institute of Justice. 2014. "Data -Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety," hgps://www.nijog v/topics/law-enforcement/operations/traffic/Pages/ddacts.gVx. :N NTSB Safety Study National Research Council. 1998. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. TRB Special Report 254. Washington, DC: National Research Council. National Safety Council. 2017. "Road to Zero: New Partnership to End Traffic Fatalities Within 30 Years," htlp://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx. NCSA (National Center for Statistics and Analysis). 2015. Traffic Safety Facts, 2014 Data: Alcohol -Impaired Driving. DOT HS 812 231. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2016a. Traffic Safety Facts, 2014 Data: Speeding. DOT HS 812 265. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2016b. Traffic Safety Facts, 2015 Data: Alcohol -Impaired Driving. DOT HS 812 350. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2017. Traffic Safety Facts, 2015 Data: Speeding. DOT HS 812 409. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Neuner, Michelle, Jennifer Atkinson, Brian Chandler, Shauna Hallmark, Robert Milstead, and Richard Retting. 2016. Integrating Speed Management within Roadway Departure, Intersections, and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Focus Areas. FHWA-SA-16-017. McLean, Virginia: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2013. Summary of State Speed Laws: Twelfth Edition, Current as of October 8, 2012. DOT HS 811 769. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. . 2014. Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS): Operational Guide. DOT HS 811 185. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2015a. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Analytical User's Manual 1975-2014. DOT HS 812 214. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2015b. National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES): Analytical User's Manual 1988-2014. DOT HS 812 215. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2016a. 2014 FARSINASS GES Coding and Validation Manual. DOT HS 812 216. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. 2016b. "Safercar," https://www.safercar.gov/. 2016c. "Traffic Safety Marketing," http://www.trafficsafetymarketing_gov/. NTSB Safety Study 2016d. "US DOT, National Safety Council Launch `Road to Zero' Coalition to End Roadway Fatalities," hM2s://www.nhtsa.goy/press-releases/us-dot-national-safety council -launch -road -zero -coalition -end -roadway -fatalities. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 1967. Motor Carrier Highway Accident, Joliet, Illinois, August 12, 1967. Washington, DC: NTSB. . 2005a. Motorcoach Median Crossover and Collision With Sport Utility Vehicle, Hewitt, Texas, February 14, 2003. HAR-05/02. Washington, DC: NTSB. 2005b. Rear -End, Chain -Reaction Collisions at US Border Patrol Checkpoint, Interstate Highway 87, February 22 and September 19, 2004. HAB-05/03. Washington, DC: NTSB. 2006. Passenger Vehicle Median Crossover and Head -On Collision With Another Passenger Vehicle, Linden, New Jersey, May 1, 2003. HAR-06/02. Washington, DC: NTSB. 2012. Motorcoach Run Off -the -Road and Collision with Vertical Signpost, Interstate 95 Southbound, New York City, New York, March 12, 2011. HAR-12/01. Washington, DC: NTSB. 2015. Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95, Cranbury, New Jersey, June 7, 2014. HAR-15/02. Washington, DC: NTSB. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach. Paris. Parker. 1985. Synthesis of Speed Zoning Practices. FHWA-RD-85-096. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Pei, Xin, S. C. Wong, and N. N. Sze. 2012. "The Roles of Exposure and Speed in Road Safety Analysis." Accident Analysis & Prevention 48: 464-471. Perry, Walter L., Brian McInnis, Carter C. Price, Susan C. Smith, and John S. Hollywood. 2013. Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations. RAND Corporation. Phillips, Ross O., Pdl Ulleberg, and Truls Vaa. 2011. "Meta -Analysis of the Effect of Road Safety Campaigns on Accidents." Accident Analysis & Prevention 43 (3): 1204-1218. Pilkington, Paul, and Sanjay Kinra. 2005. "Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in Preventing Road Traffic Collisions and Related Casualties: Systematic Review." BMJ.• British Medical Journal 330 (7487): 331-334. Quddus, Mohammed. 2013. "Exploring the Relationship Between Average Speed, Speed Variation, and Accident Rates Using Spatial Statistical Models and GIS." Journal of Transportation Safety & Security 5 (1): 27-45. NTSB Safety Study Regan, Michael A., Thomas J. Triggs, Kristie L. Young, Nebojsa Tomasevic, Eve Mitsopoulos, Karen Stephan, and Clae Tingvall. 2006. On -Road Evaluation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation, Following Distance Warning, and Seatbelt Reminder Systems: Final Results of the TAC SafeCar Project. Report No. 253. Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Retting, Richard. 2003. "Speed Cameras: Public Perceptions in the US." Traffic Engineering & Control 44 (3): 100-101. Retting, Richard A., Charles M. Farmer, and Anne T. McCartt. 2008. Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Arlington, VA: IIHS. Retting, Richard A., Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, and Anne T. McCartt. 2008. "Evaluation of Automated Speed Enforcement on Loop 101 Freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona." Accident Analysis & Prevention 40 (4): 1506-1512. Richards, D. C. 2010. Relationship Between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16. London: Transport Research Laboratory. Roadway Safety Consortium. 2012. "Automated Speed Enforcement in Work Zones," http://www.workzonesafety. org//publication/automated-speed-enforcement-in-work- zones/. Schmidt, Frank, and Joseph Tiffin. 1969. "Distortion of Drivers' Estimates of Automobile Speed as a Function of Speed Adaptation." Journal of Applied Psychology 53 (6): 536-539. Schroeder, Paul, Lidia Kostyniuk, and Mary Mack. 2013. 2011 National Survey of Speeding Attitudes and Behaviors. DOT HS 811 865. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Shinar, David. 2017. Traffic Safety and Human Behavior. Second Edition. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Smith, Sarah. 2015. Highway Safety Improvement Program: 2014 National Summary Report. FHWA-SA-15-048. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Smith, Sarah and Kari Signor. 2016. Highway Safety Improvement Program: 2015 National Summary Report. FHWA-SA-16-063. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Solomon, David. 1964. Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. Soole, David W., Judy Fleiter, and Barry Watson. 2012. Point -to -Point Speed Enforcement. AP-R415-12. Sydney: Austroads. NTSB Safety Study Soole, David W., Barry C. Watson, and Judy J. Fleiter. 2013. "Effects of Average Speed Enforcement on Speed Compliance and Crashes: A Review of the Literature." Accident Analysis & Prevention 54: 46-56. Speedshield Technologies. 2012. "Speedshield Active ISA," http://www.speedshield.com/ fileshare/brochures/Automotive_ISA.pdf. Srinivasan, Raghavan, Martin R. Parker, David Hayeslip, Dwayne Tharpe, and Roy Sumner. 2006. Expert System for Recommending Speed Limits in Speed Zones: Final Report. NCHRP Project No. 3-67. Washington, DC: National Research Council. State of Vermont. 2016. "Safe Routes to School," http://saferoutes.vermont.gov/. Stuster, Jack. 2004. Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Evaluations of Two Demonstration Programs. DOT HS 809 707. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Stuster, Jack, Zail Coffman, and Davey Warren. 1998. Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management. FHWA-RD-98-154. McLean, Virginia: US Department of Transportation, FHWA. Taylor, M. C., D. A. Lynam, and A. Baruya. 2000. The Effects of Drivers' Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents. TRL Report 421. Crowthorne, Berkshire, United Kingdom: Transport Research Laboratory. Tefft, Brian. 2011. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Tesla Motors. 2016. Model S Owner's Manual: June 9, 2016. Palo Alto, CA: Tesla Motors. Texas Department of Transportation. 2015. "Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones." Austin, TX: Texas Department of Transportation. 2017. "Speed Limits - 75 and 80 Mile Per Hour," http://www.txdot.gov/driver/laws/ speed-limits/approved.html. The Toward Zero Deaths Steering Committee. 2014. Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Town of Paradise Valley. 2017. "Photo Radar," http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/153/Photo- Radar. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. 2016. 2017 Sienna Owner's Manual. OM08007U. Plano, TX: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. TRB (Transportation Research Board). 1998. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. Special Report 254. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 01 NTSB Safety Study Varhelyi, Andras, Magnus Hjalmdahl, Christer Hyd6n, and Magda Drask6czy. 2004. "Effects of an Active Accelerator Pedal on Driver Behaviour and Traffic Safety After Long -Term Use in Urban Areas." Accident Analysis & Prevention 36 (5): 729-737. Vision Zero Network. 2017. "Vision Zero Cities Map," http://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/ vision -zero -cities/. Walter, Louise, Jeremy Broughton, and Jackie Knowles. 2011. "The Effects of Increased Police Enforcement Along a Route in London." Accident Analysis & Prevention 43 (3): 1219-1227. Wilson, Cecilia, Charlene Willis, Joan K. Hendrikz, Robyne Le Brocque, and Nicholas Bellamy. 2010. "Speed Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths." Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (11). Wilson, Woodland, Stephen Troutman, Joseph Donohue, and Emily Varga. 2012. "Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS)." Paper presented at NTSB Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Transportation Safety Public Meeting. WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Geneva: WHO. . 2017. "Fourth UN Global Road Safety Week 2017," http://www.who.int/ roadsafety/week/2017/en/. Zaal, Dominic. 1994. Traffic Law Enforcement: A Review of the Literature. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre. 99 PERCEPTION REACTION TIME (SEC) / DISTANCE (FEET) SPEED (MPH) FEET/SEC 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 25 36.65 5.50 11.00 16.49 21.99 27.49 32.99 38.48 35 51.31 7.70 15.39 23.09 30.79 38.48 46.18 53.88 45 65.97 9.90 19.79 29.69 39.58 49.48 59.37 69.27 55 80.63 12.09 24.19 36.28 48.38 60.47 72.57 84.66 65 95.29 14.29 28.59 42.88 57.17 71.47 85.76 100.05 75 109.95 16.49 32.99 49.48 65.97 82.46 98.96 115.45 SPEED (MPH) FEET/SEC 1.20 1.35 1.50 1.65 1.80 1.95 2.10 25 36.65 43.98 49.48 54.98 60.47 65.97 71.47 76.97 35 51.31 61.57 69.27 76.97 84.66 92.36 100.05 107.75 45 65.97 79.16 89.06 98.96 108.85 118.75 128.64 138.54 55 80.63 96.76 108.85 120.95 133.04 145.13 157.23 169.32 65 95.29 114.35 128.64 142.94 157.23 171.52 185.82 200.11 75 109.95 131.94 148.43 164.93 181.42 197.91 214.40 230.90 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION Dry Under 30 MPH Minimum Dry Under 30 MPH Maximum Dry Over 30 MPH Minimum Dry Over 30 MPH Maximum Wet Under 30 MPH Minimum Wet Under 30 MPH Maximum Wet Over 30 MPH Minimum Wet Over 30 MPH Maximum PORTLAND CEMENT New, Sharp 0.80 1.20 0.70 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.40 0.75 Traveled 0.60 0.80 0.60 0.75 0.45 0.70 0.45 0.65 Traffic Polished 0.55 0.75 0.50 0.65 0.45 0.65 0.45 0.60 ASPHALT, TAR New, Sharp 0.80 1.20 0.65 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.45 0.75 Traveled 0.60 0.80 0.55 0.70 0.45 0.70 0.40 0.65 Traffic Polished 0.55 0.75 0.45 0.65 0.45 0.65 0.40 0.60 Excess Tar 0.50 0.60 0.35 0.60 0.30 0.60 0.25 0.55 ICE Smooth 0.10 0.25 0.07 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 SNOW Packed 0.30 1 0.55 1 0.35 1 0.55 1 0.30 1 0.60 1 0.30 1 0.60 Loose 0.10 1 0.25 1 0.10 1 0.20 1 0.30 1 0.60 1 0.30 --1 1 0.60 BRAKING DISTANCE (FEET) S2 30f 25 35 45 55 65 75 PORTLAND CEMENT Minimum f 10.40 52.08 102.08 168.75 252.08 352.08 468.75 Maximum f 11.20 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 ASPHALT, TAR Minimum f 0.25 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 Maximum f 1.20 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 ICE Minimum f 10.05 416.67 816.67 1350.00 2016.67 2816.67 3750.00 Maximum f 10.25 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 SNOW Minimum f 10.10 208.33 408.33 675.00 1008.33 1408.33 1875.00 Maximum f 10.601 34.72 1 68.06 112.50 168.06 234.72 312.50 TOTAL STOPPING DISTANCE (FEET) 25 35 45 55 65 75 PORTLAND CEMENT Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 + Minimum Braking Dist 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 = Minimum Stop Dist 22.86 41.72 66.15 96.12 131.65 172.74 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 + Maximum Braking Dist 52.08 102.08 168.75 252.08 352.08 468.75 = Maximum Stop Dist 129.05 209.83 307.29 421.41 552.19 699.65 ASPHALT, TAR Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 + Minimum Braking Dist 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 = Minimum Stop Dist 22.86 41.72 66.15 96.12 131.65 172.74 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 + Maximum Braking Dist 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 160.30 271.08 408.54 572.66 763.44 980.90 ICE Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 + Minimum Braking Dist 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 = Minimum Stop Dist 88.83 171.03 279.90 415.43 577.63 766.49 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 + Maximum Braking Dist 416.67 816.67 1350.00 2016.67 2816.67 3750.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 493.63 924.42 1488.54 2185.99 3016.78 3980.90 SNOW Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 + Minimum Braking Dist 34.72 68.06 112.50 168.06 234.72 312.50 = Minimum Stop Dist 40.22 75.75 122.40 180.15 249.02 328.99 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 + Maximum Braking Dist 208.33 408.33 675.00 1008.33 1408.33 1875.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 285.30 1 516.08 1 813.54 1 1177.66 1608.44 T2105,90 Red -Light and Speed Cameras: Analyzing the Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Automated Camera Enforcement Program Executive Summary Stacey Sutton, Ph.D. & Nebiyou Tilahun, Ph.D. Department of Urban Policy and Planning University of Illinois Chicago January 10, 2022 URBAN PLANNING AND POLICY COLLEGE OF URBAN PLANNINGAND PUBLIC AFFAIRS ru Report to the City of Chicago Mayor's Office and Department of Transportation Acknowledgement: We want to thank Kevin O'Malley, Managing Deputy Commissioner in the City of Chicago Department of Transportation and William Shih, Deputy Director of Policy in the Office of the Mayor for their dedication to this study and commitment to maintaining the integrity of the research, analysis and interpretation of findings. We aslo appreciate the support and thoughtful comments from CDOT Deputy Commissioner Jaime Simone, Commissioner Gia Biagi, and Maulik Vaishnav, Transportation Policy Advisor in the Office of the Mayor. The authors remain solely responsible for all work, findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. However, this comprehensive research project would not have been possible possible without support from UIC's Urban Transportation Center (UTC) and Center for Urban Economic Development (CUED). This study benefited from consultation and advisment from Dr. Marcus Casey, in the Department of Economics at UIC. We also received considerable assistance with data management and analysis from Afshin Allahyari, a graduate student in the Department of Civil, Materials, and Environmental Engineering, as well as Briana Gipson, Andry Gonzalez, and Yun-Ni Tsai Master students in the Department of Urban Policy and Planning. Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION We are at a watershed moment in which public concern for roadway safety intersects with public scrutiny of municipal fines and fees.1 This is evident in the unprecedented alliance between the national Vision Zero Network, principally concerned with improving road safety and eliminating traffic fatalities, and the Fines and Fees Justice Center, a national advocacy organization that aims to eliminate unjust monetary sanctions and punitive practices for all manner of infractions and code violations because they distort the justice system, thwart regulatory compliance, and disproportionately harm poor people, particularly communities of color. Prior studies of red-light and speed camera enforcement are generally positive. Despite some ambiguous findings, the evidence suggests that roadways are typically safer once cameras are installed. The overall number of collisions is reduced as well as the severity of vehicular injuries.2 Despite the safety profile of traffic cameras, as of July 2021, 11 states prohibited the use of either red-light cameras, speed cameras, or both.3 At the local level, red-light camera use declined from 533 municipalities in 2012 to 345 by 2020.4 Generally speaking, public sentiment is more favorable toward speed cameras, however, the rate of implementation has declined or speed camera use is restricted to specific zones. For example, Pennsylvania allows speed enforcement cameras in work zones on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, interstates, and federal aid highways in the state.5 Increasingly, the constitutionality of automated enforcement laws are being challenged. Jurisdictions that abandon camera enforcement programs cite dubious efficacy of automated enforcement, challenges enforcing violations, the expense of maintaining the program, and, most frequently, community opposition to inadequate transparency in the system.6 Numerous studies examine racially disparate impacts of municipal ticketing and the regressivity of monetary sanctions.? They typically exclude camera enforcement technologies although automated enforcement cameras typically yield the largest volume of tickets annually. Automated traffic enforcement has attracted unlikely support from advocates of police reform. Proponents contend that cameras offer a race -neutral alternative to police enforcement of traffic infractions, emphasizing dual concerns of racially disproportionate stops and the risk of violent encounters with police particularly for Black drivers.8 Though automation may provide apparent advantages to agent enforcement, they may not eliminate racial and economic inequities. The volume of automated tickets issued, the spatial location of cameras, and the structure of fines, fees and forfeitures may in fact reinforce racial and economic inequities. The purpose of this study is to analyze the City of Chicago's automated red-light and speed camera enforcement program (2016-2019) given the dual concerns of traffic camera effectiveness for improving roadway safety and social equity impacts. This study contributes to the Chicago Department of Transportation's (CDOT) effort to routinely evaluate the efficacy, functionality and city policies pertaining to the red - Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 13 light and speed cameras, known as the City of Chicago Automated Enforcement Program. One portion of this study analyzes roadway safety attributable to traffic cameras, specifically, the incidence and severity of crashes at more than 100 speed cameras across the city. The other portion of this study focuses on critical equity concerns by analyzing the social and spatial distribution of camera tickets and economic impacts of camera -ticket fines and fees for communities. Findings from the speed camera -level safety analysis, as well as the camera -level and neighborhood - level of ticket distribution, and the community economic burden of fines and fees inform our recommendations to the City of Chicago Mayor's Office and City Departments responsible for administering automated enforcement policies, monitoring camera effectiveness, and structuring penalties. 2. DATA & APPROACH This study draws on red-light and speed camera tickets issued to Chicago drivers between 2016 and 2019 obtained from the Chicago Department of Finance. We focus on 438 cameras (289 red-light cameras and 149 speed cameras) operational throughout the study period. These cameras issued approximately 5.7 million citations, over 4.8 million of these records were geocoded to vehicle registration addresses in the state of Illinois. We focus on roughly 2.7 million red-light and speeding tickets issued to Chicago residents, which corresponds to 1.1 million vehicles registered to Chicago addresses.9 We excluded from the analysis 14,000 red- light and speed camera tickets issued vehicles registered to forty institutions across the city, such as police stations, public facilities, airports, and car dealerships. To assess the distributional effects of Chicago's red-light and speed camera tickets fines and fees, we spatially joined the red-light and speed camera violations dataset to Chicago census tract shapefiles, along with demographic and socioeconomic data from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2015-2019), employment data from the Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics dataset, ride - hailing trip data, and other data sources. We use linear regression models to explain the number of red-light and speed camera tickets household receive per year. We also use linear probability models to determine the likelihood that drivers receive more than one ticket and the probability of paying a ticket once drivers receive multiple tickets or accrue penalties. Additionally, we ran hazard models to estimate time to pay a ticket, controlling for salient neighborhood characteristics. To assess the absolute and relative economic burden of ticket fines and fees by Chicago neighborhood, or census tract, first, we disaggregate total monetary payment for camera tickets by neighborhood into the original fine, either $100 or $35, and associated penalties for late payment. We estimate absolute economic burden per neighborhood as the share of aggregate household income used to pay camera ticket violations. The measure of burden suggests that residents in neighborhoods with a burden score > 1 are allocating a larger share of their income to camera -ticket fines and fees. To estimate relative economic burden, we compare neighborhood -level paid fines and fees to fines and fees paid citywide, relative to aggregate household income Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 14 at both scales. We would expect the amount that any neighborhood pays toward ticket fines and fees to approximate payment observed citywide. Once again, residents in neighborhoods with scores > 1 are considered economically burdened, as they are paying a larger share of their income in ticket fines and fees. We conduct similar analyses of economic burden relative to the number of tickets drivers receive. It is important to note, these broad estimates of economic burden do adequately account for the lumpiness of ticket fines and fees within neighborhoods. Nevertheless, they highlight stark racial and income disparities across the city. To examine safety impacts of Chicago's speed cameras, we obtained road crash data and road density data from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). We use the Empirical Bayes (EB) method to analyze 101 speed camera instrumented locations. Changes in the count of crash incidents within 250 meters on either side of the camera on instrumented roads over a three-year period are used as a basis for evaluating safety. The analysis uses a before -after approach and estimates safety on the basis of comparing the after -period crash counts against what would have happened if cameras were not installed at the treated sites. Since most speed cameras in Chicago were installed in 2013 and 2014, the 2010-2012 period is taken as the before treatment period and the 2015-2017 period is used as the post treatment period to evaluate safety. We have organized our recommendations to align with our three primary research questions. First, the current location of red-light and speed camera and attendant factors that may contribute to heightened exposure to cameras for proximate Chicago residents. The second set of recommendations addresses the regressive structure of ticket fines and fees found to unduly burden low-income residents, who are disproportionately Black and Latino. Our third set of recommendations are derived from the safety profile of speed cameras which shows a net positive safety impact but is not consistent across camera locations.10 3. KEY FINDINGS a) Spatial and Social Distribution of Tickets We examine rates of ticketing per household at the census tract level as well as rates of ticketing per vehicle at the camera level for both red-light and speed cameras. Each is summarized below: The spatial distribution of tickets per household shows predominantly Black and Latino areas receive a higher number of tickets per household as compared to other parts of the city. Rates of ticketing can depend on exposure to cameras, travel patterns of residents and amount of travel, infrastructure and built environment factors, and household structure. However, not all these variables are readily observable at the census tract level. Our analysis examines the rate of ticketing experienced in neighborhoods, or census tracts, per household while controlling for camera exposure; type of camera to which drivers are exposed; road Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 15 density and other built environment factors; accessibility to essential amenities such as groceries stores; various household and socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., jobs per household, proportion with children, race and median income); and the number of rideshare trips by driver residence. Active rideshare drivers are likely more exposed to cameras. Tickets per household increase as the number of nearby cameras increases. We find that majority Black census tracts have the highest rates of tickets per household, followed by majority Latino census tracts as compared to majority White or other tracts. The number of cameras in close proximity to majority Black or majority Latino neighborhoods is not significantly greater than other neighborhoods. As we explain below, ticketing depends not only on the number of cameras but also on the built environment and other variables near the cameras. Ticketing levels are highest among red-light cameras located within 350 feet of freeways. As a camera's distance from a freeway increases, tickets issued after controlling for traffic volume declines. It is important to note that red-light cameras within 350 feet of freeways comprise approximately 13% of all cameras city wide and issue 31% of all red-light tickets. Cameras within 350 feet of freeways account for 2 1 % of the cameras in majority Black neighborhoods. The number of red-light tickets issued declines as road density near the camera increases. Conversely, ticketing increases with crime levels proximate to cameras. Speeding tickets issued per vehicle is lower in majority Latino neighborhoods relative to other areas. Unlike red-light cameras, speed cameras only operate in safety zones and when the school or park is open. School safety zone speed cameras comprise 4 1 % of the speed cameras city wide and issue 20% of the speed camera tickets. In majority Latino areas, school safety zone cameras comprise 71% of the speed cameras. Because school safety zone cameras operate fewer hours than park cameras, it is expected that rates of ticketing at the camera level would be lower in such areas. b) Economic Impact of Paid Ticket Fines and Fees We investigate the distribution of camera -ticket fines and fees to assess disparate economic burdens across Chicago neighborhoods and households. Ticket fines and fees do not affect drivers equally. The absolute economic burden associated with camera tickets is disproportionately borne by low- income Black and Latino residents. Over four years, more than 1% of annual aggregate household income is going to paying camera ticket fines and fees in some areas of the city. Economic burden follows a stark racial pattern, even after accounting for household income and number of tickets issued. Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 16 Residents in low-income neighborhoods are paying a higher share of ticket fees relative to their income but also relative to the number of tickets received. Black, Latino and low-income residents pay a disproportionate share of both fines and fees relative to income. Fees alone are particularly harmful for low-income residents. Low-income residents incurred fees on 46% of all tickets received compared to just 17% for upper -income residents. For tickets that were paid, fees incurred declined substantially to 34% for low-income residents and declined marginally for upper -income residents to 16%. Residents in majority Black and low-income neighborhoods have a much higher likelihood of accruing fees on a ticket and a much lower likelihood of paying a ticket, once they have accumulated fees or more than one ticket. People who resided in majority Black neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods have a higher probability of getting > 1 ticket over the 4-year period. c) Speed Camera Safety Analysis Speeding was a factor in over a quarter of crash fatalities annually in the U.S. from 2009 to 2018. We evaluate the safety impact of 101 speed -camera locations, from 2015-2017, by examining changes in the incidence of injury and fatal crashes within 250 meters of the cameras. The period from 2010-2012 is used to estimate the safety profile at camera locations before cameras were installed. The deployment of cameras reduced the expected number of fatal and severe injury crashes by 15%. It reduced moderate injury crashes by 9% and minor injury crashes by 14%. These reductions translate into 36 fewer fatal and severe -injury crashes, 68 fewer moderate -injury crashes, and 100 fewer minor -injury crashes. Overall, injury and fatal crashes fell by 12% (204 fewer crashes) when compared to what would have been expected in the absence of cameras. The camera -level safety analysis identifies camera locations where crash records were significantly improved, unaffected, or worsened. About 70% of the 101 sites had an estimated positive safety improvement. There was little relationship between the number of tickets issued and the safety impact of cameras. While on aggregate the cameras are improving roadway safety, the City can enhance overall effectiveness by reviewing camera locations where safety improvements were not made or where the crash record has worsened. More transparency on the models used to rank safety zones and on follow-up speed studies that lead to camera installation would also be useful to ensure that public safety is enhanced by installed cameras. Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 17 4. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Regarding Camera Locations Analyze red-light cameras proximate to freeways. Particularly examine the types of movements generating tickets in these locations and set fines to reflect severity/risk of harm from movement. Examine processes that led to differences in the choice to install school or park safety zone speed cameras given the apparent differences in majority Latino vs other areas across Chicago. Regarding Fines and Fees - Reduce base fines commensurate with risk of harm. - Introduce late fee caps, stop doubling of fines as penalty for late payment. - Implement a statute of limitations for non-payment. - Scale fines and fees by ability to pay. - Scale fines and fees based on number of infractions. - Introduce a graduated pricing structure for red-light violations, comparable to speed violations. Regarding Safety Impacts - Reevaluate methodology for camera placement, make the process transparent. - Justify placement of cameras with local speed study. - Reassess camera locations that are not improving safety outcomes or where worsening crash records have been observed. - Decommission or relocate cameras when not found effective. Endnotes 1 We define Fines and Fees as separate dimensions of monetary sanctions. A Fine is the fixed monetary charge associated with a red-light or speeding infraction determined by an automated enforcement camera, which is currently $100 for red-light camera violations and either $35 or $100 for speeding camera violations, determined based on the driving speed above regulation. Whereas Fees are monetary penalties added to Fines. They may include late or unpaid ticket fees, vehicle immobilization or boot fees, towing and impoundment fees. In this analysis, Fees do not include indirect costs that drivers with numerous unpaid tickets might incur such as license suspension, attorney fees, bankruptcy, and employment disruption. Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 18 2 Pilkington, P. and S. Kinra, Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review. Vol. 330, No. 7487, 2005, pp. 331-24334. Li, H., D. J. Graham, and A. Majumdar, The impacts of speed cameras on road accidents: An application of propensity score matching methods. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 60, 2013, pp. 148-157. Mountain, L., W. Hirst, and M. Maher, Costing lives or saving lives: a detailed evaluationl2of the impact of speed cameras. Traffic, Engineering and Control, Vol. 45, No. 8, 2004,13pp. 280-287.146. Hess, S., Analysis of the effects of speed limit enforcement cameras: Differentiation by road type and catchment area. Transportation research record, Vol. 1865, No. 1, 2004, pp.1628-34.177. Elvik, R., Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Norway. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1595, No. 1, 1997, pp. 14-19.198. Thomas, L. J., R. Srinivasan, L. E. Decina, and L. Staplin, Safety effects of automated speed enforcement programs: critical review of international literature. Transportation 2111esearch Record, Vol. 2078, No. 1, 2008, pp. 117-126.229. Gains, A., B. Heydecker, J. Shrewsbury, and S. Robertson, The national safety camera programme -three year evaluation report, 2004. Wong, Timothy. (2014) "Lights, camera, legal action! The effectiveness of red-light cameras on collisions in Los Angeles." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69: 165-182; Gallagher, J. and Fisher P. (2017) "Criminal Deterrence when there are Offsetting Risks: Traffic Cameras, Vehicular Accidents, and Public Safety." Vehicular Accidents, and Public Safety (November 17) 3 Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia prohibit both red-light and speed cameras. Montana and South Dakota prohibit red-light cameras, and New Jersey and Wisconsin do not allow speed cameras. Nevada prohibits the use of cameras unless operated by an officer or installed in a law enforcement vehicle or facility. National Conference of State Legislatures, Automated Enforcement Overview, https: [/www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/automated-enforcement-overview.aspx 4 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running; automated enforcement cameras 5 National Conference of State Legislatures, Automated Enforcement Overview, https: //www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/automated-enforcement-overview.aspx 6 Lee R. Wickert (June 19, 2019) The Red Light Traffic Camera Controversy https://www.mwl-law.com/the-red- light-traffic-camera-controversy/ 7 Barajas, J. (2020) "Biking While Black: How Planning Contributes to Unjust Policing," TREC Friday Seminar Series. 194. https:[/archives.pdx.eduIds /12su133270; Brazil, N. (2018), "The Unequal Spatial Distribution of City Government Fines: The Case of Parking Tickets in Los Angeles." Urban Review; Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (April 2021) Improving equity in transportation fees, fines, and fares Findings and recommendations for northeastern Illinois; Pattillo, M. and Kirk, G. (2020) Pay Unto Caesar: Breaches of Justice in the Monetary Sanctions Regime. UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1), 49-77; Sanchez, M. (2018) ProPublica Illinois and WBEZ Driven into Debt series; The Chicago Fines, Fees & Access Collaborative; Woodstock Institute (June 2018) The Debt Spiral: How Chicago's Vehicle Ticketing Practices Unfairly Burden Low -Income and Minority Communities. 8 Vera Institute (August 2021) Investing in Evidence -Based Alternatives to Policing: Non -Police Responses to Traffic Safety https:I lwww.vera.org/downloads [publications/alternatives-to-policing-traffic-enforcement-fact- sheet.pdf; Justin Fox. One tool to cut racism in policing: Traffic cameras. Bloomberg Opinion, July 2020. 9 We use notice number and address to approximate a unique identifier for vehicles 100ur analysis of the safety impacts only examines speed cameras. A 2017 study examined the safety impact of red-light cameras. See: Mahmassani, H. S., Schofer, J. L., Johnson, B. L., Verbas, 0., Elfar, A., Mittal, A., & Ostojic, M. (2017). Chicago Red-light Camera Enforcement. Sutton and Tilahun I Equity and Efficacy of Chicago's Red-light and Speed Cameras I Executive Summary Page 19 L,IOWADOT Form 433014 (04-18) INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT Vehicle Characteristics CODE SHEET Initial Travel Direction (prior to coded Vehicle Action) 1 - North N 2 - East W E 3 - South 4 - West S 99 - Unknown Vehicle Action 1 - Movement essentially straight 2 - Turning Left 3 - Turning right 4 - Making U-turn 5 - Overtaking/passing 6 - Changing lanes 7 - Entering traffic lane (merging) 8 - Leaving traffic lane 9 - Backing 10 - Slowing/stopping (decelerating) 11 - Stopped in traffic 12 - Legally parked 13 - Illegally parked/unattended 14 - Negotiating a curve 15 - Starting in road 16 - Accelerating in road 17 - Leaving a parked position 18 - Entering a parked position 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Point of Initial Impact Most Damaged Area 14 - Undercarriage 15 - Non-collision/no damage 16 - Cargo loss 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Vehicle Configuration 1 - Passenger car 2 - Four -tire truck (pick-up) 3 - Sport utility vehicle 4 - Passenger van (seats <9) 5 - Passenger van (seats 9-15) 6 - Cargo/panel van 7 - Single -unit truck (2-axle, 6-tire) 8 - Single -unit truck (>=3 axles) 9 - Other light truck (<=10,000 lbs) 10 - Vehicle <=10,000lbs, placarded for hazardous materials 11 - Truck/trailer 12 - Truck tractor (bobtail) 13 - Tractor/semi-trailer 14 - Tractor/doubles 15 - Tractor/triples 16 - Other heavy truck (>10,000 lbs) (cannot classify) 17 - Motorcycle 18 - 3-wheeled, enclosed 19 - 3-wheeled, unenclosed 20 - Moped 21 - Motor home/recreational vehicle 22 - School bus (seats >15) 23 - Small school bus (seats 9-15) 24 - Other bus (seats >15) 25 - Other small bus (seats 9-15) 26 - Farm tractor 27 - Farm equipment (explain in narrative) 28 - All -terrain vehicle (ATV) 29 - Snowmobile 30 - Golf cart 31 -Street legal, low -speed vehicle 32 - Limousine/taxi (seats 8 or less) 33 - Limousine/taxi (seats 9-15) 34 - Limousine/taxi (seats >15) 35 - Maintenance/construction vehicle 36 - Train 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Vehicle Defect 1 - None 11 - Headlights 2 - Brake system 12 - Tail lights 3 - Steering 13 - Turn signal 4 - Blowout 14 - Body/doors 5 - Other tire defect (explain in narrative) 15 - Power train 6 - Wheels 16 - Suspension 7 - Windows/windshield 17 - Exhaust 8 - Wipers 18 - Safety systems 9 - Mirrors 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 10 - Trailer hitch/truck coupling, safety chain 99 - Unknown Towed Field 1 - Driven away 2 - Disabled - privately arranged 3 - Disabled - officer arranged 4 - Not disabled - privately arranged 5 - Not disabled - officer arranged 6 - Abandoned/left at scene Extent of Damage 1 - None 2 - Minor Damage 3 - Functional damage 4 - Disabling damage 5 - Severe, vehicle totalled 9 - Unknown Commercial Motor Vehicle Converter Dolly 1 -Yes 2 - No dolly used 3 - No informatiom/label or unreadable 9 - Unknown Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GV WR) 1 - 10,000 lbs or less 2 - 10,001 lbs-26,000 lbs 3 - 26,001 lbs or more Involvement 1 -Yes 2 - No 3 - Not applicable 99 - Unknown Placard 1 -Yes 2-No 3 - Not applicable 99 - Unknown Released 1 -Yes 2-No 3 - Not applicable 99 - Unknown Underride / Override 1 - None 2 - Underride, compartment intrusion 3 - Underride, no compartment intrusion 4 - Underride, compartment intrusion unknown 5 - Override, moving vehicle 6 - Override, parked/stationary vehicle 8 - Other 9 - Unknown Cargo Body Type 1 - Not applicable 2 - Van/enclosed box 3 - Dump (grain/gravel) 4 - Cargo tank 5 - Flatbed 6 - Concrete mixer 7 - Auto transporter 8 - Garbage/refuse 9 - Hopper (grain, chips, gravel) 10 - Pole trailer 11 - Log trailer 12 - Intermodal container chassis 13 - Small utility trailer (one -axle) 14 - Large utility trailer (2+axles) 15 - Boat 16 - Camper 17 - Large mobile home 18 - Oversize load 19 - Towed vehicle 20 - Bus 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Special Vehicles Special Function of Vehicle 1 - No special function 2 - Police 3 - Fire 4 - Ambulance 5 - Incident response vehicle 6 - Non -transport emergency service vehicle 7 - Military 8 - Snow plow 9 - Taxi 10 - School 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Emergency Status 1 - Not applicable 2 - Yes, warning equipment used 3 - Yes, warning equipment not used 4 - No, non -emergency, non-transporl 5 - No, non -emergency, transport 99 - Unknown Bus Use 1 - School (public or private) 2 - Transit/commuter 3 - Intercity 4 - Charter/tour 5 - Shuttle 6 - Modified for personal/private use 7 - Church 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Page 1 of 4 L,IOWADOT Form 433014 (04-18) INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CODE SHEET Driver Characteristics Contributing Circumstances, Driver (up to two) Driver Re -Examination Needed: 1 - Ran traffic signal Failed to yield right-of-way(FTYROWZ 1 - Yes (explain in narrative) 2 - Ran Stop sign 40 - From Stop sign 2 -No Driver Distraction: 3 - Exceeded authorized speed 41 - From Yield sign 4 - Driving less than the posted speed limit 42 - Making left turn 5 - Driving too fast for conditions 43 - Making right turn on red signal 1 - Not applicable/no driver 6 - Lost control 44 - From driveway 2 - Not distracted 7 - Followed too close 45 - From parked position 8 - Operating vehicle in a reckless, erratic 46 - To non -motorist Electronic devices: careless, negligent manner 47 - At uncontrolled intersection 3 - Manual operation of an electronic 9 - Improper or erratic lane changing 97 - Other FTYROW (explain in narrative) communication device (texting, typing, dialing) 10 - Aggressive driving/road rage 4 - Talking on hand-held device 11 - Made improper turn Other (explain in narrative): 5 - Talking on hands free device 12 - Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 50 - Vision obstructed 6 - Adjusting devices (radio, climate) 13 - Traveling wrong way/on wrong side 51 - Operating without required equipment 96 - Other activity with electronic device 14 - Traveling on prohibited traffic way 52 - Failure to obey displayed vehicle (explain in narrative) 15 - Over-conecting/over-steering warnings or instructions 16 - Failed to keep in proper lane 53 - Disregarded signs/road markings Other distraction inside vehicle: 17 - Failure to signal intentions 54 - Illegal off -road driving 18 - Swerved to avoid: vehicle, object 55 - Towing improperly 10 - Passenger non -motorist, or animal in roadway 56 - Getting off/out of vehicle 11 - Unrestrained animal 19 - Starting or backing improperly 57 - Overloading/improper loading 12 - Eating or drinking related 20 - Failure to dim lights/have lights on with passengers/cargo 13 - Smoking related 21 - Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 14 - Reaching for object(s)/fallen object(s) 22 - Vehicle drove around grade crossing gates 15 - Inattentive/lost in thought 58 - Operator inexperience 16 - Looked but did not see Passing 97 - Other distraction inside vehicle 30 - On wrong side 88 - No improper action (explain in narrative) 31 - Where prohibited by signs/markings 32 - With insufficient distance/inadequate visibility 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 98 - Distraction outside vehicle 33 - Through/around barrier 99 - Unknown (explain in narrative) 96 - Other passing (explain in narrative) 99 -Unknown Driver Condition Accident Environment Location of First Harmful Event I Manner of Crash/Collision 1 - Apparently normal 2 - Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) 3 - Asleep/fatigued 4 - Illness/fainted 5 - Medical condition (seizure, reaction) 6 - Under the influence of alcohol 7 - Under the influence of drugs/meds 8 - Physical impairment 9 - Walks with a cane/crutches 10 - Paraplegic/wheelchair restricted 11 - Impaired due to previous injury 12 - Hearing impaired/deaf 13 - Visually impaired 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Vision Obscured 1 - Not obscured 2 - Trees/crops 3 - Embankment 4 - Hillcrest 5 - Building(s) 6 - Sign/billboard 7 - Parked vehicle(s) 8 - Moving vehicle(s) 9 - Person/object in or on vehicle 10 - Blinded by sun or headlights 11 - Broken/dirty windshield 12 - Frosted windows/windshield 13 - External mirrors 14 - Blowing snow 15 - Fog/smoke/dust 16 - Splash/spray of passing vehicle 17 - Inadequate vehicle lighting 18 - Exterior angle/blind spot on vehicle 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Alcohol/Drug Testing Alcohol Test Given Drug Test Given Drug Test Result 1 - Negative 6 - Inhalants 1 -None 1 -None 2 - Cannabis 7 - Narcotic 2 - Blood 2 - Blood 3 - Central Nervous Analgesics 3 - Urine 3 - Urine Sys. depressants 8 - Disociative 4 - Breath 4 - Breath 4 - Central Nervous Anesthetic (PCP) 5 - Vitreous 5 - Vitreous Sys, stimulants 9 - Prescription Drug 9 - Refused 9 - Refused 5 - Hallucinogens 98 - Other (explain in narrative 1 - On roadway 2 - Shoulder 3 - Median 4 - Roadside 5 - Gore 6 - Outside trafficway 7 - In parking lane/zone 8 - Continuous left turn lane 9 - Separator 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown 1 - Non -collision (single vehicle) 2 - Head-on (front to front) 3 - Rear end (front to rear) 4 - Angle, oncoming left turn 5 - Broadside (front to side) 6 - Sideswipe, same direction 7 - Sideswipe, opposite direction 8 - Rear to rear 9 - Rear to side 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Weather Conditions (up to two) Surface Conditions 1 - Clear 1 -Dry 2 - Cloudy 2 - Wet 3 - Fog, smoke, smog 3 - Ice/Frost 4 - Freezing rain/drizzle 4 - Snow 5 - Rain 5 - Slush 6 - Sleet, hail 6 - Mud, dirt 7 - Snow 7 - Water (standing or moving) 8 - Blowing snow 8 - Sand 9 - Severe winds 9 - Oil 10 - Blowing sand, soil, dirt 10 - Gravel 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown 99 - Unknown Light Conditions 1 - Daylight 4 - Dark, roadway lighted 2 - Dusk 5 - Dark, roadway not lighted 3 - Dawn 6 - Dark, unknown roadway lighting 9 - Unknown Page 2 of 4 L,IOWADOT Form 433014 (04-18) INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT Work Zone Related? I I Harmful Events CODE SHEET Work Zone Activity Sequence of Events --- Most harmful Event --- First Harmful Event 1 - Construction Pre -crash events: Collision with fixed object: 2 - Maintenance 1 - Ran off road, right 40 - Bridge overhead structure 2 - Ran off road, straight 41 - Bridge pier or support 3 - Utility 3 - Ran off road, left 42 - Bridge/bridge rail parapet 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 4 - Crossed centerline (undivided) 43 - Curb/island/raised median 99 - Unknown 5 - Crossed median (divided) 44 - Ditch 6 - Evasive action (swerve, panic braking, avoidance) 45 - Embankment Location 7 - Downhill runaway 46 - Ground 8 - Cargo/equipment loss or shift 47 - Culvert/pipe opening 1 - Before work zone warning sign 9 - Equipment failure (tires, brakes, etc.) 48 - Guardrail - face 2 - Advance warning area 10 - Towed portion came apart (separation of units) 49 - Guardrail - end 3 - Transition area 11 - Loss of traction 50 - Concrete traffic barrier (median or right side) 4 - Within or adjacent to work activity 12 - Trailer fishtailing or swaying 51 - Other traffic barrier (explain in narrative) 5 - Termination area 13 - Animal (avoided hitting) 52 - Cable barrier 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 94 - Other pre -crash (explain in narrative) 53 - Impact attenuator/crash cushion 99 -Unknown Non -collision events: 54 - Utility pole/light support 55 - Traffic sign support 20 - Overturn/rollover 56 - Traffic signal support Type 21 - Jackknife 57 - Other post/pole/support (explain in narrative) 22 - Non -contact vehicle (phantom) � ) 58 -Fire hydrant 1 - Lane closure 23 - Vehicle went airborne 59 - Mailbox 2 - Lane switch/crossover 24 - Fell/jumped from vehicle 60 - Tree 3 - Work on shoulder or median 95 - Other non -collision (explain in narrative) 61 - Landscape/shrubbery 4 - Intermittent or moving work 62 - Snow bank 98 - Other (explain in narrative) Collision with: 63 -Fence 99 - Unknown 30 - Thrown or falling object 64 - Wall 31 - Animal 65 - Building 32 - Non -motorist (see non -motorist section 97 - Other fixed object (explain in narrative) Workers Present? - NOT a unit) Miscellaneous events: 1 - Workers only 33 - Vehicle in traffic 70 - Fire/explosion 2 - No workers present 34 - Re-entering roadway 71 - Immersion 3 - Workers and officer present 35 - Parked motor vehicle 72 - Hit and run 4 - Law enforcement only 36 - Work zone maintenance equipment 73 - Eluding law enforcement 37 - Railway vehicle/train 74 - Gas inhalation/asphyxiation 5 - No one present 38 - Struck/struck by object/cargo/person 75 - Vehicle out of gear/rolled 98 - Other (explain in narrative) from other vehicle 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown 96 - Other non -fixed object (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Contributing Circumstances, Environment 1 - None apparent 2 - Weather conditions 3 - Visual obstruction 4 - Non -motorist action 5 - Glare 6 - Animal in roadway 7 - Severe crosswind 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Contributing Circumstances, Roadway 1 - None apparent 2 - Surface condition (e.g., wet, icy) 3 - Debris 4 - Ruts, holes, bumps 5 - Work Zone (roadway -related) 6 - Slippery, loose, or worn surface 7 - Obstruction in roadway 8 - Traffic control obscured 9 - Shoulders (none, low, soft, high) 10 - Non -highway work 11 - Traffic backup, prior crash 12 - Traffic backup, regular congestion 13 - Traffic backup, prior non -recurring incident 14 - Disabled vehicle 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Roadway Characteristics Type of Roadway Junction/Feature Non -intersection: 1 - Non-junction/no special feature 2 - Bike lanes 3 - Railroad grade crossing 4 - Driveway access (within) 5 - Driveway access (related, not in) 6 - Alley 7 - Crossover -related 96 - Other non -intersection (explain in narrative) Intersection -related: 10 - Roundabout 11 - Traffic circle 12 - Four-way intersection 13 - T-intersection 14 - Y-intersection 15 - Five points or more 16 - L-intersection 17 - Shared use path or trail 18 - Intersection with ramp 97 - Other intersection (explain in narrative) Interchange -related: 20 - On -ramp merge area 21 - Off -ramp, diverge area 22 - On -ramp 23 - Off -ramp 24 - Mainline, between ramps 98 - Other interchange (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Traffic Controls 1 - No controls present 2 - Traffic signals 3 - Flashing traffic control signal 4 - Stop signs 5 - Yield signs 6 - No passing zone (marked) 7 - Warning sign 8 - School zone signs 9 - Railway crossing device 10 - Traffic director (person) 11 - Work zone sign 12 - Inoperative (not functioning properly) 13 - Traffic sign missing 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Horizontal Alignment (curve): 1 - Straight 2 - Traversing curve to left 3 - Traversing curve to right 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Vertical Alignment (grade): 1 - Level 2 - At crest 3 - Traversing uphill 4 - Traversing downhill 5 - At sag (bottom of hill) 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Page 3 of 4 L,IOWADOT INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT Form 433014 (04-18) CODE SHEET Injury/Protective Devices Injury Status Seatimtg Occupant Protection 1 - Fatal = 1 - Not applicable 2 - Suspected serious/incapacitating _ IA Roc 2 - None used 3 - Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 3 - Shoulder and lap belt used 4 -Possible (complaint of pain injury) 4 5 2°d Rvr 4 - Lap belt only used 5 - Uninjured _ S 3-d RGw 5 - Shoulder belt only used 7 - Fatal, not crash -related 6 - Child safety seat (forward -facing) 9 - Unknown -- _ : : _ 4 A Pass 7 - Child safety seat (rear -facing) 8 - Child safety seat (type unknown) Died at Scene/Enroute 3 -- - - 5� R" 9 -Booster seat 1 -Not applicable 10 - Helmet (DOT compliant) 2 - Died at scene 16 - In 6th row or greater 11 - Helmet (other) 3 - Died enroute 17 - In enclosed passenger/cargo area 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 4 - Died at hospital 18 - In unenclosed passenger/cargo area 99 - Unknown 5 - Died later (w/in 30 days) 19 - Sleeper 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 20 - Trailing unit Airbag Deployment 99 - Unknown 21 - Riding on exterior of vehicle 22 - Hanging onto vehicle 1 - Not applicable 2 - Airbag turned off Source of Transport 23 - Passenger of motorcycle/moped/ATV 3 - Not deployed 1 - Not transported 98 - Other vehicle -related (explain in narrative) 4 - Deployed front of person 2 - EMS air 99 - Unknown 5 - Deployed side of person 3 - EMS ground 6 - Deployed both front/side 4 - Law enforcement Trapped/Extricated 7 - Deployed curtain 5 - Parent/spouse/friend 1 -Not trapped/applicable 98 - Other deployment (explain in narrative) 6 -Self 7 - To funeral home/morgue 2 - Extricated by non -mechanical means 99 - Unknown Ejection Path 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 3 -Extricated by mechanical means 99 - Unknown 9 -Unknown 1 -Not ejected/not applicable 2 - Through front windshield Non -motorist (see non -motorist section below) 1 - Pedestrian Ejection Type of Primary Incident 3 - Through side window 2 - Pedalcyclist (bicycle, tricycle, unicycle,pedal car) 4 - Through side door 3 - Pedalcycle passenger 1 - Not applicable 1 - Vehicle Crash 5 - Through roof 4 - In or on building 2 - Not ejected 2 - Traffic Stop 6 -Through back window 5 - Horse and Buggy 6 - Skater, personal conveyance, wheelchair 3 - Partially ejected 4 - Totally ejected 3 - Roadway Debris 4 - Motorist Assist 7 - Through back door/tailgate opening 98 - Other non -motorist (explain in narrative) 9 - Unknown 5 - Other (Explain in narrative) 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown 1 99 - Unknown Non -Motorist Location (prior to impact) Action (prior to crash) Condition Contributing Circumstances Intersection: 1 - Entering or crossing roadway 1 - Apparently normal 1 - No improper action 2 - Not visible (dark clothing) 1 - Within marked crosswalk 2 - 3 - Waiting to cross roadway Going to/coming from school G 2 - Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) 3 - Improper crossing 2 -Within unmarked crosswalk 4 -Working in trafficway 3 - Asleep/fatigued 4 - Darting/dashing 3 - Not within crosswalk 5 -Approaching or leaving vehicle 4 - Illness/fainted 5 - Medical condition (seizure, 5 - Inattentive (talking, eating, texting) 6 - Riding/walking on wrong side of road 4 - Unknown location 6 - Entering/exiting vehicle reaction) y � 7 - Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, � Non -intersection midblock : � � 7 - 8 -Disabled Playing on or working on vehicle vehicle-related/pushing vehicle 6 -Under the influence of alcohol 7 - Under the influence of drugs/meds 8 - Physical impairment or officer 8 -Failure to yield right -of --way 9 - Failure to have lights on when required 5 - Within marked crosswalk 6 - Within unmarked crosswalk Movement: 9 - Walks with a cane/crutches 10 - Operating without required equipment 11 - Improper riding (more riders than 7 - Not within crosswalk 10 - Along roadway with traffic 10 - Paraplegic/wheelchair restricted seats) 8 -Unknown location 11 - Along roadway against traffic 11 - Impaired due to previous injury 12 - Improper turn/merge 12 - Along roadway (direction 12 - Hearing impaired/deaf 13 - Improper passing 9 - Parking lane/zone unknown) 13 - Visually impaired/blind 14 - Passing with insufficient distance or 10 - Pedalcycle lane 13 - On shoulder/median inadequate visibility 15 - Improper/erratic lane changing 11 -Sidewalk 14 - On sidewalk 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 16 -Failure to remain in proper lane 12 - Driveway access 99 - Unknown 17 -Operating in a reckless, ess, erratic, 13 - Shared path or trail 98 - Other (explain in narrative) careless, negligent manner 14 - Shoulder/roadside 99 - Unknown 18 -Improper exit/entry from trafficway Safety Equipment 15 - Median/crossing island 19 - In roadway improperly (standing, 16 - Non-trafficway 17 - Travel lane, other location 1 - Not applicable 6 - Protective ads pp p sitting, lying, working, playing) 20 - Disabled vehicle -related (working on, 2 - None 7 - Multi -equipment (explain in pushing, leaving/approaching) 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 3 - Helmet narrative) 21 - Entering/exiting parked/standing 99 - Unknown 4 - Reflective clothing 98 - Other (explain in narrative) vehicle 5 - Lighting 99 - Unkown 98 - Other (explain in narrative) 99 - Unknown Page 4 of 4 wadi _ i�i ■i•i ` III -Nil 101 r� i:; ings in+i A' Igo ' i i INN I L 4 •�r r � . TIIE CITY OF `+ DUB E Mr��tt'1'pi�c:c 01-1 HIC Mississippi Nll� Automated Speed Enforcement Dubuque Police Department, City of Dubuque Engineering, City of Dubuque Legal, Office of Community Impact ram'�_ p :lC r i h •T 7r Why? Safe and Livable Community Traffic Safety Reduced Staffing Call for service volume Cannot be in a single spot 24/7 Community demand for traffic enforcement Reduction in severity of accidents Amount of time spent on accidents Locations not conducive to conventional enforcement Officer Safety concerns To reduce bias or perceived bias in stops THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi breetPg, v 01 CRY How did we get here? Safe and Livable Community Three City Council presentations • Raised a lot of questions and concerns • Do ASE's really work? • How the technology works • Presentation by Jenoptik • A need for more data • Better explanation of crash data • Speed studies • Crash data related to speed studies • Additional assurances about the technology and safety of the data THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi �1 4 f ty W it Research Supporting NHTSA NTSB INS IACP University of Chicago City of Portland Congressional Research Service Abishek Rai, Crash Reduction Research THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi A I �s A ."I. •/ F 7,; RN �y i t� N' ,t ti r• THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi s ♦ +' AW 0 ACLU and Community Concerns ACLU Conflicting data No protection against dangerous drivers Revenue generators with no oversight No due process for the driver Insufficient notices of device locations and use Private vendors and misuse of the data Big Brother approach to monitoring driver behavior ACLU and Community Concerns Community Hire more police officers instead of ASE Reduces tourism and commerce Unfairly tracks or enforces on protected class drivers Owner held accountable instead of driver Technology is unreliable or lies "I want to take my chances with an officer" ASE's are not proven THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi :&IO WA DOT EWESTIGATCiG OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR SEIDCLE ACCIDEN I Forma33W4 (t10.1g1 CODE SHEET C.¢hih.mg CS[.msla¢ns, Driem (.p to hm) 1--4ai&c zigwl z - e•" step aia� 3-Haceed 1mtPourved speed 4-➢dvi[tg less min mep—peedlimif s - na�ing ma barrnr amai4[ma e-L9sfeaavnl ] - Fo11owM fun [lwe 8 - Opnam@ nhicle m a reckless, maric mlgs, ne5�i5emma®a 9 - Improperm emalic lade changing 10-AgEaaaivx mivin5'maa rage I I-hfade improper corn 12-Faaetl myieldm emergmry vxhicle 13-Tinseling wrwg naY:w nnmg side 14-Tm[eling vn prohibited eeB[ way IT -Failure m signal imenuous - ris4maimal i¢rvedway 19- smdog a hacking imPmPg1Y 20- Failure m dlm lighaTn'e Hghrs m 21-tiebisle zmpped w mdrvadhacks 22-tiebisle drme crowd grade ¢v ' S �tez 30-Ouw side 3l-whuepmmbioed by zieps+ma>lmg 32-wim msu5r[iaardisv¢ce�ioadryuate risibility 33 - Thrnagh: uvwd tarsi ¢ 96-Omer Pasaias IP�ain In ¢umtive7 Feredro ridA 4FNm stop sig¢r. 41 -From Yield ziep 43 - Vskatgngkttm¢ o¢red �1 44- Fmm ddsewey 45-From padedpozmoa M Tv mwma[an[ 47 At mmcootroUedmterseclion 97- Dthr FI i'8ow (evplemm oarrafive} 51-Opu wiWregnhed yw}nn®[ 52- Faaa[en obeydisplaJedvxiick 53-TM .win sig¢sfnatl madwg 54- Hlegal o8-matl drn� to 56- GerrtnE vfflvm of nhi 1, ST-Drab Ainp.—p,�ading mitLpasYugetzlmrgo 58-Opvemriuexpuieme 88-No improper action Drinr RsPavuvatio¢ Needed: 1- Ye: (explan m rrs>mm�eJ 2-xa nrinr ndtrt.[rsn. 1-Not appk[ebletn9 dsis�er 2-Not distracted 3 opem4rm of an electronic ¢ban Min (fexm.g, typi¢g, c 4 cTalkivg cakutl-0eld Mice 5 - Tdk— rmhuras See deuce b- Adjusting Mica Cradin, cl®a 96 -Umu atfi[ilywim elxhomatlnire (eaPlai¢ imm�nrtre} l5„ Pasxog ' 11-vuestrawed mimal 1' -Parwg m drink'mE relater li-Smohi¢g relaxed li-ReuhvaEWr objecl(s)Yallm objects) 1:-hmee>mv'e']osrm rho¢gl¢ 15-Lookal bin didmrzee ?T -Olhu distrec4ani¢side veticle (explain mmrramxy 98- 99- Dther Ce>Pl:;nin ouravrel I ?8-Distru4wmaside vetisle Natant¢ (mplai¢ mmrramxy 1- A9paEarhae[nml 6 - Phpsjra] imps ]-Emodoral (e.F... dePrazed., angry} 9- wa4z nitka caae¢rv'ehez 3-As1aF'9dgeed 19- Pateplegcn'mkbairremaed 4-Dlvess faiaaed 11-1 PZi due m p:e;icw jnjsv^• 5-MedScaLmadition(seizme,raadoa) 12- Heari¢e inpaued deaf �-tiada din iaIlmace of ding/weds 9a-Dthx ie.Tdein mna:aadsv] 99 - ❑ukmnn M E'EL9Mp, 4-Hrnmea H-Hlowiug mow 5-HmTding(s) IS-Rogsmo e-SippTilmoard 16-Splash:spmy ofpaszivg v'ebicle y.f �-Pmhedvebicle(s} Il-]osd yaare zxhicle lighting 8-Moz'i¢gvehicle(s) IS-Hafuior wglebli¢d spot wvebule 9- Pmm¢lobj act i¢or 93- Omer (explainmmaaav'e) U dligle le-Slindsd br smreheedligh¢ PP- Lokmwu Ahvhoh'➢a.g Terong AhoWl Tm[(An¢ Dn6 Test Gise¢ nnS Teat Rra.n I-Nwe T-Blood 1-h.. 3-Broad 1-Nepem•e fi-Iobale� Camahu ]-Nacatra i.Cemal Naso¢s Amlg®c 3-Ndm 1-Lrioe S�.. dryaessmu 8-6haiabax 4-Bra& a -Breath i-Ceamil Nessmw Aaethelic(P( 5-Yitreoa a-�itrmus SYa, zom.lnats 9-Pmso"rye'mD 9-Re[¢ i 9-ReCmed 5-Sa@xim�s 9B-OPon leTlaQ Aerhdnt E¢rlaotrmnt Location al Firvt Harmful Event I-Dn roa.:aaa� Ma..er rf CYasWCOHisu¢ 1-Nw-collisiw (single vebiclel 2-shwwea s-R�dan (s.mms.m) 3-Medico I-8�eutl Qhmrm rear) 4-Awdside 4-ARele, vuvmi¢g ley torn 5-Gae fi-Oms4detmBacvey 5-Sreadside (fiommside) fi- Sidesatpe same:ihstioa '!-Sa tmrL-m& T-Sidgvripe vpposile duecliw a-cwonmus leatmnlam s-xa<m ra. 9-Sgamamx 9-8�msitle 93- Uther(eepltru ivamdn) Uturr Ceaplainm muaen) 99-L'�own 99-[Isrknvwn 0 weamm co.ditio.s(.pta tom) 5.rfrce Do.drtroes I-Cl�r 1-nry 2-Cloady 3-W. 3-Fog smvkS smog 4-Freevngr®Ndiazle 3-Rc .. 4-Scow 5-Rain 5-Sl¢sh 5 - slat hail 6-M¢3 dirt T-sort. T-waer (ela¢maE�mor;ay 8-Hl9aings[pw S-Sind 9-an-uewindz 9-08 l9-BlonmEsa¢4 sort, dhf 10-Gmv'e3 9B-llther (eaplva iv armtivx) 98-Dtha (explaivm muatrux] 99-tinlnown 99-SlrrLnvwn Ligkl Cmd-rti.ns I-DWh9M 4-Duk.radwap 4EWM 2-Dusk 5- Dmk,[adway ¢tit LLgbtM 3-Dawn 6-Duk. M='y rwdwrv4gb4 9-n¢Ianwn Cmt[matiug Gb[austaces,Rmiuep 1-e9Parem i - Sutrxe [vadidm Ceg, wet, icy) 3-➢e1a¢s 4 - Rma, A ]ea 1—, 5 - was Zme amdwav-related] d-slivery, loose, rs wvmsm5rce ] - OLsuv[tiv¢'m roadway 3 -1kaB [ [who] obuuetl 9 - Shodldmz (oaoe.. low- sob, high) 1a-Non-hi�n'sy sort 11--Trams WA'Prior crash 1] - Fmd[ ha[kup. reEWu [ong¢liw 13 - Fmd[ ha[kup. Primnw-resorting mcida[ 14-DizebtM axhi[]e 9s -Diner (explain mmmmx7 99-v¢mm.n MITSTIGATDiG OFFICER'S REPORT OF MOTOR 1EI11CLE ACCIDENT CODE SHEET 5e4.aee oiFneh-6fnzf YumPolEnef—Pint FfaemTvl Pnef Cat�;oa 1-RmmoH rwd, right ds.. -.w 40-8nge --lsmd 2-8no8 trod, seaigbt dP2 i]-6nge pi -or � Pou 3 - Rwo]k raQ left 43-nxitlgz'bndge raHPamPe< 4- Crossed an[31me(wdiuided] S- Crossed media¢Cdivided} 43-CmWisLnataised meaiw 4a- fi-Hreiax acdnn (swervx,pamt breki¢g•amce) T - Dorwtill xaaway 45- Embavkmem 46 -Grmwd 6-CugvlegniltmeID loszushih 4]-CWlveakPiPe oP®in@ 9-Egwpmm[6r8we (dres,bmles. etc.) 19-Towed Pm4w rime apaalsepueoon orwi6) i3-(�ardxail-m[e 49-Gvmdxail-®d 11 - Loss of tmcdm 50 - (�cteoe newt bmiu(e Himanv�b�;id 12-Trailer fishLitingmswaying 51-Omer dffiSe bartier (eglamm maa�x] 13-Animal (u'mdedhdtrng) 94 - Oda¢Pm¢ah (Phin m renavaxl 3-(able Lxrdu 53 cushiv¢ -1¢mtem,^Ie� Ne¢-aeHviea tree_ -D" �aPSm -q,sn ^�Y PP� -i - Iraffir zip svppat 21 - Sarth.'e a6 - Ireffia aEoal s.pport 22-NwKwa[[vebiale (phwmw7 5T-Om¢poYlpol±/y4urt Ierylmo i¢naaadv 53-Friahyd- 23-t'etirle mmaihmve 24-FeLL']mr@ea 5om vxkicle 59-6failh9e 6p-Tree 95-Other mn<o8isim (eaplainiamrmmxJ 6]-La¢duaP•_tzh[¢bbup Ca0're. ncA_ 6]-8mw aN 63-Peace 38-Thrown, SP object 31-Anm 32 - Nw-mvt9riu(sa m¢-mvtvxistsecdan 33 - Nebula mnadic mm".m - ssc9aae M-SrrtrkeerrLbyobjger 1pet• ¢ from omuvehi[Je 9fi - om�w¢�ed eyat (eaplmn innmrnde) R.adn V ChanaMeniauea Type of RordwaJ J.¢cvralFarnn ]-h-oa-jtmceo mspeclalfmtme 2-Bike lanes ¢ 3-Itahwd grade ¢v 5 9-➢acarey uceu [within) s- nil away recess (relmd, eot m} 6-Alley T-cmew[xr-relate¢ 96 - Omer tiro -ram rs sv¢v (eaplein m arrari.el Ielaa sae: slsld_ 10-Rn,maabom 12-Pem-w'ay iutemttdon 13-T-imuaation 14-Y-inmisevan 15 -Firn poems mmme le-L-imusartvn 17- SLrM use pemmtaLL 1S-I¢tase[dw wim ramp 97-Omex imxsatim(espiein iammdvx) GMekmr[rrrr¢ed- 28 -ace-romp merge area 21-Cdlva¢ga, div'uge uu 22-Ca-ramp 23-OHie¢9r 24-1✓+ainlmC be[weenr�ps 94 -other irmsrnange (eaplaiain nm,'wvx7 99-Lvkvonu ds-waF 65-nmletiyv 97 - OWuhxedvbjec[ Caplamm oamvn) arF�ra mEwLnIDn: y0-Fva'explosiou yl-Immenim P_ -nif a¢drw T3 -Eluding law enpmcmma y1-Dssiuhelevonasphyvadm y5-4'ebicle ov[ of gemrolled 98-DIhgC Plain is nanaLLre) 99-[Idmw¢ TrarSc C—n .h 1- Nv<—h presort 2-4effic signals 3 - FL`n� [rmfic cwhe] sigal 4 amp sign 5 - Yield siEm e - NOPassing none �>k�l T - ww;ng aim s - srhaalmne dEa 9 - rs:ae•ay u¢ �E device 19-T�adtrntar�mu) u -wa>i aae ago 1R-In.puatrax (mffu¢.lauiuE prvPedy7 13-Tor&[ siE¢miszinE 98-Omer (explain v vasatrve) 99- Lnkwna 1-sva¢t 2 - I}m'ersvag rmac m left 3 - Tass'nso,g [rove m riEN 96-Omu (explainm vasadve) 99-Do6 1-Lexl 2-Arcresr 3- T}m'etsieg>mhill 9 - Trm'ersvag dnwahill 5-Araag [homm ormu7 9a-amp (Plan m nanrie) 99-[Ioknowu 4 4 1 . �rn.i115+�TC City "la • /LBbUir L{�YR{'ylr 4J1 L tir-S.a� 5 •TQF-ia�i9Y�f iyJil Y L'J�lai' q ! hum F' rtfY'ISyiYfK},1 hrc k � - tuunlrY . f � • I : I PA&ki 4, .94U+• �k; !� P�arc no ai Ysn l4 { SIJli+ F3MYr•�s •1:Cxlmui[i1 DI I.tiILi{y47 SLq� + MA M1 t � r WmndFarmi Kd =� TOTAL STOPPING DISTANCE (FEET) PORTLAND CEMENT Minimum React Dist 25 5.50 35 7.70 45 9.90 55 12.09 65 14.29 75 16.49 +Minimum Braking Dist 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 = Minimum Stop Dist 22.86 41.72 66.15 96.12 1 131.65 172.74 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 +Maximum Braking Dist 52.08 102.08 168.75 252.08 352.08 468.75 = Maximum Stop Dist 129.05 209.83 30Z29 421.41 552.19 699.65 ASPHALT, TAR Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 +Minimum Braking Dist 17.36 34.03 56.25 84.03 117.36 156.25 = Minimum Stop Dist 22.86 41.72 66.15 96.12 131.65 172.74 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 +Maximum Braking Dist 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 160.30 271.08 408.54 572.66 763.44 980.90 ICE Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 +Minimum Braking Dist 83.33 163.33 270.00 403.33 563.33 750.00 = Minimum Stop Dist 88.83 171.03 279.90 415.43 577.63 766.49 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 +Maximum Braking Dist 416.67 816.67 1350.00 2016.67 2816.67 3750.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 493.63 924.42 1488.54 2185.99 3016.78 3980.90 SNOW Minimum React Dist 5.50 7.70 9.90 12.09 14.29 16.49 +Minimum Braking Dist 34.72 68.06 112.50 168.06 234.72 312.50 = Minimum Stop Dist 40.22 75.75 122.40 180.15 249.02 328.99 Maximum React Dist 76.97 107.75 138.54 169.32 200.11 230.90 +Maximum Braking Dist 208.33 408.33 675.00 1008.33 1408.33 1875.00 = Maximum Stop Dist 285.30 516.08 813.54 1177.66 1608.44 2105.90 Speed Kills Kinetic Energy 4000 lb vehicle travelling at 45 mph • Kinetic Energy = 270,313 ft-Ibs 4000 lb vehicle travelling at 65 mph • Kinetic Energy = 563,986 ft- I bs 80,000 lb vehicle travelling at 25 mph • Kinetic Energy = 1,668,599 ft- I bs 80,000 lb vehicle travelling at 35 mph • Kinetic Energy = 3,270,454 ft- I bs THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Traffic Data Collection • Traffic Studies • Developments • Speed studies • Warrants • Placed for 48 hours • Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi 16,235 4,091 1,233 526 1,138 "133,8V3 22,432 1 6.% -J- ��pp..•pRY Rp r 1M� Traffic Study Time Period Data 0 crashes on the study days 2009-2023, 725 crashes — within 1000' of study area 47 crashes — within 1000' of study area, speed factors. THE CTTY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi N Speed Data: NW Arterial Overview a THE CTTY OF � Masterpiece on the Mississippi I INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT Form H]7003(51-1S) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT MAIL REPORTS TO: Iowa bepartmgm of Twspmrtatim_ OffCe or DIW Sarvroas. PO DW 9df>a. Deg 140—. Iowa 5037f 9200 O I � 0 R A M rLrtorIMI Mt uonn9"-,&iIILi!mrnIn Al Crash Severity 68 Fatal Crash 0 Sh"t 4 of ; Suspected Serious Injury Crash 1 Law Enibrcement case Number: Suspected Minor Injury Crash 3 2023"30 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 10 ® (all a�brW S![t]k Un t 1 was traveling aasltrdsle m PeMsylvania Ava. 11na 2 was (raveling w2sthpund on Pe"ylvania Ave. Unit 1 among 9re inlersedion while a solid yeltvav IraRr; light is or, Un 1 2 amens 1Re intalsedion While a aafid yellow trafk light is en. Unil i adempte a MR tan to travel nomht>outd on NWAmarial. Unit 1 C0rldudt6 an evasive manaunr to avoid N a ml h&:on unit 1's from drhw side bumper and Unit 2s rear driver We [jumper Wilde al intersection unit 2 dnm orrio the grass on the west sida of To intersec5on. No A propemy damage was located. Unit 1 was Cited for fail to yield upon lem turn. Unit 2 wa5 teed rpr fag td respond to yellow C vWn signal, R A Unit 1 drove away and unit 2 was [owed avid privately arranged. T Propeny damage owner was contacted and a voice mail was recorded. V E ProiDertv Damaqe Only 54 Se�eritynrear 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 (Manner of Crash Collision GB Non-ocIlYsion (sing]e vehicle) 3 Head-on (front to front) 2 Rear -end (Front to rear) 32 Angle, oncoming left turn 0 Broadside (fruit to side) 13 Sideswipe. salve direction 11 Sideswipe. opposite direction 0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 0 Other 1 Unknown 0 Fatal Crash SLmpestecl Senow Injury Crash Suspeetad Mind Injury Crash Pussbts4Jnkrown Inguryr Crash Property Dartays Only u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi NW Arterial & Penn - Video Breakdown TIMESTAMP:2:59:31 PM uj�E Masterpiece on the Mississippi TIMESTAMP: 2:59:36 PM d - P*M %M -IRfM3 ZW-3&777 PM NW Arterial & Penn - Speed Breakdown THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Speed Data: Rhomberg Ave DATE SPEED DIRECTION LIMIT 4/18/23 30 MPHENMEI 4/18/23 30 MPH SB 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 + % OVER 10 MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH THRESOLD THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi 's :9i7BF01U I� � M iTi K, f'W r Awl. ,a i T:J if a I! \v[_ Manner of Crash Collision Non -collision (single vehicle) Head-on (front to front) Rear -end (front to rear) Angle, oncoming left turn Broadside (front to 8ide) Sideswipe, same direction Sideswipe, opposite direction Rear to rear Rear to side Nat reported Other Unknown Crash Seventy Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash PossibWUnknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only severityNear 10 s 4 2 0 2014 2015 2018 2020 2022 36 1 2 9 3 1Q B Q 1 0 0 Aa Fatal Crash Suspected Serious I ryury Crash Suspeclad hliro Injury Crash PassigleNnknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Rhomberg Ave - Video Breakdown TIMESTAMP: 1:20:53 AM riri NB - , 1(5,=ILMU Q3 Af.1 THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi TIMESTAMP: 1:21:01 AM OL NO - i VSI= i2i.,UW AM awl If - 99 } „p ' I ,2�tx,mlrw ti {_. ■ M IW H N W Rhomberg Ave - Speed Breakdown THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Speed Data: NW Arterial a rum +r , MBA.SSAD ix a Cr r :4k THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi k, DATE SPEED DIRECTION LIMIT 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 + % OVER 10 MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH THRESOLD • L 0 I a20 a Manner of Crash Collision Non -collision (single vehicle) Head-on (front to front) Rear -end (front to rear) Angle, oncoming left turn Broadside (front to side) Sideswipe, same direction Sideswipe, opposite direction Rear to rear 0 0_0 0 m Rear to side Not reported Other Un known asnu ry IKr 77 4 1 35 9 11 13 0 a a Crash Severity a Fatal Crash 3 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 1 suspected Minor Injury Crash FossibleJUnknown Injury Crash Rrooerty Damage Onlw 20 15 5 0 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 11111111 Falal Grash Suspected Serious I rjury Crao Suspected Miw Injury Crash 11111111 Possible Unknown Injury Crash 111111111 Property Danrage Only 77 Q 1 4 19 53 u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi NW Arterial & Asbury - Video Breakdown 71 M ESTAM P: 8:02:1 D AM THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi TIMESTAMP: 8:10:20 AM NW Arterial & Asbury - Speed Breakdown THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi u Y OFUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Iowa Court Cases on Automated Traffic Enforcement - City of Davenport vs. Seymour • Rhoden vs. City of Davenport 2009 • Greenfield vs. City of Davenport 2015 • City of Sioux City vs. Jacobsma 2016 • Eighth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Hughes vs. City of Cedar Rapids City of Cedar Rapids v.s. Leaf • Weizberg vs. City of Des Moines 2019 Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids 1 1� Milligan vs. Ottumwa Police Department 2023 Livingood vs. City of Des Moines Stogdill vs. City of Windsor Heights Ordinance (Proposed)w 9-7-321.286: AUTOMATED SPEED ti,F ENFORCEMENT ` General: In accordance with its police powers, the City may deploy, erect, or cause to have erected an automated speed enforcement system for capturing images of motor vehicles that violate speed laws by failing to obey the posted speed regulations within the City. The system may be managed by an Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor that owns and operates the requisite equipment. The police department shall retain supervisory control over the system. The Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall provide photographic and/or video images of any potential violations to the police department to review and, in the event the police department determines a vehicle was operated in violation of the City's speed ordinances, the police department shall direct that a notice of Automated Speed Citation be issued to the vehicle owner in accordance with this THE CITY OF tlon. DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi W q 4 107 1 5L. IRS&' <45 mph Speed Limit and Undivided Highways with 45 miles per hour Speed Limit First Second Third & Fourth Offense Subsequent Third Offense Community Construction & Over Speed Offense Offense Offenses Community Service Options - School Zones Civil Limit (MPH) Civil Civil Civil Service Options LMI Individuals Penalties Penalties Penalties penalties* ONLY 1-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 6 — 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $100 _ • • • $125 $100 1st Offense: $200 • • 11 — 15 Courtesy 50% $150 Community Community 2nd Offense: $250 Waiver reduction to Service Available Service Available 3rd &Subsequent: $300 � • • � � • $62.50 $125 $1501st Offense: $250 16 — 20 Courtesy 50% $175 Community Community 2nd Offense: $300 Waiver reduction to Service Available Service Available 3rd &Subsequent: $350 $75 1st Offense: $300 21 — 25 $150 $175 $200 N/A Extra Community 2 Offense: $350 Service Required 3rd 3 & Subsequent: $400 1st Offense: $350 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 N/A Extra Community 2nd Offense: $400 Service Required 3rd & Subsequent: $450 1st Offense: $400 31 + $200 $225 $250 N/A Extra Community 2 Offense: $450 Service Required 3rd 3 & Subsequent: $500 Divided Highways with a Speed Limit 45 miles per hour or Higher First Second Third & Third Fourth Offense Over Speed Offense Offense Subsequent Offense Community Construction & Limit (MPH) Civil Civil Offenses Community Service Options School Zones Civil Civil Service - LMI Individuals Penalties Penalties Penalties Penalties* Options ONLY 1-5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 • _ • • 6 — 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $100 ' • • 11 — 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $200 • • • $125 $150 Community 1st Offense: $250 16 — 20 Courtesy 50% $175 Service Community 2nd Offense: $300 reduction Service Available 3rd & Subsequent: Waiver to $75 Available $350 1st Offense: $300 21 — 25 $150 $175 $200 N/A Extra Community 2nd Offense: $350 Service Required 3rd & Subsequent: $400 1 st Offense: $350 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 N/A Extra Community 2nd Offense: $400 Service Required 3rd & Subsequent: $450 1 st Offense: $400 31 + $200 $225 $250 N/A Extra Community 2nd Offense: $450 Service Required 3rd & Subsequent: $500 Policy Key Components Locations based upon data (public safety need, using crash data, speed studies, traffic volume and complaints). Locations that are not within 1000 feet of a speed change. Complete transparency as to the locations and how to communicate that transparency such as social media, websites, and signage. How many days of non -enforcement readings are required before "turning on" the enforcement? What do to with revenues from the system? Traffic safety that has a budgetary impact has been proposed. This includes public safety, traffic calming, Safe Routes to Schools. How to measure effectiveness? My proposal would be to provide a quarterly report to the City Council, in the first year, coupled with an annual report thereafter outlining the effectiveness. Requirements of the vendor, such as a data retention policy, and what they can do with the data. THE CITY OF DUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi i - - r THE CITY OF DiUB E Masterpiece on the Mississippi Questions? Adrienne Breitfelder From: Sent: To: Subject: Dan Simon to Everyone Speed cameras Randy Gehl Monday, November 20, 2023 8:17 PM Adrienne Breitfelder Public Input from Virtual Meeting 7:30 PM Dan Simon to Everyone My name is Daniel Simon 3519 Eclipse Circle Dubuque 7:32 PM Me to Everyone Thank you. . 7:48 PM Dan Simon to Everyone My first point is why would you not put this to vote on a referendum or similar agenda to the school tax for all taxpayers to decide versus seven people on a city council ? Let the citizens decide . If that is a problem then my question is which one of you used this on your platform to run for your seat ?Secondly if it is not a money grab then donate the money to a worthy cause voted on by the public . Thirdly who has access to the information retrieved from this process of speed enforcement ? What security breaches have they had in the past... is the information sold? Who is held accountable for security breaches. Fourth do we have enough speed limit signs up to notify of speed on streets... I can personally say that there are sections of roadways that you can drive blocks without seeing a speed limit sign . Lastly is how will this affect tourist who visit our town? Nothing like getting home and receiving a ticket and saying " Come visit Dubuque " again! THE CITY CEP �F QTE Masterpiece on the Mississippi Randy Gehl Public Information Officer 0:563.589.4151 1 C:563.599.2448 City Hall 150 W. 13th St., Dubuque, IA, 52001 STATE OF IOWA SS: DUBUQUE COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION I, Kathy Goetzinger, a Billing Clerk for Woodward Communications, Inc., an Iowa corporation, publisher of the Telegraph Herald, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Dubuque, County of Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby certify that the attached notice was published in said newspaper on the following dates: 11/24/2023 and for which the charge is 320.91 6q/-t- Subscribed to before me, a Notary Public in and for Dubuque County, Iowa, this 27th day of November, 2023 Notary is in and for Dubuque County, Iowa. PtAc JANET K. PAPE Commission Number 199659 AY' z My Commission Expires iow% 12111 /2025 Legal Notiees #- -y- Legal Notices, Legal Notices Legal Notices. Legal NQtiges, Legal Notices CITY OF DUBUQUE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO. 52 -23 AMENDING TITLE 9 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 7OPERATION, DIVISION 5 SPEED RESTRICTIONS BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 9-7-321.286 AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT REGARDING AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROCESS FOR CHALLENGING AN AUTOMATED SPEED CITATION WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with information and opinions concerning Automated Speed Enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Dubuque City Council finds the use of Automated Speed Enforcement advances a multitude of public interests including but not limited to traffic safety, safety of emergency responders, acting as a police force multiplier, and as a cost effective mechanism for the enforcement of speed laws benefiting taxpayers; and WHEREAS, the use of Automated Speed Enforcement devices which capture license plate image(s) strikes a desirable balance between the above -stated public interests and privacy interests of the motoring public; and WHEREAS, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System is a cost effective means for determining ownership of vehicles detected as traveling in violation of speed laws within the City limits; and WHEREAS, the technology underlying Automated Speed Enforcement is reliable and its accuracy is verified by a police officer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA: Section 1. Title 9, Chapter 7, Division 5 of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following section: 9-7-321.286: AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT: A. General: In accordance with its police powers, the City may deploy, erect, or cause to have erected an automated speed enforcement system for capturing images of motor vehicles that violate speed laws by failing to obey the posted speed regulations within the City. The system may be managed by an Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor that owns and operates the requisite equipment. The police department shall retain supervisory control over the system. The Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall provide photographic and/or video images of any potential violations to the police department to review and, in the event the police department determines a vehicle was operated in violation of the City's speed ordinances, the police department shall direct that a notice of Automated Speed Citation be issued to the vehicle owner in accordance with this section. B. Definitions: 1. Automated Speed Citation shall mean a notice of violation generated in connection with the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 2. Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall mean the company or entity, if any, with which the City of Dubuque contracts to provide equipment and/or services in connection with the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 3. Automated Speed Enforcement System shall mean an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, electronic, or digital camera, a speed sensor, and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to automatically produce photographs, video, or digital images of each vehicle violating a speed limit ordinance. 4. Divided Highway shall mean a roadway that is separated by a median. 5. "Low or moderate income" also referred to as "LMI", means an individual earning no more than eighty percent of the higher of the median family income of the county or the statewide nonmetropolitan area as determined by the latest United States department of housing and urban development, section 8 income guidelines. 6. Undivided Highway shall mean a roadway without median separation. 7. Vehicle Owner shall mean the person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of Transportation, or identified by any other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle detected violating a traffic ordinance by failing to obey a speed regulation within the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Iowa Department of Transportation or any other state vehicle registration office identifies a person or entity as the lessee of the vehicle, that lessee shall be the Vehicle Owner for purposes of this section. In the event a state registration office does not specify whether a person or entity listed on the registration for the vehicle is the owner or the lessee of the vehicle, any person or entity listed on that vehicle registration may be deemed the Vehicle Owner and held jointly and severally responsible for a violation of this section. C. Vehicle Owner Subject to Civil Fine for Automated Speed Citations: 1. If a vehicle is detected traveling at a speed above the posted limit, the Vehicle Owner shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled below in subsection 9-7-321.286(D). 2. Exemptions from this section are set forth in subsection 9-7-321.286(G) and shall not be considered violations for purposes of the Automated Speed Enforcement System. 3. In no event will an Automated Speed Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record. D. Notice of Automated Speed Citation; Fines: 1. Upon a Dubuque Police Officer's determination that the Automated Speed Enforcement System has detected a violation described in subsection 9-7-321.286(C)(1), a notice of an Automated Speed Citation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each such violation recorded by the Automated Speed Enforcement System. The Automated Speed Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice within thirty (30) days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and readily discernable; the vehicle registration number; the violation alleged; the time, date, and location of the alleged violation; the applicable civil penalty; information as to the manner in which the Automated Speed Citation may be challenged; and that the basis of the notice is a photographic or video record generated by an Automated Speed Enforcement System. 2. Speed Zone Under 45 Miles Per Hour and Undivided Highways with Speed Zone 45 Miles Per Hour. Any violation of subsection 9-7-321.286(C)(1) which occurs in an area: a. With a speed limit under 45 miles per hour or b. On an Undivided Highway where the speed zone is 45 miles per hour shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled in the table below, and the civil penalty for any violation committed in a designated construction zone (as provided by the Code of Iowa), shall be doubled, as scheduled below, subject in any event to the statutory limit on civil penalties applicable to municipal infractions. <45 mph Speed Limit and Undivided Highways with 45 miles per hour Speed Limit Over Speed Limit (MPH) First Offense Civil Penalties Second Offense Civil Penalties Third & Subsequent Offenses Civil Penalties* Third Offense Community Service Options Fourth Offense Community Service Options - LMI Individuals ONLY Construction & School Zones Civil Penalties 1 — 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 6 —10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $100 11 —15 $100 Courtesy Waiver $125 50% reduction to $62.50 $150 Community Service Available Community Service Available 1st Offense: $200 2nd Offense: $250 3rd & Subsequent: $300 16 — 20 $125 Courtesy Waiver $150 50% reduction to $75 $175 Community Service Available Community Service Available 1st Offense: $250 2nd Offense: $300 3rd & Subsequent: $350 21 —25 $150 $175 $200 N/A Extra Community Service Required 1st Offense: $300 2nd Offense: $350 3rd & Subsequent: $400 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 N/A Extra Community Service Required 1st Offense: $350 2nd Offense: $400 3rd & Subsequent: $450 31 + $200 $225 $250 N/A Extra Community Extra Service Required Offense: $400 2nd Offense: $450 3rd & Subsequent: $500 *After issuance of a First and Second offense all Third and Subsequent Offenses s Subsequent Offenses. 3. Divided Highways with a Speed Limit 45 Miles Per Hour or Higher. Any violation of subsection 9-7-321.286(C)(1) which occurs on a divided highway with a speed limit 45 miles per hour or higher shall be subject to a civil penalty as scheduled in the table below, and the civil penalty for any violation committed in a designated construction zone (as provided by the Code of Iowa), shall be doubled, as scheduled below, subject in any event to the statutory limit on civil penalties applicable to municipal infractions. Divided Highways with a Speed Limit 45 miles per hour or Higher Over Speed Limit First Offense Civil Penalties Second Offense Civil Penalties Third & Subsequent Offenses Civil(MPH) Penalties* Third Offense Community Service Options Fourth Offense Community Service Options - LMI (ONLY ndividuals Construction & School Zones Civil Penalties 1 — 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $0 6 — 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $100 11 — 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $200 16 — 20 $125 Courtesy Waiver $150 50% reduction to $75 $175 Community Service Available Community Service Available 1st Offense: $250 2nd Offense: $300 3rd & Subsequent: $350 21 — 25 $150 $175 $200 N/A Extra Community Service Required 1st Offense: $300 2nd Offense: $350 3rd & Subsequent: $400 26 — 30 $175 $200 $225 N/A Extra Community Service Required 1st Offense: $350 2nd Offense: $400 3rd & Subsequent: $450 31 + $200 $225 $250 N/A Extra Community Service Required 1st Offense: $400 2nd Offense: $450 3rd & Subsequent: $500 *After issuance of a First and Second Offenses. E. Challenging an Automated Speed Citation: Within thirty (30) days from the date appearing at the top of a notice of Automated Speed Citation sent to the Vehicle Owner, the Vehicle Owner may either pay the fee associated with the citation or challenge the citation by submitting a written challenge to the citation or requesting that a municipal infraction be filed pursuant to Iowa Code §364.22. Any such written challenge or request must be on a form specified by and available from the City as indicated on the notice and be sent to the City according to the instructions on that form. Upon receipt of a written challenge, a Dubuque Police Officer shall determine whether the citation should be rescinded. Within thirty (30) days after the City receives such a challenge, the City shall notify the Vehicle Owner whether the challenge to the Automated Speed Citation is successful, in which case, the citation shall be rescinded. Otherwise, the citation shall stand. Thereafter, the City may seek voluntary payment and/or file the citation as a municipal infraction against the Vehicle Owner, all as set forth in subsection (F) hereof. F. Failure to Timely Pay or Challenge Automated Speed Citation: If the recipient of an Automated Speed Citation does not either pay the fine by the due date stated on the original citation or successfully challenge the citation as provided herein, the City may file a municipal infraction against the Vehicle Owner in accordance with City Code § 1-4-2 and § 364.22 of the Code of Iowa, seeking judgment for the violation and the applicable civil penalty provided in subsections 9-7-321.286(C) and (D), plus state -mandated filing fees and court costs. If judgment is entered for the City in the municipal infraction proceeding, the City may, subject to applicable law, pursue enforcement of the judgment together with interest as permitted by law. Collection of the judgment may include referral to the State of Iowa Offset Program administered by the Department of Administrative Services, State Accounting Enterprise, or any similar subsequent agency. Notwithstanding the City's right to file a municipal infraction, the City may first seek voluntary payment of the fine by sending a written request for payment to the Vehicle Owner and/or referring the matter to a private service agent to conduct collection in accordance with all applicable law. G. Exemptions from Section 9-7-321.386: The following shall not be considered violations of this ordinance: 1. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the violation in question pursuant to City Code §9-7-321.285 or Chapter 321 of the Code of Iowa. 2. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen, provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle Owner at the time of the alleged violation. 3. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle. 4. The Dubuque Police Officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question was lawfully participating in a funeral procession. _ The foregoing list of exemptions from Section 9-7-321.286 shall not be construed as limiting the defenses available to challenge an Automated Speed Citation or defend against a municipal infraction. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Passed, approved, and adopted this 20th day of November, 2023. offense, all subsequent offenses shall move in o Attest: /s/Adrienne N. Breitfelder, City Clerk Published officially in the Telegraph Herald newspaper on the 24th day of November, 2023 1t 11/24 /s/Brad M. Cavanagh, Mayor /s/Adrienne N. Breitfelder, CMC, City Clerk adno=369024