> PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
>
> DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
>
> CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
>
> **ENHANCING THE OREGON CRASH REPORTING PROCESS: A FEASIBILITY
> ASSESSMENT**
>
> Christopher M. Monsere
>
> Erin Wilson
>
> Amber Springberg
>
> **FINAL REPORT**
>
> Sponsored by
>
> OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
>
> TRANSPORTATION NORTHWEST (TransNow)
>
> In cooperation with
>
> U.S. Department of Transportation
>
> Federal Highway Administration
>
> **Research Report**
>
> May 2006

+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 1\. Report No.        | 2\.           |    |   | 3\.        |       |
|                       | Government    |    |   | R          |       |
|                       | Accession No. |    |   | ecipient's |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Catalog    |       |
|                       |               |    |   | No.        |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 4\. Title and         |               |    |   | 5\. Report |       |
| Subtitle              |               |    |   | Date       |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > ENHANCING THE       |               |    |   | > May 2006 |       |
| > OREGON CRASH        |               |    |   |            |       |
| > REPORTING PROCESS:  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > A FEASIBILITY       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > ASSESSMENT          |               |    |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
|                       |               |    |   | 6\.        |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Performing |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Or         |       |
|                       |               |    |   | ganization |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Code       |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 7\. Author(s)         |               |    |   | 8\.        |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Performing |       |
| > C. M. Monsere, E.   |               |    |   | Or         |       |
| > Wilson, A.          |               |    |   | ganization |       |
| > Springberg          |               |    |   | Report No. |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 9\. Performing        |               |    |   | 10\. Work  |       |
| Organization Name and |               |    |   | Unit No.   |       |
| Address               |               |    |   | (trais)    |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Transportation      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Northwest Regional  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Center X (TransNow) |               |    |   |            |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Box 352700, 123     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > More Hall           |               |    |   |            |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > University of       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Washington          |               |    |   |            |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Seattle, WA         |               |    |   |            |       |
| > 98195-2700          |               |    |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
|                       |               |    |   | 11\.       |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Contract   |       |
|                       |               |    |   | or Grant   |       |
|                       |               |    |   | No.        |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 12\. Sponsoring       |               |    |   | 13\. Type  |       |
| Agency Name and       |               |    |   | of Report  |       |
| Address               |               |    |   | and Period |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Covered    |       |
| > United States       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Department of       |               |    |   | > Final    |       |
| > Transportation      |               |    |   | > Report   |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Office of the       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Secretary of        |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Transportation      |               |    |   |            |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > 400 Seventh St. SW  |               |    |   |            |       |
| >                     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Washington, DC      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > 20590               |               |    |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
|                       |               |    |   | 14\.       |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Sponsoring |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Agency     |       |
|                       |               |    |   | Code       |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 15\. Supplementary    |               |    |   |            |       |
| Notes                 |               |    |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 16\. Abstract         |               |    |   |            |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > In most states,     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > police officers and |               |    |   |            |       |
| > trained             |               |    |   |            |       |
| > investigators       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > complete crash      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > reports for nearly  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > all reportable      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > crashes that occur  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > on public roads.    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Many states have    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > made significant    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > improvements in the |               |    |   |            |       |
| > quality and         |               |    |   |            |       |
| > timeliness of their |               |    |   |            |       |
| > crash data systems  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > by implementing, in |               |    |   |            |       |
| > addition to other   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > improvements,       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > electronic filing   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > of these reports by |               |    |   |            |       |
| > police officers.    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Oregon relies on    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > citizen reports for |               |    |   |            |       |
| > a majority of their |               |    |   |            |       |
| > crash data and      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > paper forms must be |               |    |   |            |       |
| > submitted to the    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > responsible state   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > agency and are then |               |    |   |            |       |
| > manually coded into |               |    |   |            |       |
| > the crash data      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > system. Police      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > reports are also    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > paper based. This   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > process limits the  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > improvements that   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > can be made in both |               |    |   |            |       |
| > the quality and     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > timeliness of data  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > unless enhancements |               |    |   |            |       |
| > can be made to the  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > reporting process.  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > This report         |               |    |   |            |       |
| > summarizes the      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > results of a study  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > on the feasibility  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > of implementing a   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > web-based system    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > for reporting       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > crashes, with a     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > focus on citizen    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > reporting and to a  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > lesser extent       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > police reporting.   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Feasibility was     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > defined by          |               |    |   |            |       |
| > acceptance of       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > general public to   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > electronic crash    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > reporting, limited  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > institutional or    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > technical barriers  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > to implementation,  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > potential benefits  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > and cost. The       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > research found that |               |    |   |            |       |
| > the current use of  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > online services for |               |    |   |            |       |
| > transactions with   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Driver and Motor    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > Vehicle Services is |               |    |   |            |       |
| > fairly low but that |               |    |   |            |       |
| > nearly half of      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > those surveyed      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > indicated that they |               |    |   |            |       |
| > would file a crash  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > report              |               |    |   |            |       |
| > electronically. No  |               |    |   |            |       |
| > institutional       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > barriers were       |               |    |   |            |       |
| > identified and      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > high-level benefits |               |    |   |            |       |
| > were estimated to   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > be between \$0.8    |               |    |   |            |       |
| > and \$1.1 million   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > dollars over a 10   |               |    |   |            |       |
| > year period,        |               |    |   |            |       |
| > primarily labor     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > savings to the      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > state. The main     |               |    |   |            |       |
| > challenge to        |               |    |   |            |       |
| > implementation      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > would be            |               |    |   |            |       |
| > identifying         |               |    |   |            |       |
| > available resources |               |    |   |            |       |
| > in the current      |               |    |   |            |       |
| > budgetary climate.  |               |    |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 17\. Key Words        |               | 18 |   |            |       |
|                       |               | \. |   |            |       |
| > accident data,      |               | Di |   |            |       |
| > crash data,         |               | st |   |            |       |
| > benefits, costs,    |               | ri |   |            |       |
| > data collection,    |               | bu |   |            |       |
| > electronic          |               | ti |   |            |       |
| > government, crash   |               | on |   |            |       |
| > reporting           |               | S  |   |            |       |
|                       |               | ta |   |            |       |
|                       |               | te |   |            |       |
|                       |               | me |   |            |       |
|                       |               | nt |   |            |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
|                       |               | >  |   |            |       |
|                       |               | Co |   |            |       |
|                       |               | pi |   |            |       |
|                       |               | es |   |            |       |
|                       |               | >  |   |            |       |
|                       |               |  a |   |            |       |
|                       |               | va |   |            |       |
|                       |               | il |   |            |       |
|                       |               | ab |   |            |       |
|                       |               | le |   |            |       |
|                       |               | >  |   |            |       |
|                       |               | fr |   |            |       |
|                       |               | om |   |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+
| 19\. Security         | 20\. Security |    | 2 |            | 22\.  |
| Classification (of    | C             |    | 1 |            | Price |
| this report)          | lassification |    | \ |            |       |
|                       | (of this      |    | . |            |       |
| > Unclassified        | page)         |    | N |            |       |
|                       |               |    | o |            |       |
|                       | >             |    | . |            |       |
|                       |  unclassified |    | o |            |       |
|                       |               |    | f |            |       |
|                       |               |    | P |            |       |
|                       |               |    | a |            |       |
|                       |               |    | g |            |       |
|                       |               |    | e |            |       |
|                       |               |    | s |            |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
|                       |               |    | > |            |       |
|                       |               |    |   |            |       |
|                       |               |    | 5 |            |       |
|                       |               |    | 5 |            |       |
+-----------------------+---------------+----+---+------------+-------+

Technical Report Form dot f 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page
authorize

###### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by the Oregon
Department of Transportation, particularly the staff at the Crash
Analysis and Reporting Unit and Driver and Motor Vehicle Services
Division. The contents of this report reflect the views and opinions of
the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the
data presented here. Anonymous reviewers from the TransNOW process as
well as Oregon DOT Technical Advisory Committee members (Kathy Hansen,
DMV Processing Services; Rod Rosenkranz, DMV Driver Programs; Mark
Wills, TDD Transportation Data; Tim Burks, Traffic Engineering) provided
valuable review and input. Finally, the Oregon DOT and the USDOT Region
10 University Transportation Center TransNOW is acknowledged for funding
support of this research.

###### Disclaimer {#disclaimer .unnumbered}

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
This document is disseminated through the Transportation Northwest
(TransNow) Regional Center under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department
of Transportation UTC Grant Program and through the Oregon Department of
Transportation. The U.S. government assumes no liability for the
contents or use thereof. Sponsorship for the local match portion of this
research project was provided by the Oregon State Department of
Transportation. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington
State Department of Transportation, or the Oregon Department of
Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.

###### table of contents {#table-of-contents .unnumbered}

1.0 INTRODUCTION [1](#introduction)

1.1 RESEARCH objectives [1](#research-objectives)

1.2 organization of Report [1](#organization-of-report)

2.0 Literature Review [3](#literature-review)

2.1 MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORTING [3](#motor-vehicle-crash-reporting)

2.2 Collecting information over the Internet
[7](#collecting-information-over-the-internet)

2.3 Summary [10](#summary)

3.0 oregon MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORTING process
[11](#oregon-motor-vehicle-crash-reporting-process)

3.1 Reporting Process [11](#reporting-process)

3.2 Reporting Forms [12](#reporting-forms)

3.3 Processing Crash Reports [12](#processing-crash-reports)

4.0 ANALYSIS OF COMMON CITIZEN ERRORS
[15](#analysis-of-common-citizen-errors)

4.1 Crash Report REVIEW [15](#crash-report-review)

4.2 FInDINGs: TYPES OF ERRORS [17](#findings-types-of-errors)

4.3 FIndings: Potential Improvements
[21](#findings-potential-improvements)

4.4 Summary [21](#summary-1)

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CITIZEN interest [23](#assessment-of-citizen-interest)

5.1 CURRent Usage of DMV Online Services
[23](#current-usage-of-dmv-online-services)

5.2 Survey [24](#survey)

5.3 Summary [28](#summary-2)

6.0 FEASIBILITY Analysis [29](#feasibility-analysis)

6.1 Proposed System [29](#proposed-system)

6.2 INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
[30](#institutional-and-technical-issues)

6.3 Benefits [31](#benefits)

6.4 COST ASSESSMENT [36](#cost-assessment)

6.5 Summary [37](#summary-3)

7.0 conclusions [38](#conclusions)

8.0 References [40](#references)

9.0 APPENdix [43](#appendix)

9.1 Oregon Citizen report form [43](#oregon-citizen-report-form)

9.2 oregon POlice crash report [46](#oregon-police-crash-report)

9.3 SURVEY [48](#survey-1)

#########  {#section .unnumbered}

######### List of tables {#list-of-tables .unnumbered}

[Table 1 Summary of Crash Reports Reviewed in the Analysis
16](#__RefHeading___Toc135554307)

[Table 2 Crash Error Summary, Multiple Report Crashes
19](#__RefHeading___Toc135554308)

[Table 3 Crash Error Summary, Single Report Crashes
19](#__RefHeading___Toc135554309)

[Table 4 Current Usage of DMV Online Services
23](#__RefHeading___Toc135554310)

[Table 5 Survey Results 26](#__RefHeading___Toc135554311)

[Table 6 Types and Combinations of Reports Received by ODOT, 2001-2003
32](#__RefHeading___Toc135554312)

[Table 7 Estimated Savings for Electronically Filed Crash Reports
34](#__RefHeading___Toc135554313)

[Table 8 Estimated Benefits to Oregon DMV -- ARIV Unit
35](#__RefHeading___Toc135554314)

[Table 9 Estimated Benefits to Oregon DOT -- CAR Unit
35](#__RefHeading___Toc135554315)

######### List of figures {#list-of-figures .unnumbered}

[Figure 1 States Using Citizen Reports of Motor Vehicle Crashes for Data
4](#__RefHeading___Toc135554316)

[Figure 2 Screen Capture of Colorado's Online Report System and
GhostCycle.org Report Form. 5](#__RefHeading___Toc135554317)

[Figure 3 TraCS States, July 2004 6](#__RefHeading___Toc135554318)

[Figure 4 Oregon DOT Crash Reporting and Coding Process
13](#__RefHeading___Toc135554319)

[Figure 5 Number of Crash Reports Coded by Year, 1995-2004
14](#__RefHeading___Toc135554320)

[Figure 6 Errors per Report, by Category
20](#__RefHeading___Toc135554321)

[Figure 7 Current DMV Online Services 24](#__RefHeading___Toc135554322)

[Figure 8 Counties with Survey Responses
25](#__RefHeading___Toc135554323)

[Figure 9 Survey Results 27](#__RefHeading___Toc135554324)

[Figure 10 Proposed System for Electronic Crash Report Filing
30](#__RefHeading___Toc135554325)

[Figure 11 Adoption Rates for Citizens for Filing Electronic Crash
Reports 33](#__RefHeading___Toc135554326)

[Figure 12 Estimated Annual Benefits for ODOT CAR and DMV ARIV (2006
Dollars) 36](#__RefHeading___Toc135554327)

# INTRODUCTION

Improving highway safety is a stated goal of many transportation
agencies. All safety improvement activities, whether an engineering,
education, or enforcement approach is taken, are enhanced with more
accurate, timely, and robust crash data. Crash data have traditionally
been plagued with missing information, inaccurate or incomplete location
data, and various other errors which are both systematic and random. The
collection, compiling and management of crash data is a labor intensive
process although many states are moving towards electronic capture,
transmission, and management of these data (*Delucia and Scopatz,
2005*). In most states, the primary source of data for crashes is a
report completed by police officers. Oregon is unique, however, in
relying on citizens reports for data on the majority (70%) of the
approximately 50,000 crashes that are coded each year by Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT).

In the near term, it is unlikely that additional reporting burden will
be shifted to police agencies and citizen's reports will remain the
primary source of data. This high level of citizen reporting and the
paper-based records system used at ODOT presents unique challenges to
improving data quality and timeliness. As one can imagine, reconciling
literal text description provided by citizens makes systematic, accurate
characterization of a crash on the roadway network a challenge, even
when reviewed by experienced coders at ODOT. The sheer level of effort
required to compile, code, and maintain the hard-copy crash data affects
both the timeliness of the data and the efficiency of process. A
possible solution to these data challenges is a more integrated,
electronic process for collecting crash data. The feasibility of this
solution is the focus of this research.

## RESEARCH objectives

The objective of this research was to determine the feasibility of
deploying an improved system for self-reporting of motor vehicle crashes
by citizens. The project focused on Oregon, since a majority of Oregon
motor vehicles crashes are reported by citizens, although there may be
applications to other states that require citizen reporting. Feasibility
was defined by acceptance of general public to electronic crash
reporting, limited institutional or technical barriers to
implementation, potential benefits and cost. The objectives of the
project were met by completing a comprehensive review of the literature
and practice, developing a research strategy to determine common
reporting errors made by the public, conducting a survey to determine
acceptance of an electronic form, and making a final recommendation of
the feasibility of such a system.

## organization of Report

This report documents the results of a feasibility study of implementing
a web-based system for reporting crashes, with a focus on citizen
reporting and to a lesser extent police reporting. The report begins
with a practice and literature review of crash reporting. First is an
assessment of programs used around the country to facilitate crash
reporting by citizens and police officers. The review is not intended to
be conclusive given the difficulty in obtaining information about such
systems. Following that is a summary of research relating to Internet
usage, form design, online data collection and e-government. The next
chapter documents the current Oregon crash reporting process. It
includes a description of how each form is processed through ODOT at the
Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) and Crash Analysis and
Reporting Unit (CAR) before the information is available as crash data.
This is followed by a chapter analyzing common errors in citizen
reports. This chapter details the results of the audit process that was
developed to quantify errors, as well as discussing the areas with the
most potential for improvement. The next chapter discusses the
assessment of citizen interest in online crash reporting. A survey was
administered to drivers who had recently completed a crash report. This
is followed by a chapter containing the feasibility analysis of this
project. This section includes a discussion of barriers (both
institutional and technological) and the costs and benefits of the
project. Finally, the last chapter includes conclusions, recommendations
and a brief discussion of suggestions for future work.

# Literature Review

In this chapter, recent literature focusing on electronic methods of
collecting and processing crash data are reviewed. First, a state of the
practice review of citizen reporting for motor vehicle crashes is
presented. The review found that while many states allow citizens to
submit some data, only one was found to allow an Internet based
submission, and most forms do not appear to be a major source of crash
data. In addition, a brief review of states that have moved towards
electronic collection of crash and traffic citation information from
police agencies is documented. Finally, since many state procedures have
moved towards e-commerce functions to improve efficiency and service for
the public. This review includes success and failures from other similar
e-government efforts. Because electronic crash reporting is a fairly new
technology, the research review was expanded to include form design,
data collection by different mediums and Internet access to draw
conclusions about the potential for success of this program in Oregon.

## MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORTING

Crash data is essential for safety programs. However, current state data
programs may not be keeping up with technology for many reasons. A
recent report by the Federal Highway Administration and the US
Department of Transportation uncovered a trend towards data quality
problems within many states' data collection programs. Specifically, the
report found that a smaller number of crashes are being reporting, data
entry backlogs mean that data is outdated by the time it can be
evaluated, and reporting errors combined with data entry errors reduce
the quality of the data (*FHWA/US DOT, 2004*). In order to rectify these
problems, government agencies and private companies are developing
better ways to collect, store, and evaluate data. This problem extends
beyond the US, with many other nations exploring the same need for
higher data quality. A recent NCHRP synthesis report also documents the
state of the US crash records system ((*Delucia and Scopatz, 2005*). The
following sections describes literature and practice for citizen
reporting and police reporting.

### Citizen Reporting

As part of the research, a state of the practice review was conducted to
identify states that allow or require citizen reporting of motor vehicle
crashes. For each state, the driver manuals posted on the Internet were
reviewed for the current state law regarding motor vehicle crashes.
Surprisingly, it appears that in almost every state some citizen
reporting is allowed. In many cases these forms are available for when
no police officer completes or submits a report. However, the amount of
information required on the forms varies. Most citizen report forms that
were obtained were short and only collect basic information about the
crash and insurance status. For purposes of this research, it was
assumed that if detailed information is requested, then it is more
likely the state is collecting crash data from the citizen report forms.
Based on these criteria, eight states appear to use the citizen reports
for data purposes. These states have extensive crash report forms
similar to Oregon's and are shown in Figure 1. However, the researchers'
understanding of the crash data systems in these states is that these
states do not rely on citizen reports for much data.

![](media/image1.png){width="5.78125in" height="3.522222222222222in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554316 .anchor}Figure 1 States Using Citizen
Reports of Motor Vehicle Crashes for Data

In terms of web-based forms, the review found that seventeen states make
their citizen crash report forms available online, usually in PDF. Those
states are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In most states it must be
printed and filled out by hand before returning it to the appropriate
agency. Only Colorado allows reports to be submitted via the Internet as
shown in the left panel of Figure 2. Citizens in Colorado have the
option of filing a crash report but the state does not rely heavily on
their information for crash data. Colorado receives most of their crash
data from police, and utilizes electronic reporting for law enforcement
(*Conner, 2005*). Iowa is considering looking at the creation of a
web-based system that would enable citizens to submit reports online
(*Jensen, 2004*).

Although states using online forms for motor vehicle reporting are rare,
the bicycling community has recently started using online report forms
to collect information about locations of bicycle crashes (most likely
in reaction to the apparent lack of bicycle crash data). Although the
systems for bicycle crash collection are not as sophisticated as the
system for auto crashes would be, they may provide a useful model.

-   GhostCycle.org (http://www.ghostcycle.org/reportanaccident.php):
    Uses a form to collect information from drivers. Fields include:
    Street location, time of day, date, were traffic laws obeyed, was
    accident infrastructure related or a vehicle collision, vehicle
    type, hit and run, driver's approximate speed, injuries and damages,
    was report filed with authority, was helmet worn, were lights used
    on bike, description in own words. A screen capture from GhostCycle
    is shown in the right panel of Figure 2.

-   BikePortland.org
    (http://bikeportland.org/2005/08/09/wanted-your-close-calls/):
    Collects open form letters from people over the Internet. Asks for
    cross-streets, description, and neighborhood of residence of the
    person involved in the crash.

-   Hawaii Bicycling League (http://www.hbl.org/road_hazards.html): Uses
    a form to collect information from drivers. Fields include:
    community, street name, cross street, hazard description, corrective
    action.

  ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.png){width="3.1416666666666666in"   ![](media/image3.png){width="3.134027777777778in"
  height="3.325in"}                                    height="4.029861111111111in"}

  ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554317 .anchor}Figure 2 Screen Capture of
Colorado's Online Report System and GhostCycle.org Report Form.

### Electronic Crash Reports for Police Agencies

Many states with police agencies as their primary reporting data source
have made significant improvements in their crash data systems by
incorporating electronic crash forms. The following subsections describe
a few nationwide and local initiatives.

TraCS (Traffic and Criminal Software) is a customizable data collection
system created in Iowa that can be used by law enforcement and motor
vehicle agencies nationwide. Currently, 23 states are using or testing
the TraCS software and are shown in Figure 3. TraCS programs can be
integrated with laptop computers and other hardware, can integrate image
files and geographic information systems, can emulate paper reports, and
can be distributed without user intervention. TraCS Mobile is a wireless
reporting software that allows data to be easily entered and transferred
to a larger database. The data fields can be customized to meet the
reporting needs of the agency and can display information similar to a
paper report. TraCS Mobile allows officers to enter information
electronically in their vehicle, eliminating the need for another agency
to enter the same information. TraCS can be used for the following
purposes: crash reporting, citation issuance, incident reporting, motor
carrier inspection reporting, and operating while intoxicated reporting.
Transmitting citation information to court systems is easily integrated
into the TraCS model. *(Traffic and Criminal Software, 2005)*

![](media/image4.png){width="3.9166666666666665in"
height="3.03125in"}*Light gray -TraCS states.*

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554318 .anchor}Figure 3 TraCS States, July 2004

ReportBeam is a commercial software that is also used by police agencies
in 16 states, and it "provides an automated Internet-based distribution
system to remove the burden from the records departments" (*ReportBeam,
2005*). Some of the states with agencies currently using this system
include: Arizona, California, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New
Jersey, New York, and Washington State. ReportBeam automatically submits
collision records to the state data archives, while providing a secure
method to distribute these reports to the public. It reduces the amount
of walk-in report requests because citizens are now able to download
their report from the Internet.

Kentucky was recently recognized by the Association of Transportation
Safety Information Professionals for its crash data collection and
analysis program. The program is known as KyOPS: Kentucky's Open Portal
Solution. This program involved the coordination of law enforcement
agencies across the state. KyOPS is used to collect electronic input of
collision data. Through the Internet, authorized users have access to
all of the collision data, GIS maps, and copies of crash reports. This
central collection of crash data has been very successful, although
there is still room for improvement. Currently, police officers can file
their reports online through the Electronic Collision Reporting
Component known as E-Crash. The database is then automatically populated
with the data from the police officer's forms. Kentucky's system is 90%
compliant with the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), and in
2004 41.7% of police collision reports were submitted using E-Crash (an
increase from 0% in 2000) (*Association of Transportation Safety
Information Professionals, 2004*). Kentucky is one of seventeen states
that offer the citizen report online as a PDF form, so it seems that it
would be possible to collect the citizen data online as well.

Technology that can collect crash data continues to emerge, even within
individual vehicles. The use of Event Data Recorder (EDR) Technology, or
'black boxes,' is increasingly common. These devices collect information
about the performance of a vehicle in the seconds leading up to a crash
and immediately after. The information has already been used in the
court system, and some states are beginning to collect it as crash data.
Although there are some significant barriers to the data collection,
particularly from people who are concerned about legal ramifications, it
is already being done in many places. This data could be very valuable,
especially as more cars are equipped with the devices. According to one
report, in 2004, 40 million passenger vehicles were equipped with EDR,
and as people replace old vehicles with new that number will increase
(*Gabler, 2005*).

## Collecting information over the Internet

There is limited published research available on the topic of online
motor vehicle crash reporting for citizens. Therefore, the literature
review was focused on the areas of data collection, form design with
respect to error reduction, Internet access, and e-government. It is
apparent that government agencies are increasingly using the Internet to
deliver services. DOTs are included in this movement, as they use data
more within their programs. James Hall from the University of Illinois
summarized in a TRB peer exchange that "Technologies for the
acquisition, analysis, and distribution of data are advancing rapidly.
Public expectations for data access and delivery also are increasing.
The Internet provides the means for global information access. These
trends emphasize that information is important and that information
system delivery systems provide value to the agency" (*TRB, 2005*). This
section describes some of the findings related to collecting data via
the Internet.

### Data Collection and Form Design

Although there is no research on the accuracy of online crash reports
versus paper crash reports, there is some research about survey and test
results from different mediums. Most of the research comparing
traditional paper and pencil surveys to Internet surveys shows that the
method of data collection does not significantly affect the answers
given, and that there is no statistical difference between the two sets
(*Ballard & Prine, 2002; Pettit, 2002; Gosling & Vaxire & Srivastava &
John 2004; Knapp 2003*). Additionally, the literature shows that
response times to online surveys is faster than mail surveys, and
completeness is higher as well (*Truell & Bartlett & Alexander, 2002*).
Research of testing online versus traditional paper tests shows that
online tests measure the same constructs as traditional tests. However,
the research also shows that there can be differences between Internet
and traditional tests based on an individual's familiarity with using
the Internet (*Buchanan, 2003*).

Regarding differences in form design between online and traditional
forms, the research shows that questionnaires that are reliable and
valid for self reporting with paper are most likely to be valid over the
Internet. However, some individuals are not familiar with using the
Internet and the forms should be adjusted for their benefit (*Strickland
et al, 2003*). Reliable and valid quantitative data collection over the
Internet requires that respondents have the ability to navigate the
Internet to the extent that they can access and use the web site.

Collecting data over the Internet is much less expensive than paper data
collection. This is due to elimination of the costs of paper, stamps,
and processing time (*Cobanoglu, 2002; Pettit, 2002*). Additional
savings also come from the ease with which forms and templates can be
updated (*Pettit, 2002*). Also, electronic archives can replace the need
for paper archives and storage. Electronic archives have many benefits,
but do require effort and cost to design, populate, and maintain.

Besides cost savings, Internet data collection can eliminate the errors
that occur from manual coding. Errors associated with manual coding
multiply as data passes through additional agencies where it is manually
coded at each (*Griffith, 2003; Pettit, 2002*). New technology also
makes it possible for data to be collected and disseminated to multiple
agencies quickly and at a much lower cost than paper transfer
(*Griffith, 2003*). Forms can be set up so that the data is directly
sent to data management programs at one or more agencies at the same
time (*Pettit, 2002*).

### Internet Access

Americans are increasingly using the Internet to make transactions and
use services. According to the Pew Institute, 70% of American households
owned a home computer in 2002, and nearly half used the Internet
(*Ballard & Prine, 2002*). However, even as access grows, it is
important to consider that there are segments of the population that lag
behind in Internet access. Education and income are the most important
indicators of Internet access (*Best & Krueger & Hubbard & Smith, 2001;
Lloyd & Hellwig, 2000; Briggs 2004*).

Although nearly half of the population uses the Internet, 24% have no
direct or indirect experience with the Internet (*Lenhart, 2003*). The
Internet may be misleading in the impression that anyone can access it
anywhere. Importantly, there is a portion of the population who may
never be able to access it for a wide variety of reasons, including
disabilities and education level (*West, 2000*).

Publicly available Internet, such as through libraries, can help
alleviate some of this disparity. According to the Pew Institute, 60% of
non-users know of a place in their community where Internet access is
publicly available. Among Internet users, 76% knew of a public access
site, which indicates that there is still a large gap in public
accessibility between users and non-users (*Lenhart, 2003*).

Among those without Internet access, Americans with disabilities have
the lowest levels of access. The Pew Institute has quantified that 58%
of all Americans are online, but only 38% of Americans with disabilities
are online. 28% of Americans with disabilities say that their disability
makes it difficult or impossible for them to go online (*Lenhart,
2003*). The Internet can offer valuable services and resources to people
with disabilities, but their specific needs must be taken into account
when government is considering policies related to Internet access and
communication (*Borchert, 1998*).

### E-Government

As Internet use becomes more prevalent, the use of the Internet by
government agencies to deliver resources and services is increasing.
This is known as e-government. David McClure, an Associate Director of
the US General Accounting Office defines e-government as "government's
use of technology, particularly web-based Internet applications to
enhance the access to and delivery of government information and service
to citizens, business partners, employees, other agencies, and
government entities" (*West, 2000*).

The government is already a major provider of Internet content, and
offering more services is the next step (*Brannen, 2001*). Processing
transactions electronically may create a more efficient and cost
effective method than the traditional paper process. However, in order
to reach the potential of e-government, government must make sites more
user friendly (*[Information Management Journal]{.underline}, 2004*).

E-government has the potential to help build better relationships
between government and the public by making interaction with citizens
smoother, easier, and more efficient (West, 2000). In surveys conducted
by the Pew Institute and other groups, citizens and businesses say they
want information access and transaction support from the government. The
Pew Institute has also found that 77% of Internet users have gone online
to search for government info or communicate with government. Government
agencies already use the Internet for electronic commerce and
information delivery. According to [Information Impacts
Magazine]{.underline}, the two most common initiatives for e-government
are providing information and facilitation of general compliance (*Cook,
LaVigne, Pagano,Dawes & Pardo, 2002*).

Of course, there are limitations to e-government that include
technological investments, personal preferences, and the wide range of
services the government provides (*West, 2003*). Some literature found
that experiences with e-government initiatives have been chaotic and
unmanageable. E-government presents some unique challenges for
administrators, including how to provide universal access, privacy and
confidentiality, and a citizen focus in government management. Other
major barriers to e-government are lack of finances, technical support,
and personnel capacity (*West, 2000; Kaylor et al, 2001; Edmiston, 2003;
Cook et al, 2000*).

Besides the barriers within government, there are barriers to citizen
use of e-government due to concerns about security and privacy (*Dawes,
2002*). Other societal barriers to e-government include: affordability,
accessibility, and anonymity. If citizens have a low trust in government
they are less likely to want to use the Internet as a means of
communication with various government agencies (*Edmiston, 2003*).
E-government must also be easy for the average citizen to use, which
means that the reading level must suit most Americans. Additional
improvements should include disability access, clear privacy policies,
and translations (*Pardo, 2000*).

Acceptance of e-government is growing and becoming accepted by all
levels of government. The US Census Bureau is now mandated by law to
make web-based data collection an available alternative to more
traditional collection techniques. The Census Bureau experimented with
online reporting in its 2000 Census of Population and Housing (*Richard
& Hancock, 2002*). Additionally, more than half of all Americans filed
their 2005 taxes online (*IRS, 2005*).

## Summary

Although electronic crash reporting is currently only used by a handful
of states, the literature review reveals that it is a technology with
great potential. Given the significant benefits and improvements in data
quality, it is highly likely that more states will begin using some form
of electronic data collection and transfer as the technology continues
to develop. In Oregon, citizens are likely to become more familiar with
using the Internet to conduct business with government agencies. Most
importantly, the literature revealed no major problems in data quality
with Internet data versus paper data. Indeed, data collected over the
Internet may be of higher quality due to the potential for better form
design and safeguards placed on the information provided before
submittal is possible. If Oregon's citizen reporting continues, it is
logical that the Internet is a viable method to collect the data. In the
following chapter, the Oregon motor vehicle crash reporting process is
described.

# oregon MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH REPORTING process 

In order to evaluate potential improvements to the crash reporting
process it was important to understand the current system. Detailed
interviews with staff and managers with responsibility and oversight of
crash reporting at the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV)
and the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit (CAR) were conducted to
develop a process chart of the current system. Through these interviews,
internal and legal barriers to an enhanced system were identified (and
documented in Chapter 6.0). The following sections describe the process
for collecting and coding motor vehicle crash data.

## Reporting Process

The legal authority to require drivers to file a report rests with DMV.
Current Oregon law requires drivers involved in a crash that results in
injury, death, more than \$1,500 damage to their vehicle, or more than
\$1,500 damage to and towing of another vehicle to file an *Oregon
Traffic Accident and Insurance Report* within 72 hours. This reporting
requirement was recently changed in 2004. In addition to raising the
damage value, the change in law eliminated the need to file a report for
some drivers. If a police officer responds to the scene, he or she
completes the Oregon Police Traffic Crash Report which is more detailed
than the citizen report. Police officers are not required to file a
report. A citizen must file a report even if a police officer is present
and completes a form. Citizens must submit the form to a DMV field
office or mail to the DMV headquarters in Salem. Interestingly, Oregon
law does not allow citizens to receive a copy of their crash form once
it has been submitted for privacy concerns.

The policies and procedures for police officers to appear at a crash
scene and file a report varies considerably by agency. This research did
not attempt to assess these current practices. Based on the review of
actual crash reports (in Chapter 5.0) and discussions with police
officers, there are a number of methods by which police agencies
complete and submit crash reports. Most reports are still filled out by
hand. A few agencies have begun to use a fillable PDF form developed by
the ODOT Transportation Safety Division. This increases the readability
of the form since the data fields are typed. It was also evident that a
number of agencies used internal records management software to produce
a narrative and summary report to the crash report. As such, a few
agencies are considering electronic crash reports that can be filled out
in the patrol car, but the incentive is limited since DMV currently has
no means of accepting these data. The difference in data quality between
agencies, and even between different officers, can be attributed to the
varying standards for reports, as well as the fact that some agencies
offer additional training for their officers. Police who are trained in
crash reconstruction or have access to technology to help them diagram
the crashes are likely to submit the highest quality information to the
crash coders.

## Reporting Forms

DMV and CAR have different data needs. DMV is primarily interested in
making sure drivers comply with Oregon law requiring motor vehicle
insurance and filing of a report. CAR needs the information on the form
to populate the statewide crash file. As such, the form is designed to
capture both insurance information and details about the crash. The
form, *Oregon Traffic Accident and Insurance Report*, is shown in the
Appendix, section 9.1. The form has two pages of instructions, and three
pages of requested information. The two pages about the crash are
front-to-back and the third page is supplemental if more than 2 vehicles
are involved. The form has a place for a narrative and numerous check
boxes to characterize what happened in the crash. One required field is
that drivers submitting the form must list the other drivers involved.
The police version of the form is more detailed and is shown in the
Appendix, section 9.2. It should be noted that the police form aligns
with the data entered into the state's crash data system while the
citizen form currently does not directly ask for many of the variables
that are coded in the database.

## Processing Crash Reports

The Oregon process for compiling, processing, and transferring forms is
entirely manual and described in the next few paragraphs as well as
represented graphically in the flowchart shown in Figure 4. When a
driver or police officer submits the crash report form to DMV, the form
is placed in a central filing system by county and month. Sometime
later, DMV staff in the Accident Reporting and Insurance Verification
(ARIV) unit begin the process of manually assembling reports that
describe the same crash into a unique case. A case file cover sheet is
prepared listing the drivers involved and insurance information is
verified using the Automobile Liability Insurance Reporting (ALIR)
system or the insurance company. If there is a violation of insurance
law or one driver has failed to file the required report, suspension
action is taken against the driver. There are currently twenty-one staff
working in the DMV Accident Reporting and Insurance Verification unit.
At any given time, there are three years of crash reports kept in the
office - two additional years of private vehicle crashes and seven
additional years of commercial vehicle crashes kept in an offsite
storage unit.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.334722222222222in"
height="3.9347222222222222in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554319 .anchor}Figure 4 Oregon DOT Crash
Reporting and Coding Process

When a set of crash forms is considered complete, the forms are sent in
batches to the Crash Analysis and Reporting (CAR) Unit by shuttle to
synthesize the data into one comprehensive crash. It is interesting to
note that there are a number of crash cases that do not get sent to CAR
for coding because the file is not complete or was not received by DMV
in a timely manner. CAR is interested in recording all of the
information from the form, except for the insurance information.
Essentially, CAR is interested in everything that DMV is not. When forms
arrive at CAR, the coders verify that it is reportable in the statewide
file. Examples of incidents that are not reportable include those that
occurred on private property or intentional crashes. These
non-reportable crashes are sent back to the DMV and not entered in crash
database. Next, the crash coder must weave together the citizen and
police reports into composite picture of a crash. There are frequent
discrepancies between the information given by the police and the
information given by the drivers which forces the coders to use
discretion to sort out the details of the incident. Experience is very
useful and coders use online and paper maps to pinpoint the location of
an incident.

As one would expect, creating useable data completed by essentially
untrained citizens can be a challenge. Fourteen staff at CAR work on
coding the approximately 50,000 crash records each year in Oregon. In
Figure 5, the annual numbers of crash reports that end up being coded as
a crash in the state crash data system (CDS) are shown. The chart shows
3 counts: 1) when the crash is coded from citizen reports only (CITIZEN
ONLY), 2) when the citizen's report indicates the police were on scene
but no report was received (POLICE ON SCENE, NO REPORT), and 3) when the
crash was coded with an accompanying police report (POLICE REPORT). Both
category 1 and 2 are based on citizen crash reports. The decline in
total reports in 2004 can be partially attributed to a change in the
reporting threshold. Finally, it is also shown in the figure that there
has been a declining trend for officers who respond to a crash scene but
do not complete a report. This could be that fewer police are attending
to minor crashes or that there has been an increase in the number of
police filing reports. Finally, it should be noted that there is an
additional process for crashes involving motor carriers (commercial
trucks) that has additional data requirements and forms. There is a form
that is submitted directly to the Crash Analysis and Reporting unit.
These motor carrier crashes are not included in this research.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.458333333333333in"
height="4.052083333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554320 .anchor}Figure 5 Number of Crash Reports
Coded by Year, 1995-2004

# ANALYSIS OF COMMON CITIZEN ERRORS

In order to quantify the potential accuracy improvements generated by an
improved crash reporting process, a system to compare police reports to
citizen reports for a sample of crashes was developed. Case files were
obtained from ODOT for just over 200 crashes. The original research goal
was to compare police reports to citizen reports with the working
assumption that a trained officer's report is more likely to be
accurate. The crash coder's interpretation of the crash report was also
available to confirm errors, but the crash coder's results were not
evaluated for error. In reality, since police officers are not required
to report to the scene of crashes in Oregon, many files do not include a
police report. The reports were therefore compared to other citizen
reports in those cases. The reports selected did include a small number
of single vehicle crashes with no police reports, which were only
evaluated for completion.

## Crash Report REVIEW

One of the goals of this research is to quantify the potential
improvements in accuracy if the crash report were a web-based form. The
literature certainly implies that most information captured over the
Internet is as good as or better than paper-based collection. A research
method to compare citizen reports to police reports was developed to
establish where errors (both incomplete and inaccurate information) were
frequently occurring in citizen reports. The possibility of reducing
these errors with a web-based system is then estimated and quantified.
As discussed in the introduction, the method was also used to compare
citizen reports to other citizen reports when no police report was
available.

In order to quantify common mistakes, an audit form was designed to
evaluate the information provided in citizen reports. 207 crash files
were provided by ODOT for analysis. The files reviewed represented four
counties and occurred during the month of August 2005. The eleven most
important categories of information reported by citizens were selected.
The audit form was then designed to assess these areas:

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Form completion               | -   Light                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Location                      | -   Direction of movement         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Type of crash                 | -   Injury                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Date/Time                     | -   Safety equipment (Seat belts, |
|                                   |     airbags)                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Weather                       | -   Diagram (Schematic drawing of |
|                                   |     crash)                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Road Conditions               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Additionally, the crash ID number, county of incident, urban or rural
location, intersection or segment location and, if applicable,
responding police agency were collected so that forms could be
contrasted. Each area was evaluated for completion of information as
well as consistency between citizen reports and police reports. In
situations where no police report was available, the citizen forms were
only compared to each other. When it was a single vehicle crash and no
police report was available, the form was evaluated for completion and
for errors in categories that were mutually exclusive (i.e., weather:
raining, road: wet). Table 1 summarizes the number of crash reports
reviewed as well as the information collected about the county, urban or
rural location, whether the crash occurred at an intersection or
segment, and police agency. Multiple reports indicate crash files where
more than one citizen or at least one citizen and a police officer filed
a report form. Single reports indicate crash files where only one
citizen report, and no police report, was available.

Because crashes are processed by Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit at
ODOT in monthly, county batches the sample was restricted to a four
counties (Lane, Malhuer, Marion, and Washington). The sample, however,
is a fairly good cross section of urban and rural environments typical
in Oregon. It was also important to observe the difference between
reports filed by persons who were involved in crashes within 25 miles of
their home versus people who were farther away from home. The conjecture
was that people close to home would file more accurate reports,
especially with regard to location. However, as Table 1 shows, about 85%
of the crash reports came from people within 25 miles of home. It is
also unknown how much, if at all, errors might have a seasonal variation
since only one month was sampled.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554307 .anchor}Table 1 Summary of Crash Reports
Reviewed in the Analysis

  ----------------------------- --------------------- --------------------
  Data Field                    Multiple reports      Single Reports

  Number of citizen reports     297                   52
  reviewed                                            

  Number of crashes             155                   52

  **Sex of Driver**                                   

  Male                          162                   32

  Female                        135                   19

  **Residency of Driver**                             

  Oregon resident w/in 25 miles 256                   47
  of home                                             

  Oregon resident 25+ miles     23                    1
  from home                                           

  Non-resident                  17                    2

  Unknown                       1                     1

  **Reports Per County**                              

  Lane                          111                   28

  Malheur                       35                    2

  Marion                        63                    3

  Washington                    88                    18

  **Road Characte**r                                  

  Urban                         183                   11

  Rural                         59                    39

  **Location of Crash**                               

  Intersection                  130                   24

  Segment                       125                   27

  **Police Response (Agency)**                        

  City                          59                    

  County                        27                    

  State                         39                    

  Total with Police             125                   n/a
  ----------------------------- --------------------- --------------------

## FInDINGs: TYPES OF ERRORS

Two types of errors were identified: inconsistencies, which are pieces
of information that conflict with other pieces of information on the
same report or on another report, and incompleteness, which is when the
information was not provided. The evaluation was not an effort to decide
which driver was 'correct' in the cases of inconsistencies, it was only
noted that there was a difference. Inconsistencies and incompletes were
counted for each of the reports reviewed. Pages 1, 2, and 3 were
evaluated first for completion. Completion was determined if the driver
had attempted to fill out any information on the page. Page 1 must be
completed or else the form will not be accepted by the DMV, so no
incompletes were recorded. Page 2 of the form collects specific
information about the conditions and cause of the crash: weather, road
conditions, light, direction of movement, injury, safety equipment, and
the diagram. This information is very important for the crash data, but
in 19 cases the page was skipped altogether. Drivers may not be aware
that there is a second page of the form, or may be frustrated by the
amount of information requested. It should be noted that page 3 of the
accident report form is optional unless more than two drivers were
involved in the crash. The vast majority of the crashes reviewed
involved one or two drivers, so page 3 was unnecessary. The percentage
of incompletes for pages 2 and 3 are comparable, which implies that
these extra pages are easy to skip when they are required. Table 2
summarizes the audit results.

The location of the crash is one of the first pieces of information
collected on the form, and it was usually filled out. It was not
possible to determine the true location of the crash in order to
evaluate the 'correctness' of the location since the "true" location is
unknown. It was possible to determine that there were a large number of
inconsistencies on location. For example, when a crash was located near
an intersection, sometimes different drivers would record it on
different streets. Other drivers provided minimal or confusing
information about their location. In contrast to the number of errors in
location were the numbers of highly specific locations given that
matched with police descriptions. Although it was impossible to
determine exactly in most cases, anecdotal evidence indicates that the
responding police officers frequently provide the citizens information
for their reports. It is suspected that this happened whenever a
citizen's report gave precise milepost numbers that matched the police
report and other drivers' reports verbatim.

Considering that date and time should be the least emotional or precise
part of the report, there were a surprising number of inconsistencies.
The time was considered to be inconsistent if it was more than 30
minutes different from the other driver or police report form. A
surprising number were several hours off. Additionally, there were cases
where the date was different between reports. The errors for weather,
light, and road conditions were comparable in numbers. These are
'judgment calls' in some cases. A driver may have to determine if an
early morning crash occurred at dawn or full daylight. The errors that
are most important occurred when drivers checked conditions that could
not happen at the same time, such as "raining" for weather condition and
"dry" for road condition.

Direction of movement was the most problematic of all the fields. People
appear to not be comfortable using compass directions. Frequently,
different drivers would report conflicting directions of travel.
Complicating the comparison, the police report form does not ask for
direction of movement as a data field but is included in narrative or
sketch if given. Therefore, the inconsistencies reported come from
comparison with the other citizen reports, or with details in the police
narrative when available. The large number of mistakes indicates a
problem, as does the large number of incomplete responses, and may not
reflect the true magnitude of the problem.

The most difficult part of the citizen reporting form to decipher is the
box on page 2 that collects information about injuries and safety
equipment (see Appendix). Citizens must use two different lists of codes
to fill in small boxes indicating level of injury and safety equipment
used for all passengers. The code system is not the same for injury and
safety equipment, and it may be difficult to decipher for many people.
It was the most frequently skipped part of the form. Following closely
in number of skipped responses was the diagram. Although many drivers
clearly spent much time working on their diagrams, in some cases the
driver did not fill in the diagram. A notable number of the reviewed
diagrams were inconsistent with other information given in the form,
such as direction of travel, or other citizen or police report forms.

Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the total number of incomplete versus
inconsistent errors. Table 2 summarizes all crashes that had more than
one form filed (one citizen and police, more than one driver and police,
more than one driver). Table 3 summarizes the results for crashes where
only one report was filed by a citizen and no police report was filed
which represent 52 of the 207 crashes reviewed. Although these reports
were reviewed mostly for completion (since there was not another form to
compare them to) there were some clear inconsistencies within the
report. The results indicate that incompleteness is more of a problem
than inconsistency, but it is much easier to determine incompleteness
than inconsistency. Inconsistency may be a more significant problem than
the review was able to assess.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554308 .anchor}Table 2 Crash Error Summary,
Multiple Report Crashes

+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
|              | Inc     | I         | Incon   | Inc       | Total   |
|              | omplete | ncomplete | sistent | onsistent | Error   |
|              | Count   | %         | Count   | %         |         |
|              |         |           |         |           |         |
|              |         | of        |         | of        |         |
|              |         | reports   |         | reports   |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 1       | 0       | 0%        | n/a     | n/a       | 0       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 2       | 19      | 6.40%     | n/a     | n/a       | 19      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 3       | 4       | 6.78%\*   | n/a     | n/a       | 4       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Location     | 5       | 1.68%     | 31      | 10.44%    | 36      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Type of      | 7       | 2.36%     | 2       | .67%      | 9       |
| crash        |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Date/Time    | 11      | 3.70%     | 23      | 7.74%     | 34      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Weather      | 17      | 5.72%     | 8       | 2.69%     | 25      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Road         | 19      | 6.40%     | 3       | 1.01%     | 22      |
| Conditions   |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Light        | 26      | 8.75%     | 16      | 5.39%     | 42      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Direction    | 26      | 8.75%     | 50      | 16.84%    | 76      |
|              |         |           |         |           |         |
| of movement  |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Injury       | 60      | 20.20%    | 5       | 1.68%     | 65      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Safety       | 63      | 21.21%    | 4       | 1.35%     | 67      |
| equipment    |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Diagram      | 59      | 19.87%    | 23      | 7.74%     | 82      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total        | 316     |           | 165     |           | 418     |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

\* only required for 18 crashes, 59 drivers reports

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554309 .anchor}Table 3 Crash Error Summary,
Single Report Crashes

+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
|              | Inc     | I         | Incon   | Inc       | Total   |
|              | omplete | ncomplete | sistent | onsistent | Error   |
|              | Count   | %         |         | %         |         |
|              |         |           | Count   |           |         |
|              |         | of        |         | of        |         |
|              |         | reports   |         | reports   |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 1       | 0       | 0%        | n/a     | n/a       | 0       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 2       | 4       | 7.69%     | n/a     | n/a       | 4       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Page 3       | n/a     | n/a       | n/a     | n/a       | n/a     |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Location     | 0       | 0%        | 2       | 3.85%     | 2       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Type of      | 4       | 7.69%     | 0       | 0%        | 4       |
| crash        |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Date/Time    | 0       | 0%        | 4       | 7.69%     | 4       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Weather      | 5       | 9.62%     | 2       | 3.85%     | 7       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Road         | 5       | 9.62%     | 1       | 1.92%     | 6       |
| Conditions   |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Light        | 6       | 11.54%    | 1       | 1.92%     | 7       |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Direction    | 10      | 19.23%    | 2       | 3.85%     | 12      |
|              |         |           |         |           |         |
| of movement  |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Injury       | 12      | 23.08%    | 0       | 0%        | 12      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Safety       | 14      | 26.92%    | 0       | 0%        | 14      |
| equipment    |         |           |         |           |         |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Diagram      | 11      | 21.15%    | 0       | 0%        | 11      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total        | 71      |           | 12      |           | 83      |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+-----------+---------+

Figure 6 summarizes that total number of errors per report. The average
number of mistakes per form was approximately 1.6, out of 13 areas,
which means there is approximately a 12% error rate. As shown in Table
2, errors are occurring at a high frequency in certain places on the
forms. Different groups were evaluated to see if there was a difference
in the error rate: counties, gender, distance of residence, and presence
of police report.

The lowest number of errors came from Lane County, at 1.3 errors per
form. The most came from Marion County, at 2.3 errors per form. All
other groups fell in this range, which is not a significant difference.
The means for each subgroup were tested for a statistically significant
difference using a one sample t-test. The p-value among the counties,
which had the greatest variance from the mean among the subgroups, is
0.660, so the means of the counties are not statistically different from
the overall mean number of errors. The p-values for the other subgroups
were not significant either, and their variance from the mean is
smaller. For gender the p-value is 0.940, for distance from home it is
0.563 and for police report filed it is 0.834 which are all much greater
than 0.05. It is of particular interest that people who were more than
25 miles from home had only slightly more errors than people who were
close to home. More errors were expected, particularly in location and
direction. A connection between having a police officer file a report
and form completion was investigated as well, but showed only a slight
difference whether or not a police officer was involved. There were
slightly more errors noted when the police report was filed, but this is
probably because it was easier to detect errors when the police report
was available for comparison.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.647916666666666in"
height="3.754861111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554321 .anchor}Figure 6 Errors per Report, by
Category

## FIndings: Potential Improvements

The review of reports indicates that there could be substantial
improvements in data quality from a web-based form. An online form will
not reduce simple human error, but it could contain safeguards that
ensure more information will be captured and it could contain more
information to help drivers report accurate information. First, an
online report could require that information be completed before the
form can be submitted. This function could reduce most, if not all, of
the missing information. This would have the largest impact on the
detail information on page 2 that is frequently skipped. Automated
fields could also be created to reduce citizen burden. For example, the
injury and safety equipment box on the form requires the driver to
record the names of everyone in the car, even though they have already
filled out their own name and information on page 1.

The location data could be improved using a map-based location tool.
Internet map sites, particularly Google, are extremely accurate now and
many citizens (who use the Internet) are accustomed to using them for
directions. Using a similar site to locate a car crash would not be much
different. There would still be potential for errors, but no more so
than now when drivers are asked for a literal description of crash
location. Some date/time errors may occur no matter what format is used
to collect the data, but it would be possible to use a pop-up style
calendar to help drivers select the date. This would also prevent
against discrepancies between the date and day of the week fields. Time
of crash errors are more difficult to fix, and will probably occur with
any system.

Weather, road conditions, and light fields could easily be programmed so
that opposite selections (raining and dry) could not be selected at the
same time. Drivers could still make a mistake and report inaccurate
information (as long as it was reasonable), but this would cut down on
the number of errors. If drivers could access the Internet form faster
than waiting to go to the DMV a few days later to pick up a form they
may have a clearer memory of the event. It may be difficult to rectify
the direction of movement error, but if drivers were offered a better
location and diagram tool then direction of movement may not be
necessary at all. The injury and safety equipment information could be
made more user friendly (and should be- even if the paper form is kept
as the primary reporting system) with an online system. The diagram box
could be greatly improved by sample crash sketches for drivers to select
from. For example, all rear-end crashes can be represented the same way,
and with a good location and narrative it might provide the crash coders
the most accurate characterization of the crash. The sample sketches
could also be adaptable to allow the driver to provide more detail about
his or her specific crash. Anecdotally, it seems that a large number of
people who filled out reports had trouble describing the crash in the
narrative section. Some forms were even filled out in Spanish. Although
an online form would probably not help an underserved population (since
they are less likely to have access to the Internet), this does indicate
that there are many different needs that are currently not served by the
English language paper form.

## Summary

The data collection method used police forms as a comparison and did not
evaluate or quantify errors made there; however, mistakes were
discovered. This report has mostly focused on improving the citizen
report since they are the source of the majority of Oregon's data, but
the police forms could use the same improvements. Police officers are
perceived to generally be more accurate than citizens because they are
more used to their forms and the information required, but they can
still make mistakes and an electronic form could greatly reduce the time
it takes them to file.

It should be noted that the quality of crash data reported by citizens
was a major concern behind this research project. After reviewing the
actual crash files, it was noted that most drivers are actually very
good about filling out the crash report form. Even when drivers make
mistakes, the coders are frequently able to determine the true events
based on the other reports, or based on other information provided by
the driver. In conclusion, there are clearly many areas where
improvements can be made to facilitate citizen reporting. Specifically,
making it easier for drivers to fill out all fields (and being made
aware of the second page of the report) would most likely result in
improved data. Also, providing drivers with more assistance for filling
out location and direction movement would be helpful.

# ASSESSMENT OF CITIZEN interest 

In this chapter, the general level of acceptability of using the
Internet for transactions with the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services
Division are investigated. Two areas were studied to illuminate this
issue. First, the DMV already provides a number of services online and
the level of use is reported. Second, a simple mailed survey was
developed and sent to drivers who have recently filed a crash report to
assess the interest in online filing. These two reviews are documented
below.

## CURRent Usage of DMV Online Services

The DMV already uses online services for address changes (required by
law in 30 days after moving) and for vehicle registration renewals in
areas without a vehicle inspection requirement. Figure 7 shows a screen
capture of the current DMV website for online transactions
(www.oregondmv.com). These online transactions can also be accomplished
in person at DMV field offices, by mail at DMV headquarters, or in the
case of vehicle registrations, at DEQ vehicle inspection stations when
required. The percentage of transactions, according to DMV, done by each
method is shown in Table 4.

The number of transactions that are done via the Internet is not large,
with only about 10% of drivers renewing their driver's licenses and
about 7% of vehicle registration renewals. For vehicle registrations,
the online feature cannot be used in Multnomah, most of Clackamas, most
of Washington, or Jackson Counties where cars must be inspected by the
Department of Environmental Quality. These counties account for
approximately 48% of the 2004 population in Oregon and clearly
contribute to relatively low usage of these online service. For address
changes, the number of transactions is also surprising low, given that
this service is available for all Oregon residents. As shown in the
survey (next section), many people are unaware that these transactions
can be done online. Traditionally, most transactions with DMV are
paper-based and many require an in-person transaction. People may just
expect to do these transactions with DMV in-person or may be reluctant
to use the Internet for services. As the literature review and survey
shows a strong interest in using Internet-based interactions with
government, the lack of participation may be a marketing issue.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554310 .anchor}Table 4 Current Usage of DMV
Online Services

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          Address Change          Vehicle renewal

  Submitted at Field      60%                     35%
  Office                                          

  Submitted to DMV        29%                     31%
  Headquarters                                    

  Submitted Online        10%                     7%

  Submitted by Electronic 1%                      \-
  Vehicle Registration                            
  (Dealers)                                       

  In person at DEQ        \-                      26%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.861111111111111in"
height="3.448611111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554322 .anchor}Figure 7 Current DMV Online
Services

## Survey

In order to gauge the public acceptance of filing legally required crash
reports over the Internet, a simple mailed survey was administered. The
recruitment list of citizens who have filed crash reports was provided
by DMV, with the permission of their internal driver records manager. To
create the survey mailing list, the 8,000 potential respondents were
reviewed. Obviously incorrect or missing addresses were removed and a
random number was assigned to the remaining entries. These were sorted
in ascending order and the first 1,000 were selected for mailing.

The survey included a letter of consent informing respondents of their
rights, the nature of the survey, and instructions. The actual survey
was on a postage-paid postcard with the survey questions on the reverse
side. Each postcard was stamped with a unique identification number so
that further analysis pertaining to location (urban/rural, county) could
be completed. No attempt was made to link responses to the individual's
name in any way to protect confidentiality. Both the letter of consent
and survey form were placed in a 6" x 9" manila envelope for mailing.
The return address on each envelope indicated "Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Portland State University." There was no
indication on the outside of the envelope that it contained a survey. A
sample of the informed consent letter and the survey is contained in the
Appendix, section 9.3.

The survey was mailed to 1,000 addresses which included a small number
of out-of-state residents. Out of the 1,000 surveys, 62 were returned as
undeliverable, and 146 were returned completed. The response rate for
the survey then, neglecting those returned as undeliverable, was 15%.
Based on past experiences, this level of response is reasonable and was
within the expectations of the researchers. As shown in Figure 8,
surveys were returned from a majority of the state, from both mainly
rural and mainly urban counties.

After a period where no further surveys were returned in the mail, the
survey responses were summarized and are shown in tabular format in
Table 5 and graphically in Figure 9. The results show that 86% indicated
that they were aware that there was a legal requirement to file a crash
report with the DMV. As the survey pool only included those that have
filed a report, this may not reflect the whole population. Also, the
wording of the question or the impression that the survey was being
shared with enforcement may have biased respondents to report that they
knew of this requirement. The results also show that the vast majority
of people still use paper forms, which they indicate were obtained from
the DMV (55%) or from the police officer at the crash scene (15%). Only
16% obtained the form from the DMV's website in PDF format. One
hypothesis is that using an online form may allow people to more
accurately define the location of the event. A strong majority of people
(77%) had personal knowledge of their crash location, which they used to
fill out the form. Most survey respondents found the form easy to use
(68%). Nearly equal percentages of respondents prefer to use paper or
the Internet to file an accident report. Most people were not aware that
they could use the Internet to do other services with the DMV. Analysis
of the location of the respondents and their answers was conducted but
did not find any conclusive links between city of residence and opinions
of accident report forms.

![](media/image9.png){width="3.863888888888889in"
height="3.0555555555555554in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554323 .anchor}Figure 8 Counties with Survey
Responses

The survey shows that there is interest in using the Internet to file
accident reports. Although the percentage in favor was 47% (compared to
49% not in favor), this is consistent with the findings in the
literature review that about half of Americans have access to the
Internet. It is reasonable that people with access to the Internet would
be more interested in filing online than people without. In retrospect,
it would have been useful to ask survey respondents if they have access
to the Internet to highlight whether the issue was access to or
reluctance to use the Internet for DMV transactions.

It appears that many people are not informed about how much DMV business
is available online. Nearly 68% indicated that they were not aware of
this service. This may be due to the fact that e-government is still
fairly new, or perhaps that the DMV could better inform customers about
how they can take advantage of online tools. Additionally, most people
reported that they found the form easy to use, but the survey did not
ask more specific questions about the form. The analysis of crash report
errors in the following chapter showed that there are clearly parts of
the form that are easier than others.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554311 .anchor}Table 5 Survey Results

+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Survey Question     | Response  |            | N     | Pe    |     |
|                     |           |            | umber | rcent |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Were you aware of   | Yes       |            | 126   | 86%   |     |
| Oregon's            |           |            |       |       |     |
| requirement that    | No        |            | 34    | 23%   |     |
| you file an         |           |            |       |       |     |
| accident report     | No answer |            | 3     | 0.02% |     |
| form after a car    |           |            |       |       |     |
| accident?           |           |            |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| If you completed an | PDF from  |            | 24    | 16%   |     |
| accident report,    | DMV       |            |       |       |     |
| where did you get   | website   |            | 81    | 55%   |     |
| the form?           |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | Paper     |            | 20    | 15%   |     |
|                     | form from |            |       |       |     |
|                     | DMV       |            | 19    | 13%   |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | Paper     |            | 2     | 0.01% |     |
|                     | form from |            |       |       |     |
|                     | police    |            |       |       |     |
|                     | officer   |            |       |       |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | Other     |            |       |       |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | No answer |            |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| If you completed an | Map       |            | 6     | 0.04% |     |
| accident report     |           |            |       |       |     |
| form, how did you   | Police    |            | 14    | 10%   |     |
| determine your      | officer   |            |       |       |     |
| location?           |           |            | 113   | 77%   |     |
|                     | Personal  |            |       |       |     |
|                     | knowledge |            | 5     | 0.03% |     |
|                     | of        |            |       |       |     |
|                     | location  |            | 8     | 0.05% |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | Other     |            |       |       |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | No answer |            |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Did you find the    | Yes       |            | 99    | 68%   |     |
| accident report     |           |            |       |       |     |
| form easy to use?   | No        |            | 40    | 27%   |     |
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | No answer |            | 7     | 48%   |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Would you prefer to | Yes       |            | 69    | 47%   |     |
| use the Internet to |           |            |       |       |     |
| file an accident    | No        |            | 72    | 49%   |     |
| report form?        |           |            |       |       |     |
|                     | No answer |            | 5     | 0.03% |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Are you aware that  | Yes       |            | 46    | 32%   |     |
| you can change your |           |            |       |       |     |
| address and renew   | No        |            | 99    | 68%   |     |
| your registration   |           |            |       |       |     |
| (in some counties)  | No answer |            | 1     | 0.01% |     |
| online at           |           |            |       |       |     |
| oregondmv.com?      |           |            |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| ![](media/im        |           | ![](media/ |       |       |     |
| age10.wmf){width="3 |           | image11.wm |       |       |     |
| .061111111111111in" |           | f){width=" |       |       |     |
| height="2.1         |           | 3.06111111 |       |       |     |
| 083333333333334in"} |           | 1111111in" |       |       |     |
|                     |           | height="2. |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 0993055555 |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 555555in"} |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Were you aware of   |           | If you     |       |       |     |
| Oregon's            |           | completed  |       |       |     |
| requirement that    |           | an         |       |       |     |
| you file an         |           | accident   |       |       |     |
| accident report     |           | report,    |       |       |     |
| form after a crash? |           | where did  |       |       |     |
|                     |           | you get    |       |       |     |
|                     |           | the form?  |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| ![](media/im        |           | ![](media/ |       |       |     |
| age12.wmf){width="3 |           | image13.wm |       |       |     |
| .061111111111111in" |           | f){width=" |       |       |     |
| height="2.0         |           | 3.06111111 |       |       |     |
| 993055555555555in"} |           | 1111111in" |       |       |     |
|                     |           | height="2. |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 0993055555 |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 555555in"} |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| If you completed an |           | Did you    |       |       |     |
| accident report     |           | find the   |       |       |     |
| form, how did you   |           | accident   |       |       |     |
| determine your      |           | report     |       |       |     |
| location?           |           | form easy  |       |       |     |
|                     |           | to use?    |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
|                     |           |            |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| ![](media/im        |           | ![](media/ |       |       |     |
| age14.wmf){width="3 |           | image15.wm |       |       |     |
| .061111111111111in" |           | f){width=" |       |       |     |
| height="2.1         |           | 3.06111111 |       |       |     |
| 131944444444444in"} |           | 1111111in" |       |       |     |
|                     |           | height="2. |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 1173611111 |       |       |     |
|                     |           | 111112in"} |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+
| Would you prefer to |           | Are you    |       |       |     |
| use the Internet to |           | aware that |       |       |     |
| file an accident    |           | you can    |       |       |     |
| report form?        |           | change     |       |       |     |
|                     |           | your       |       |       |     |
|                     |           | address    |       |       |     |
|                     |           | and renew  |       |       |     |
|                     |           | your       |       |       |     |
|                     |           | re         |       |       |     |
|                     |           | gistration |       |       |     |
|                     |           | (in some   |       |       |     |
|                     |           | counties)  |       |       |     |
|                     |           | online at  |       |       |     |
|                     |           | oreg       |       |       |     |
|                     |           | ondmv.com? |       |       |     |
+---------------------+-----------+------------+-------+-------+-----+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554324 .anchor}Figure 9 Survey Results

## Summary

Given the ease and convenience of Internet transactions, a surprisingly
small number of DMV transactions are conducted in that manner. It
appears that the existing DMV online services for vehicle registration
renewal and address change are under utilized given the ease and
potential time savings they represent. The survey may yield some insight
for public outreach since most people were unaware that they could
conduct this business online. Additional "marketing" of these services
may increase their use. Alternatively, people may prefer to conduct
their transactions in paper or in person, since many DMV transactions
have a legal requirement. The survey indicated that people are generally
comfortable with the existing process, finding both the form easy to use
and the process satisfactory. According to the survey, nearly 50% (but
not the majority) of respondents would prefer to file a crash report
over the Internet. The following chapter will use the information from
this assessment and estimate the feasibility of implementing an
electronic crash reporting system for Oregon.

# FEASIBILITY Analysis

This chapter presents the feasibility of implementing a web-based system
of crash reports. The chapter also documents potential efficiency
increases and estimates the high-level benefits that could be accrued if
such a system were to be implemented. The benefits estimated in this
chapter do not address the value of increased data quality, timelines,
or other advantages an electronic reporting process is likely to bring.
Finally, a brief discussion of system costs is presented.

## Proposed System

Prior to the detailed discussion about feasibility of an electronic
crash reporting system, it is necessary to briefly describe how such a
system might work. The challenge of a system in Oregon is that it would
have to integrate with the existing process and legal requirements. As
shown in Figure 10, a dual paper and electronic system is likely to be
needed for some time since some citizens and police agencies may still
file paper reports. It is envisioned that if the portal for electronic
citizen reporting is opened, some police agencies may elect to submit
forms via the portal or through another means via their individual
agency information networks. There are a number of existing systems in
use that could be modified for an electronic crash reporting system.
Another option would be to use the fillable PDF form developed by the
Transportation Safety Division at ODOT that includes a database
interface (data input in the form can be exported to a database format).

With an electronic crash reporting system all reports would first go to
the ARIV unit at DMV. Crash reports from multiple drivers and police
agencies would still need to be assembled into one "file" for review.
This process could be substantially automated by matching reports based
on a number of fields (date, county, driver name, road). There would
still need to be a manual review of the matched forms, with some
requiring more time than others. A potential issue is that many drivers
and police agencies wait until much later than the legally required 72
hour reporting period after a crash to file reports. This would result
in some time delay before reports could be matched. This problem exists
in the current process as well. All information from the paper-based
forms would still be coded manually into the developed database
system**.** This would result in slightly more coding effort than is
currently done at ARIV (but would reduce this coding at the CAR unit).

At this step, all forms would be available in the system database for
review by ARIV for legal and insurance compliance. It would be possible
to integrate the system with other data systems such as insurance,
driver records, and registration to increase data accuracy (although
that level of integration would require an entirely separate analysis).

Finally, when the assembled crash reports are approved they would be
sent to CAR for coding review. Single driver crash forms would require
very limited review except for location and crash description. Depending
upon the software design or changes to the form, some fields could be
automatically populated in the states' crash data system. The system
would allow coders to easily view where reports were in agreement on a
number of fields which could then be automatically entered in the crash
data system. Inconsistent fields would have to be reviewed by coders
prior to being entered in the system.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.459722222222222in"
height="5.124305555555556in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554325 .anchor}Figure 10 Proposed System for
Electronic Crash Report Filing

## INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES

Institutional barriers can include legal restrictions, process
restrictions, or staff restrictions. In terms of legal restrictions, the
interviews did not reveal any barrier to allowing citizens to file
reports over the Internet. If an issue is discovered in statute or
administrative rule, the perception is that changes would not be
difficult to implement. As with any system that transitions to
electronic format from paper, there is the perception of increased risk
for loss of data. However these concerns are minimized with a well
designed system. Oregon's strong privacy laws relating to DMV records
would need to be adequately addressed with a secure system and strong
protocols for handling data records.

Technical barriers include those related to existing or required
technology that must be modified. Clearly, the notion of using the
Internet to allow citizens to submit and complete forms is a mature
technology. The major technical challenge would be integrating a system
into the current process consistent with the reporting laws. As a major
state agency with a number of similar technical projects, the Oregon
Department of Transportation is well equipped to handle the technical
challenges of developing a web-based crash reporting system. As shown in
the previous chapter, DMV currently accepts a number of transactions
from their drivers integration system. There are a number of examples
within DMV as to how to incorporate or accept the transfer of
information from an outside agency or company. However, DMV's IT staff
is currently overloaded with work from other projects mandated by
federal legislation and it could be some time before this effort would
receive priority for development.

## Benefits 

The benefits of full scale implementation could include improved data
accuracy, improved timeliness, and reduced data entry burden on ODOT
units that handle crash reports, the Accident Reporting and Insurance
Verification (ARIV) and the Crash Analysis and Reporting (CAR) units.
Essentially, the benefits are cost reductions that result from the
improvements in the existing process. The cost reductions are primarily
in labor savings to the ARIV and CAR units. There would be additional
benefits from improved data for users of the system but these are not
quantified in this report. In this analysis, it was assumed that time
savings translate into a cost-savings for ODOT as a means to estimate
the feasibility of an electronic system. In reality, the labor savings
of the electronic process may simply be redistributed to other units
that are currently understaffed. Other cost reductions such as storage
costs or paper form printing costs are not estimated. The analysis does
not include any benefits that may accrue to citizens in terms of time
savings (not having to report in person or mail crash report to DMV). It
also does not include any labor or cost savings that are likely to
accrue to police agencies that currently file reports via paper.
Finally, a 10 year period was used to evaluate the potential benefits,
with an assumed deployment year of 2006 is used in this analysis.

In order to estimate the potential benefits, a forecast of the number of
reports filed electronically was made. Using the statewide crash data
system, the total number of reports per crash was determined for the
three year period of 2000-2003. Data from 2004 were not used due to a
change in reporting threshold that became effective in 2004 which
affected the number of reports filed. The law change was confusing and
the number of reported crashes will likely continue to follow the
previous year's trend. This assumption is based on historical analysis
of past reporting threshold changes. In nearly every instance where the
threshold has been raised, there were initial declines in the number of
reported crashes but they returned to the trend observed before the
changes in a short number of years. The statewide crash data system
(CDS) records if a public safety agency filed a report, whether they
were on scene but did not file a report, or if there was no public
safety report. Also included in the CDS is the total number of vehicles
involved in the crash. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed
that every driver in the crash filed a report. However, it is known from
interviews and research that the CDS is only an estimate of the number
of reports that are filed. In some cases, CAR may enter information
about another vehicle even if they do not have that driver's report
(since not all drivers are legally required to file). In other cases,
ARIV may receive a driver's form but not send them to DMV for a number
of reasons (legal, time delay, record keeping). The CDS, however, appear
to be the best estimate of the number of crash reports filed each year.

Reports are categorized based on the number of forms filed per crash. As
shown in Table 6, the number of reports with only one crash report form
is relatively few (8%). All other reporting combinations were considered
as multiple reports with 2 reports, either by a driver and police
officer in a single vehicle crash (10%) or by two reports from citizens
(56%). The remaining reports with 3 or more reports per crash make up
the remaining 26% of crash reports filed. The 2001-2003 data were
averaged for all reporting scenarios. It should be noted that based on
interviews with ARIV, approximately 20% of the reports received are not
transmitted to CAR. Accordingly, the number of forms received by ARIV is
increased by 20% over what is indicated in the CAR data.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554312 .anchor}Table 6 Types and Combinations
of Reports Received by ODOT, 2001-2003

  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
  Report Filing Combination    2001       2002       2003       Average

  1 Report                     3,838      3,840      3,640      3,773

  2 Reports, Police One Driver 5,010      4,675      5,315      5,000

  2 Reports, Citizens          26,316     27,494     28,937     27,582

  3 Reports, Police, 2+        10,887     10,093     11,720     10,900
  Drivers                                                       

  3 Reports, 3+ Drivers        2,087      2,180      2,095      2,121

  Total                        48,138     48,282     51,707     49,376
  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------

Note: Estimated from the statewide crash data system (CDS)

Given the rapidly changing technology and uncertainty of the use of a
web-based system by drivers (despite the results of the survey), two
scenarios were evaluated to estimate the number of crash reports that
would be received by ODOT in electronic form, one conservative and the
other optimistic. The only difference in these two scenarios is the
percent of crash reports that arrive electronically. In the conservative
scenario, initially 10% of all crash reports are estimated to be
received electronically. This includes reports from police agencies and
citizens. As more agencies and citizens become aware of the process, the
number of reports is assumed to increase at a linear rate of an
additional 5% per year. The optimistic scenario is identical except
initially 25% of the reports are estimated to be received in the first
year. These scenarios are shown graphically in Figure 11. These numbers
are assumptions as there are no other crash reporting models involving
such heavy citizen involvement to be studied. However, as noted in
Chapter 5.0 approximately 10% of eligible online transactions available
are actually processed in that manner. In Kentucky's electronic crash
reporting system approximately 30% of crash reports were submitted
electronically three years after the system was deployed (*ASTIP,
2004*). However, Kentucky accepts reports from police who have a much
stronger incentive to file reports electronically. It should be noted
that these assumptions are particularly sensitive to the final estimates
of benefits (i.e. a higher assumed number of electronic crash reports
translates to higher benefits). Finally, based on the 10-year average of
the number of crash reports received, the annual growth in crash reports
is very nearly flat. A 0.008% annual increase in the total number of
crash reports was assumed.

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.4847222222222225in"
height="4.039583333333334in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554326 .anchor}Figure 11 Adoption Rates for
Citizens for Filing Electronic Crash Reports

To estimate the potential labor savings, the current time per form was
determined. For this analysis, it was assumed that single form crashes
take 10 minutes per crash to code and multiple crash forms take 20
minutes (on average). Interviews with CAR revealed that the goal is for
4 crashes per hour to be coded and that coders typically achieve that
process rate. Similar estimates were not available from ARIV because of
the aggregate manner in which forms are processed. However, based on the
total number of forms received and processed and the available staff (20
full-time persons), the 10 minute per single crash and 20 minute for
multiple crash report appears reasonable for ARIV as well.

To estimate the potential cost saved per transaction that moves from
paper to electronic form using current staffing and workload, a percent
of the workload reduction was forecast based on knowledge of the
existing process, the proposed process and judgment. The results of this
exercise are shown in Table 7. For ARIV, much of the insurance
verification process would be automated, greatly reducing the workload
for processing these forms. Single form processing is estimated to take
25% of the existing process time resulting in an 8 minute savings. The
remaining forms would also likely benefit from increased legibility and
reduced errors from an electronic system. Multiple forms would take
approximately 50% of the current time because of the additional review
and verification required.

For CAR, the coders must still translate citizen reports to the format
required by the CDS. Assuming the citizen report remains largely
unchanged the forms would still require some interpretation by trained
crash coders. Although the electronic process would automate much of the
process, the primary time savings would be in the reduction of time
spent in coding the forms into the database. Accordingly, single reports
would take 60% of the current time, resulting in a 4 minute savings per
form. Multiple forms were assumed to have the same labor savings. The
time per form saved was translated into a dollar value by estimating the
average loaded wage rate for a coder in ARIV and CAR. This estimate was
made using employee classifications and published salary rates with an
assumed 40% fringe benefit to reflect the true agency cost. This
resulted in an average hourly rate of \$16.09.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554313 .anchor}Table 7 Estimated Savings for
Electronically Filed Crash Reports

  -------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------
  **Single Crash Form Only**       **DMV - Accident   **ODOT - Crash
                                   Reporting and      Analysis and
                                   Insurance          Reporting**
                                   Verification**     

  Average minutes to process       10                 10

  Percent of existing time with    25%                60%
  E-process                                           

  Estimated minutes with E-process 3                  6

  Minutes saved per form           8                  4

  **Multiple Forms**                                   

  Average minutes to process       20                 20

  Percent of existing time with    50%                60%
  E-process                                           

  Estimated minutes with E-process 10                 12

  Minutes saved per form           10                 8

  **Labor Costs**                                      

  Average loaded wage, annual      \$33,475           \$33,475

  Hourly rate                      \$16.09            \$16.09

  **Total Labor Savings Per        *** ***            *** ***
  Crash**                                             

  Single Forms                     \$2.01             \$1.07

  Multiple Forms                   \$2.68             \$2.15

                                                      
  -------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------

To forecast the annual benefits over a ten year period, the number of
crash reports estimated to be filed electronically (single and multiple)
were multiplied by the total labor savings estimated per report. This
was done each year for ten years for both the ARIV and CAR units. The
total value for each year was discounted to the present year (2006)
using an assumed discount rate of 4%. The results of this analysis is
shown in Table 8 and Table 9 and summarized in Figure 12. The total
estimated discounted benefits for ODOT are approximately \$815,000 for
the conservative scenario and \$1,180,800 for the optimistic scenario.
This appears to be a very conservative estimate given the simplicity of
the benefits model and the benefits not estimated (citizen time, police
time, paper, mailing, storage, improved data quality). In this analysis
methodology, there are slightly more labor savings to the ARIV unit
because in the citizen reporting model, CAR coders will still have to
interpret the values on each form.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554314 .anchor}Table 8 Estimated Benefits to
Oregon DMV -- ARIV Unit

  ---------- ------------ -------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ----------------
  ** **      **Crash                     **Percent of Crash                  **Labor Savings**                   **Total Discounted 
             Report                      Reports Submitted                                                       Benefits**         
             Forms**                     Electronically**                                                                           

  **Year**   **Single**   **Multiple**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**

  2006       4,528        54,724         10%                25%              15,589             38,973           15,600             39,000

  2007       4,564        55,161         15%                30%              23,571             47,142           22,700             45,300

  2008       4,600        55,603         20%                35%              31,679             55,439           29,300             51,300

  2009       4,637        56,048         25%                40%              39,916             63,866           35,500             56,800

  2010       4,674        56,496         30%                45%              48,283             72,424           41,300             61,900

  2011       4,712        56,948         35%                50%              56,780             81,115           46,700             66,700

  2012       4,749        57,403         40%                55%              65,411             89,940           51,700             71,100

  2013       4,787        57,863         45%                60%              74,176             98,901           56,400             75,200

  2014       4,826        58,326         50%                65%              83,077             108,000          60,700             78,900

  2015       4,864        58,792         55%                70%              92,116             117,238          64,700             82,400

  2016       4,903        59,263         60%                75%              101,294            126,617          68,400             85,500

                                                                             Present Worth                       \$493,000          \$714,100
  ---------- ------------ -------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ----------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554315 .anchor}Table 9 Estimated Benefits to
Oregon DOT -- CAR Unit

  ---------- ------------ -------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ----------------
  ** **      **Crash                     **Percent of Crash                  **Labor Savings**                   **Total Discounted 
             Report                      Reports Submitted                                                       Benefits**         
             Forms**                     Electronically**                                                                           

  **Year**   **Single**   **Multiple**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**   **Conservative**   **Optimistic**

  2006       3,773        45,603         10%                25%              10,190             25,476           10,200             25,500

  2007       3,803        45,968         15%                30%              15,408             30,816           14,800             29,600

  2008       3,834        46,336         20%                35%              20,708             36,240           19,100             33,500

  2009       3,864        46,706         25%                40%              26,092             41,748           23,200             37,100

  2010       3,895        47,080         30%                45%              31,561             47,342           27,000             40,500

  2011       3,926        47,457         35%                50%              37,116             53,023           30,500             43,600

  2012       3,958        47,836         40%                55%              42,758             58,792           33,800             46,500

  2013       3,989        48,219         45%                60%              48,488             64,650           36,800             49,100

  2014       4,021        48,605         50%                65%              54,306             70,598           39,700             51,600

  2015       4,054        48,993         55%                70%              60,214             76,637           42,300             53,800

  2016       4,086        49,385         60%                75%              66,214             82,768           44,700             55,900

                                                                             Present Worth                       \$322,100          \$466,700
  ---------- ------------ -------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------ ----------------

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.945833333333334in"
height="4.129861111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc135554327 .anchor}Figure 12 Estimated Annual
Benefits for ODOT CAR and DMV ARIV (2006 Dollars)

## COST ASSESSMENT

Estimating the costs of a proposed system is a non-trivial task. First,
the system in Oregon would have to be uniquely developed to work within
the existing process. An enhancement of legacy type systems can be
complicated and extremely challenging. The system would have to work
with ODOT's internal data systems for both ARIV and CAR, which are
currently on separate systems. An interface would need to be developed
that would allow data fields in the electronic forms to automatically
populate the two information systems to achieve the primary benefits.
These customized requirements serve to increase the cost.

A similar system proposed to accept electronic citations from Oregon
courts at the DMV has been estimated in internal DMV documents to cost
approximately \$250,000 with \$12,000 in annual maintenance. However,
those providing the estimate indicate that it is very preliminary and
has a high degree of uncertainty associated. Further, the estimate is
not immediately transferable to the crash reporting project which would
be substantial more complicated. Kentucky's deployment of the electronic
crash reporting for police agencies was reported to cost approximately
\$1,000,000 in 2000. The proposed system for crash reports is no more
technical than the court project, but would be slightly more complicated
from a overall process viewpoint. As such, it would be reasonable to
expect costs to be close to \$500,000-\$1,000,000. In addition to
development costs, the start-up costs for the new system would include
staff time for development, staff time for training and staff time for
reorganization of the existing crash units. Additionally, the public
would require information about using the new system, which could be
delivered through a public education campaign.

## Summary

This simple analysis indicates that an electronic crash reporting system
is entirely feasible within the current motor vehicle crash reporting
process and structure. No legal or other issues were identified that
would preclude ODOT from moving or developing an online form. Interviews
with both divisions revealed that there would be substantial improvement
in process flow and accuracy if Oregon moved to some form of electronic
capture of crash reports. Currently, staff time is duplicated at CAR and
DMV since information is coded from paper forms at both agencies.

The crash reporting system that would be developed to handle these
reports in Oregon would be a custom effort since the Oregon process is
so unique. However, the process is not so complicated that it could not
be replicated or improved with an automated system. The estimate of
benefits was based entirely on the time savings to the ODOT units that
process crash reports. It was assumed that the time-savings are a
suitable measure of the "benefit" for the public agency. In reality, the
labor costs may not be eliminated but rather redistributed to other
units in the agency that are currently understaffed. In addition, the
assumptions used about the number of forms filed electronically and the
amount of effort saved per form could have significant impact on the
final benefit estimate. As such, the benefits calculated should be
viewed as a general estimate of feasibility. Further, not all benefits
were quantified. Data improvement is valuable in itself and police
agencies are likely to take advantage of the electronic process as the
larger agencies move more towards these technologies. Finally, costs of
the proposed system are difficult estimate to although it appears that
the costs are less than or equal to the estimated benefits.

# conclusions

Oregon is one of only a few states that rely on citizen reporting for
crash information. Accurate crash data is essential to continued
improvement of highway safety in Oregon. Major issues with the current
system include efficiencies, data quality, data capture, and timeliness
of crash reporting. There are three major areas for improvement in the
system: errors made on the report by a police officer or citizen; errors
occurring during manual coding processes; and the delay in receiving
crash data because of the amount of time required for the manual coding
process.

This research indicates that web-based capture of citizen reports would
need to be integrated with a completely new electronic process to be
most efficient. However, just having an electronic copy of the crash
report would provide many benefits. Electronic forms would eliminate
manual shuttle transfer of records and result in a more predictable work
flow, which now requires overtime by the CAR coders each year. It would
eliminate the need to manually track all form movements and store the
crash form. Additionally, it would allow more data capture since it
would allow DMV to release "incomplete" crash records where not all
drivers have filed or had an insurance violation to CAR. CAR does not
need a complete case to record data into their system.

This project could save money in the long run, through the elimination
of paper, mailing costs, transportation costs for paper records, and
staff time. Implementing a new system for crash reporting would require
development and implementation of a new system. The start-up costs for
the new system would include software and hardware purchases and staff
time for development, training, and reorganization of the existing crash
units. Additionally, the public would need information about using the
new system, which could be delivered through a public education
campaign. Security and privacy concerns of citizens would have to be
dealt with as well. A pilot project in a few jurisdictions may be the
best way to test this program. A new system could not entirely phase out
the paper method. Some citizens will still use paper, which will require
manual coding by the DMV and CAR. An alternative or complement to an
online reporting system could be a scanning system to facilitate the
processing of paper forms.

The overall benefits of the proposed enhanced system include higher data
quality due to less opportunity for error, ease of collection, ease of
information transfer between agencies, and improved customer service.
There are additional enhancements available that could improve the data
collection and handling such as GPS devices in police cars, in-vehicle
reporting for police, a simplified form for citizens, online reporting
for citizens, scanning for paper forms, and electronic transfer and
archiving of forms between DMV and CAR. As the Internet becomes more
accessible and people become more comfortable using it, there is no
reason to think that an online crash report would not be at least as or
more effective than the current paper report. Oregon places a large
burden on citizens to report data.

As a future consideration, Oregon should review the feasibility of
shifting the primary data reporting burden from citizens to trained
police officers. An electronic system would be much easier to deploy
with police as the only ones submitting reports. Crash reporting systems
integrated with the patrol car and records management systems would
significantly reduce the overall burden of reporting. Since officers
receive training based on crash data, their information should be much
more accurate. However, there are clear resource issues with this
approach which would have to be weighed heavily prior to implementation.

# References

Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals. (2004).
Application for Best Practices Recognition 2004.

Ballard, Chet and Rudy Prine. (2002). Citizen Perceptions of community
policing: Comparing Internet and mail survey responses. Social Science
Computer Review, 20 (4), 485-493.

Best, Samuel, Brian Krueger, Clark Hubbard, & Andrew Smith. (2001). An
Assessment of the Generalizability of Internet Surveys." Social Science
Computer Review, 19 (2), 131-145

[Borchert,
Mark](http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi?S=IDNJHKKOMHGDOO00D&Search+Link="Borchert%2C+Mark".au.)
(1998). The challenge of cyberspace: Internet access and persons with
disabilities. Cyberghetto or cybertopia?: Race, class, and gender on the
Internet. Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing
Group, Inc.

Brannen, Anna (2001). [E-Government in California: Providing Services to
Citizens through the
Internet.](http://web5.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+5B52D86B-38D3-4647-AC00-581F2F7CD640@sessionmgr6+dbs+aph+cp+1+B39A&_us=frn+21+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACBZA00005039+3A2F&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-TI+tg%5B0+-TI+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-internet+st%5B0+-government+db%5B0+-aph+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+mdb%5B0+-imh+FFCA&fn=21&rn=25)
Spectrum: Journal of State Government, Spring 2001, Vol. 74 Issue 2, p6,
5p

Briggs, Kara. (2004, November 22). Housing, Internet connect for poor.
The Oregonian.

Buchanan, Tom. (2003). [Internet-based Questionnaire Assessment:
Appropriate Use in Clinical
Contexts.](http://web4.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+1D2E0397-F13E-4FE5-BEED-1758A7A740D0@sessionmgr4+dbs+aph+cp+1+A4A8&_us=frn+151+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACBYA00008521+1430&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-TX+tg%5B0+-TX+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-internet+st%5B0+-self++report+db%5B0+-aph+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+mdb%5B0+-imh+B7EF&fn=151&rn=151)
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 32 (3), p100, 10p

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, and the US
Department of Transportation. (2003). [The Use of Electronic Citations:
A Nationwide Assessment.]{.underline}

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail,
fax, and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market
Research, 43 (4), 441-452.

Conner, Al (2005), Personal interview, April 12, 2005.

Cook, Meghan E. & Mark F. LaVigne & Christina M. Pagano & Sharon S.
Dawes & Theresa A. Pardo. (2002) Making a Case for Local E-Government.
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany/SUNY. Albany,
NY: Center for Technology in Government.

Cook, Meghan E. (2000) What Citizens Want from E-Government: Current
Practice Research. Center for Technology in Government, University at
Albany/SUNY. Albany, NY: Center for Technology in Government.

Dawes, Sharon S. (2002). The Future of E-Government. Center for
Technology in Government, University at Albany/SUNY. Albany, NY: Center
for Technology in Government.

Delucia, B. and R. Scopatz (2005). Crash Records Systems: A Synthesis of
Practice. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 350,
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

Edmiston, K.D. (2003). State And Local E-Government: Prospects and
Challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 33 (1), 20-45.

E-Gov Slowly Gaining Acceptance, but Must Mature. (2004). Information
Management Journal, 38 (4), 16.

FHWA/US DOT. (2004). Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and
Australia. Washington DC.

Gosling, Samuel D., Simine Vaxire, Sanjay Srivastava, & Oliver John.
(2004). Should We Trust Web-Based Studies?: A Comparative Analysis of
Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American Psychologist,
59 (2), 93-104.

Griffith, Michael S. (2003). Data is key to understanding and improving
road safety. Public Roads, US Department of Transportation, Vol. 66 (4).
Retrieved April 21st, 2005 from
<http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03jan/09.htm>

Internal Revenue Service, United States Government, Retrieved May 5,
2005 from <http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=138112,00.html>

Jensen, Mary (2004) Personal email, November 14, 2004.

Kaylor, Charles, Randy Deshazo, and David Van Eck. (2001). Gauging
e-government: A report on implementing services among American cities.
Government Information Quarterly, 18, 293-307.

Knapp, Herschel et al. "[Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone
phones for self-administered surveys: does methodology
matter?](http://web4.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+1D2E0397-F13E-4FE5-BEED-1758A7A740D0@sessionmgr4+dbs+aph+cp+1+A4A8&_us=frn+271+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACBYA00008521+97E1&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-TX+tg%5B0+-TX+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-internet+st%5B0+-self++report+db%5B0+-aph+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+mdb%5B0+-imh+B7EF&fn=271&rn=279)"
Computers in Human Behavior. Jan2003, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p117, 18p

Lenhart, Amanda (2003, April 16). The Ever-Shifting Internet Population.
The Pew Institute & American Life Project. Retrieved April 21, 2005 from
<http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_Report.pdf>

Lloyd, Rachel & Otto Hellwig. (2000). Barriers to the Take-Up of New
Technology. National Centre for Social and Economic Modeling, University
of Canberra. Discussion Paper no. 53.

Gabler, Hampton C. et al. "Use of Event Data Recorder (EDR) Technology
for Highway Crash Data Analysis." (2205). Research Results Digest 298.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board.

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance and the
Department Of Transportation (2003), The Use of Electronic Citations :A
Nationwide Assessment

Pardo, Theresa A. (2000 October). Realizing the Promise of Digital
Government: It's More than Building a Web Site. Information Impacts
Magazine, 10.

Pettit, Frances Anne (2002). A Comparison of World-Wide Web and
paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 34 (1), 50-54.

ReportBeam Electronic Reporting System for Law Enforcement. Retrieved
May 5, 2005 from <http://www.reportbeam.com/>

Richard, W and Charles Hancock. (2002) [Data collection through
web-based
technology.](http://web5.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+5B52D86B-38D3-4647-AC00-581F2F7CD640@sessionmgr6+dbs+aph+cp+1+B39A&_us=frn+1+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACBZA00004973+4AF1&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-+tg%5B0+-TI+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-internet+st%5B0+-data++collection+db%5B0+-aph+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+mdb%5B0+-imh+0831&fn=1&rn=10)
Swartz Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, 19
(3) p153, 7p

Strickland, Ora L et al. (2003) [Measurement Issues Related to Data
Collection on the World Wide
Web.](http://web4.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+1D2E0397-F13E-4FE5-BEED-1758A7A740D0@sessionmgr4+dbs+aph+cp+1+A4A8&_us=frn+111+hd+False+hs+True+cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B3+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+sl+0+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAACBYA00008521+41BC&_uso=hd+False+tg%5B2+-+tg%5B1+-TX+tg%5B0+-TX+st%5B2+-+st%5B1+-internet+st%5B0+-self++report+db%5B0+-aph+op%5B2+-And+op%5B1+-And+op%5B0+-+mdb%5B0+-imh+B7EF&fn=111&rn=120)
Advances in Nursing Science, 26 (4), p246, 11p

TraCS National Model Traffic and Criminal Software. Retrieved May 5,
2005 from <http://www.dot.state.ia.us/natmodel/tracs.htm>

Hall, James P. "Enhancing the Value of Data Programs: A Peer Exchange."
(2005). [Transportation Research Circular Number E-C077]{.underline}.
Vale, Colorado: Transportation Research Board.

Truell, Allen D., James E. Bartlett II, & Melody W. Alexander. (2002).
Response rate, speed, and completeness: A comparison of internet-based
and mail surveys. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34
(1), 46-49.

West, Darrell M (2000). Assessing E-government: The Internet, Democracy,
and Service Delivery by State and Federal Governments. Retrieved April
21, 2005 from
<http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/EGovReportUS00.htm>

West, Darrell M. (2003). Global E-Government, 2003. Center for Public
Policy Brown University. Providence, RI.

West, Darrell M. (2003). State and Federal E-Government in the United
States, 2003. Center for Public Policy Brown University. Providence, RI.

# APPENdix 

## Oregon Citizen report form

![](media/image19.png){width="5.673611111111111in"
height="7.579166666666667in"}

![](media/image20.png){width="6.34375in" height="8.385416666666666in"}

![](media/image21.png){width="6.0625in" height="8.020833333333334in"}

## oregon POlice crash report

![](media/image22.png){width="6.184027777777778in"
height="8.105555555555556in"}

![](media/image23.png){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="8.568055555555556in"}

## SURVEY

![](media/image24.png){width="6.40625in" height="8.15625in"}

![](media/image25.png){width="6.0125in"
height="4.297916666666667in"}![](media/image26.png){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="4.402083333333334in"}