Changes in Traffic Safety Policies andRegulations in USA(1950-2010)

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in 7 Countries (1950-2010)
Copyright(C) 2012 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, All rights reserved.

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

1. Introduction
Since the beginning of the widespread use of automobiles in the USA, the federal and state
governments have implemented various policies and regulations to improve traffic safety. This reportaims to examine regulatory changes implemented from 1950 through 2010, annual traffic safety trends,
and any possible relationship between them. Regulatory changes include tougher restrictions ondrinking and driving, the mandatory use of seat belts and helmets, setting safe speed limits and a
graduated driver licensing plan. The report will also examine the judgment, if any, available in theliterature on the successes and failures of various policies.
The first task in this regard is to examine the annual trends on traffic fatalities and injuries along withrelated variables such as annual automobile/motorcycle usage and ownership, as well as population
trends. These trends are presented in the next section. The data used to examine these trends wereobtained from official government sources, the National Safety Council (NSC) and specific individual
sources, which are noted below.

2. Trends in Traffic Safety and Vehicle Ownership Data
2.1 Population Trends
The USA is one of the few industrialized nations whose population growth has remained above thereplacement level in the recent past. The best estimate of the US population comes from the US
Census Bureau data, and this estimate is available for every census year. Figure 1 shows the US
population from 1950 through 2010, which is the study period for this report [1].

US Population 1950-2010
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0Figure 1 US population 1950-2010[1]169Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

It can be observed that the US population grew from close to 150 million in 1950 to about 310 million
in 2010. With such a large increase in population, traffic injuries/fatalities per capita were all but
certain to go down over this period. Moreover, as noted below not only have per capita fatalities gone
down in recent years but so have the overall fatalities.

2.2 Car Usage and Driving Trends
A more relevant figure (compared to total population) for examining the traffic-related injuries andfatalities in the USA would be the Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT). The trend since 1950 is shown in
Figure 2 [2] along with the annual number.

VMT (In Billions) per year
3,500
3,000

VMT (In billions)

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

year

Figure 2 US vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year, 1950-2010 [2]VMT increased from close to 500 billion in 1950 to about 3 trillion in 2010, representing a six-foldincrease. As shown in Figure 2, the annual VMT flat-lined or declined slightly only in the 1970s(during the oil embargo and economically challenging periods in late 1978 through 1981) and during
the recent downturn (starting in 2008). The increase in VMT is not surprising since the number ofpeople who owned at least one car in 2010 was 255.9 million, compared with close to 50 million in1950 [2]. The increases in VMT also correspond closely to the increases in the miles of paved roads in
the USA. The trend in paved roads is shown in Figure 3 [3].

170

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

US Paved Roads

Paved Road (Thousands of Mile)

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

Figure 3 Paved road mileage in the USA by year [3]2.3 Automobile Ownership per Capita
Since 1950 the USA has maintained one of the world’s highest vehicle ownership rates. Vehicle
ownership in the USA grew rapidly in the decades leading up to the 1980s, but slowed thereafter.
Figure 4 shows the trend since 1950 in terms of vehicles per 1,000 people [4].

Automobile Ownership per 1000 People
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Figure 4 Automobile ownership per 1,000 people [4]Figure 5 shows the trend in the number of registered motorcycles in the USA. The number declined
during the 1980s, but has been steadily growing since the mid-1990s [5].

171

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

Registered Motorcycles in the USA
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0Figure 5 Number of motorcycles in the USA since 1960 [5]

2.4 Traffic-related Fatalities
In this section the trends in traffic-related fatalities are presented with respect to the raw numbers aswell as normalized by VMT and population. It may be observed in Figure 6 that while the annual
number of fatalities increased in the 1960s and then again slightly in the first few years of the newmillennium, the more recent trend in fatalities has been downward since 2006. It will be interesting to
examine if there are some recent regulations that may have affected these trends.

Traﬃc Fatalities per year
60,000Traﬃc Fatalities

50,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000

Figure 6 US traffic fatalities per year (1950-2010) [2]172

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, traffic fatalities are at theirlowest since 1950, despite the increases in the population and VMT. Fatalities as a fraction of
population have gone down as shown in Figure 7. This was not the case in the 1960s, and while thefraction trended downwards between 1970s through 2005 it was not a consistent decrease [2].

Fatalities as Fraction of Population

Fraction of population

0.00030.000250.00020.000150.00010.00005
0

Figure 7 US traffic fatalities as a fraction of population (1950-2010) [2]

The fatalities normalized by VMT follow a far more consistent trend. The number of highway deaths
normalized by VMT declined in the 1950s, increased in the 1960s, and has been on a steady decline
since the 1980s [2].

Fatalities per 100 million VMT per year

Fatalities per 100 million VMT per Year
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 8 US fatalities per 100 million VMT 1950-2010 [2]173Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

2.5 Pedestrian Fatalities
Information on pedestrian fatalities was gathered from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) website,which used two different sources, namely, the National Safety Council (through 1989; [6]) and the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS; 1994 onwards; [7]). It appears that the pedestrian deaths have been
reduced in terms of their absolute number, as well as a fraction of total traffic fatalities.

US Pedestrian Fatalities
12,000US Pedestrian Fatalities

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

Figure 9 US pedestrian fatalities per 100 million VMT 1950-2010 [6] [7]Figure 10 shows the number of motorcycle fatalities since 1994. The number consistently increased
till 2008, and then dropped significantly in 2009 [7].

US Motorcycle Fatalities
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

Figure 10 US motorcycle fatalities (1994-2009) [7]174

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

Figure 11 shows the number of bicycle fatalities from the FARS dataset since 1994 [7]. It is apparent
that while the overall trend is downward and the numbers are below 1,000, the trend is not assignificant as that for pedestrian fatalities. Note that the accurate data for pedestrian, bicycle, andmotorcycle fatalities from FARS are available only from the year 1994 onwards.

US Bicycle Fatalities
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Figure 11 US bicycle fatalities [7]Note that the injury information is not as accurate as the fatality information due to poor reporting
reasons, especially if one wants to examine data from 1950 onwards. For example, FARS and the GES
estimates on traffic crash injuries are only available from the early 1990s and thereafter. The author
concluded that reliable and accurate nationwide traffic injury data that can be correlated withnationwide regulatory regime from the year 1950 onwards are not readily available for the USA.

3. National Organizations for Traffic Safety
3.1 A Brief History since 1950
In 1950, the Bureau of Public Roads under the Department of Commerce was the agency responsible
for overseeing highway transportation [8]. In the mid-1960s (possibly due to the rise in fatalities weobserved in the last section) concern about improving highway safety rose significantly in the USA. It
was around the same time that the National Academy of Sciences published Accidental Death andDisability—The Neglected Disease of Modern Society [9]. In 1966, the US Congress held a series ofhearings regarding highway safety and passed legislation to create the US Department ofTransportation as a cabinet department of the executive branch of government. It began operation on

175

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

April 1, 1967. The mission of USDOT [10] is to “serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe,
efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests andenhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.”
The same act created the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which took over the functions of
the Bureau of Public Roads [8]. Several other agencies were also established around the same time,
including the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National
Highway Safety Bureau. These agencies later became the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), which is a coordinated national highway safety program aimed at reducing
death on nation's roads. The legislation passed in that era also allowed and provided incentives to use
federal funds to develop and strengthen state-level highway traffic safety programs [11].

3.2 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Role in Traffic Safety
FHWA supports state and local jurisdictions in the design, construction, and maintenance of the
highway system (Federal Aid Highway Program). In terms of traffic safety, FHWA performs researchin the areas of automobile safety, congestion, highway materials and construction methods. FHWA
also publishes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which is used by mosthighway agencies in the United States. The MUTCD specifies standards for traffic control devices,such as traffic signals, and defines conditions that may justify putting a signal at an intersection [12].

3.3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)NHTSA was officially established in 1970. As we observed in the preceding section, highway
fatalities (normalized by VMT) have been on a decreasing trend since then. The decline is partially
due to the following factors: automobile enhancements that provide better protection to vehicle
occupants in collisions, improved highway signage standards, and increased use of restraints bydrivers.
The agency is a division of USDOT and was created to carry out safety programs formerly governedby the National Highway Safety Bureau (one of its predecessor agencies). Specifically, the agency
directs the highway safety and consumer programs established by the legislation passed since the mid1960s [11]. It is safe to say that consumers today have a far greater access to vehicle safety
information through NHTSA than they would in its absence.

3.4 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
IIHS is a non-profit organization aimed at reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage that result
from crashes on the nation's roads. It was founded in 1959 by the three major insurance associations of
the time, and initially focused on supporting the highway safety efforts of state and federal agencies.

176

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

In 1968, however, it became an independent research and communications organization. IIHS
produces ratings for popular passenger vehicles and certain consumer products associated with roadsafety (e.g., child seats) [13].
The next section examines the various state and federal regulations that may have contributed to thedownward trends in fatalities and injuries presented this section.

4. Traffic Safety Regulations
Since 1950 several policies and regulations have been implemented to improve traffic safety in theUSA. Some of them have been in response to events while some have been pre-emptive responses toresearch showing the risk to drivers, passengers, and/or pedestrians. In general, these policies can bedivided into: i) mandated improvements to vehicular technology; ii) regulations aimed atdriver/passengers, including licensing and equipment requirements (seat belts, helmets, etc.) andefforts to curb driving under the influence; and iii) changes in the national speed limit. All three sets ofregulations have led to consequences, including potentially some unintended ones.
The next section focuses on mandates on vehicular technology and their possible relationships withtraffic fatality/injury trends, followed by regulations aimed at drivers and the national speed limit.

4.1 Vehicular Technology
In terms of vehicular improvement mandates, air bags are the most significant for saving lives.
Airbags were introduced into automobiles in the USA in the 1960s with the aim of reducing injury
associated with frontal impacts. Since 1991, airbags have been required on the driver's side and as aresult, air bags are widely credited with saving lives. In a study [14], it was found that the odds of apassenger dying in an automobile collision were reduced by approximately two-thirds when the airbag
was deployed. The same study found that the combination of seat belt use and air bag deployment
reduced the driver’s risk of dying in a head-on collision by over 80 percent, representing a verysignificant improvement. In addition to airbags, the NHTSA has mandated that all 2012 model
passenger automobiles weighing less than 10,000 lbs. be equipped with ESC (Electronic Stability
Control) [15].

4.2 Driver/passenger-related Regulations
There have been several regulations that require the drivers to behave in a certain way. Some of theseregulations attempt to protect the drivers themselves while some others protect other road users. Seat
belt regulations are an example of the former while the DUI (driving under the influence) laws
exemplify the later.

177

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

4.3 Seatbelt Laws
When driving on the road, there is always a possibility of ending up in a crash. Even when a driver iscareful enough not to cause a crash, he or she may become involved in a crash caused by someone else.
Use of seatbelts is one of the ways in which one can decrease the impact of a crash. Seat belts hold theriders in place so that they will not be thrown out of the vehicle in a crash, and thus lower the level ofpotential injury. In the USA, a federal law requiring seat belts to be installed on all automobiles wasenacted in 1968, and from 1984 onward states gradually began requiring passengers to wear seat belts.
After these laws were enacted, seat belt use rose from 50 to 70 percent in the first month alone. The
US Department of Transportation estimated a 16 to 20 percent reduction in front seat occupantfatalities due to these regulations [16].
As of right now, 32 states, the District of Columbia, and territories including American Samoa, Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have primary seat belt enforcement,
while 17 states have secondary enforcement. Primary enforcement means that a police officer can fine
individuals who do not wear seat belts, even when another traffic offense has not been committed.
Secondary enforcement means that police cannot ticket a driver solely for lack of seat belt use [17].
State laws also vary depending on whether the passenger is seated in the front seat or in the rear seat.
New Hampshire is the only state that has no seat belt law for adults. It is expected that the stricter theenforcement of seat belt use, the higher the number of people who use them. A study by Calkins andZlatoper [18] compared the fatality rates of crashes in states with primary enforcement against those ofstates with secondary enforcement. Information on the fatality count from a year prior to the
mandatory seat belt laws and a year after the enforcement of the law was examined in the research.
This study showed that on average the primary states observed a 17% reduction in traffic fatalities,
while in the secondary enforcement states the reduction was only 3%. It was argued that in thesecondary enforcement states only the “safe” drivers followed the law and put on the seat belts while“unsafe” drivers, such as the younger drivers, did not [18]. In fact, subsequent research has shown thatthe drivers/passengers most likely not to obey seat belt laws are teenagers [19].

4.4 Helmet Laws
The laws requiring use of protective headgear while riding a motorcycle or bicycle vary state by state.
The current disposition of laws is documented by IIHS [20]. In some states there are no specific lawsthat require individuals to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. In several others, there are no laws
requiring individuals over the age of 18 to wear helmet while riding a bicycle. It is obvious thatwearing a helmet while riding a bicycle or motorcycle is much safer than not wearing one. In fact, as
noted by Macleod et al. [21], in 1975 all but three states in the USA had mandatory helmet use laws.
However, it is interesting to note that some states that required the use of helmet in the past haverescinded those laws. The reason for the change was the cause of individual rights prevailing in some178

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pandecases over public safety. In this regard, the trends in traffic safety have been clear, with increased
incidence of head injuries and related fatalities. For example, Muller [22] examined the monthly timeseries of motorcycle occupant deaths from 1/1994 to 12/2001 in Florida, a state that on July 2000
exempted adult motorcyclists from wearing helmets provided they had medical insurance of $10,000
or more. It was estimated that this exemption led to a 48.6% increase in motorcycle occupant deaths.
The results showed a lower increase at 38.2% and 21.3% respectively, when trends in miles traveled
and motorcycle registrations were controlled [22]. Similar results were obtained from Pennsylvania by
Mertz and Weiss [23] following the relaxation of helmet use laws in that state.

4.5 DUI Laws
Driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol/drugs is a significant problem in the USA, especially due
to the dependence on automobiles and lack of public transportation options in large swathes of thecountry. As a result, according to FARS more than 1/3 of all traffic fatalities are associated withalcohol consumption [24]. This statistic remained fairly consistent from 1994 through 2009. The
citizen action groups that have contributed significantly towards the campaign against drunk driving
include Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students against Drunk Drivers (SADD) andRemove Intoxicated Drivers (RID). Most of these groups emerged in 1980s in response to fatalities
and injuries of minors and then prevalent light sentencing for drunk drivers [25].
Following the repeal of Prohibition in the 1930s, some states lowered their drinking age to 18-20 and
until the late 1960s, individual states had the right to make their own DUI laws ([25], [26]). During the1970s, research emerged which suggested that a lower drinking age correlated to increased alcohol
related traffic fatalities in youth. As a result, a few states reinstated the age of 21 as the minimum legal
drinking age (MLDA) either incrementally or immediately during the 1970s ([25], [26]). McCartt et al.
[26] also noted that states with a MLDA of 21 began seeing lower crash rates in the under-21
demographic group. In 1984, the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed to encourage states to
set their MLDA to 21. [25]. Since MLDA establishment remained within states’ jurisdiction,individual states were not obligated to comply. However, the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act
stipulated that any state wishing to receive federal highway funding needed to enact a zero tolerance
law for those under 21 by the year 1999 [27]. Recently, it has been argued that MLDA-21 results inincreases in binge drinking [26].
The literature clearly shows that from 1966 through 1975 (when many states lowered their minimum
drinking age) the rates of alcohol-related crashes among the under-21 group increased (e.g., [26]).
However, the study did point to the possibility that the lower rates of underage alcohol-related crashes
during select time periods could be due to the lower numbers of people in that age group. In addition
to a reduction in crashes, there was a decline in the prevalence of drinking and driving from 1973179

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pandethrough 1996. For example, the estimated percentage of weekend nighttime drivers with a positive
BAC (blood alcohol content) fell from 36% in 1973 to 26% in 1986 and to 17% in 1996 [28].
In terms of most effective policies, the literature has suggested that dram shop liability laws (holding
alcohol selling establishments liable for crashes involving their patrons) strongly correlates with adecrease in alcohol-related crashes [27]. Another successful strategy was lowering the BAC limit
from .10 to .08, which reduced alcohol-related crashes anywhere from 3 to 40% [29]. However,studies of individual states do not consistently reflect this reduction rate due to the wide variability
among different states [30]. On the other hand, McCartt et al. [26] found little to no evidence tosupport that zero tolerance MLDA-21 was effective in lowering prevalence of drunk driving or crashes.
Although the crash rates among minors did show a decrease, it may have been attributable to othercauses such as increased prevalence of seat belt use, stricter DUI laws and improved vehicle safety[26].

4.6 Graduated Licensing Programs
Before the 1990s, most states had a single-stage driver licensing system in which 16 or 17 year olds
could obtain full driving privileges in one step. In the past 15 years, however, almost all states have
implemented the graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs for teenagers trying to obtain a license.
The goal of such programs is to lower traffic fatalities caused, and suffered in most cases, by young
drivers by making them better prepared for the task of driving. Research in the mid-1990s showed thatthe fatality rate for drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 was almost three times that of middle-aged,
experienced drivers [31]. While individual details may vary, the overall structure of the GDL
programs is as follows [31]: First stage: The student driver learns how to drive for 6 months with a supervisor over the ageof 21 always present.
 Second stage: After passing the driving test, the new driver receives a limited license thatallows them to drive alone under certain restrictions. For example, they cannot drive duringhigh-risk times, such as at night, or with more than two passengers.
 Third stage: The probationary restrictions on the license are removed.
Research evaluating GDL programs [32] found that they were quite effective in reducing traffic
fatalities among 15 to 17 year olds. Their analysis indicated that the average GDL program led to atleast a 5.6% reduction in fatalities. GDL programs with more restrictive policies (characterized as“good” by the IIHS) were noted to have reduced fatalities among 15 to 17 year olds by as much as19%. It is clear that this kind of program is seen as a step in the direction of saving lives, and hence
has been adopted by almost all states.

180

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

4.7 Speed-limit Laws
Higher speed increases the distance it takes to safely stop a vehicle, which can make it harder to avoid
crashes. The reaction time necessary to prevent collision is decreased significantly as speed goes up.
Hence, it is critical from a safety standpoint that vehicles be driven at an appropriate speed. Speed
limit regulations can play a critical role in that regard.
Up until the mid-1970s, there was a wide variance in highway speed limits from state to state. The
national maximum speed limit (NMSL) of 55 miles per hour (mph) was instituted as an energy
conservation measure in response to the 1973 oil embargo [33]. Vernon et al. [33] noted that the
number of traffic fatalities decreased nationwide, from 54,000 in 1973 to 45,000 in 1974 following theimplementation of NMSL. This was widely attributed to the decrease in speed limits, leading the US
Congress to pass Public Law 93–643 to make the change in speed limits permanent, with highway
safety being cited as the main purpose [33]. In 1987, however, states were allowed to raise the speed
limit to as high as 65 mph on certain rural interstates, and in 1995 the national speed limit waseliminated completely, with the responsibility of setting speeds on highways once again going back toindividual states. The state-by-state information on existing highest speed limits on freeways can befound in [34]. Most of the studies that attempted to assess the impact of this change on traffic safetyconcluded that the number and/or rate of severe crashes went up after the removal of the NMSL, but
the impact on overall crash rate and frequency was somewhat mixed ([33]; [35]; [36]; [37]).
More recently, in 2006 the daytime speed limit for passenger vehicles on segments of I-10 and I-20 in
the state of Texas was increased from 75 to 80 mph [38]. The study examining these changes foundthat the increase in speed limits led to higher travel speeds and that to reduce the risk of speed-related
crashes highly visible police traffic enforcement and speed cameras should be implemented,
accompanied with publicity [38].

5. Conclusions
Highway traffic deaths have long been a concern for public health officials. Legislators and regulators
have implemented several changes over the years to make highways safer for motorists, pedestrians
and bicyclists. To make a philosophical case that highway crashes and related fatalities can beeliminated; NHTSA carried out a campaign titled “crashes aren’t accidents” to change the prevalentterminology in the traffic safety community [39]. The term “accident” gives the impression thathighway crashes and the resulting injuries/fatalities are a matter of chance. Therefore, “crash” is amore appropriate term since one can take steps to avoid crashes. The efforts of policymakers towards
eliminating crashes include legislation specifying maximum speed limits, seat belt usage, etc. While
the mere existence of such laws may influence motorists’ behavior, enforcement of these laws may
also significantly affect highway safety. This study tried to determine the trends in highway fatalities

181

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pandeand several regulations and their effect on highway safety. Recent trends suggest that USA is moving
in the right direction in terms of improving highway safety. However, it cannot be ruled out that this ismerely the reflection of a slow economy and this safety improvement trend will reverse with an
improving economy. In this regard, the USA should be vigilant about continuing to implement policies
that have been identified as successful in the literature (documented in this report) as well as attempt
to learn from efforts abroad toward achieving zero fatalities.

182

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

References:[1] “Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States. [Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[2] “List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” [Online].
Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year.
[Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[3] “RITA | BTS | Table 1-4: Public Road and Street Mileage in the United States by Type of Surface(a).” [Online]. Available:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_04.html.
[Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[4] “Motor vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#United_States. [Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[5] “RITA | BTS | Table 1-11: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances.”[Online]. Available:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html.
[Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[6] B. J. Campbell, A review of pedestrian safety research in the United States and abroad. Federal
Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 2004.
[7] “FARS Encyclopedia.” [Online]. Available: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
[Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[8] “Federal Highway Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Administration. [Accessed: 08-Nov-2011].
[9] Accidental death and disability: the neglected disease of modern society. National Academies
Press, 1966.
[10] “About U.S. Department of Transportation.” [Online]. Available: http://www.dot.gov/about.html.
[Accessed: 08-Nov-2011].
[11] “About NHTSA | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).” [Online].
Available: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About. [Accessed: 08-Nov-2011].
[12] “About FHWA | Federal Highway Administration.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/. [Accessed: 08-Nov-2011].
[13] “About the Institutes | Milestones.” [Online]. Available: http://www.iihs.org/about_timeline.html.
[Accessed: 08-Nov-2011].
[14] C. S. Crandall, L. M. Olson, and D. P. Sklar, “Mortality reduction with air bag and seat belt use
in head-on passenger car collisions,” American journal of epidemiology, vol. 153, no. 3, p. 219,
2001.
[15] “Electronic Stability Control (ESC) | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).”[Online]. Available:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/Electronic+Stability+Control+%28ESC%29.
[Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].

183

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande[16] A. Cohen and L. Einav, “The effects of mandatory seat belt laws on driving behavior and traffic
fatalities,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 828-843, 2003.
[17] “State Seat Belt Laws.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html. [Accessed: 16-Jan-2012].
[18] L. N. Calkins and T. J. Zlatoper, “The effects of mandatory seat belt laws on motor vehicle
fatalities in the United States,” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 716-732, 2001.
[19] C. S. Carpenter and M. Stehr, “The effects of mandatory seatbelt laws on seatbelt use, motor
vehicle fatalities, and crash-related injuries among youths,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 27,
no. 3, pp. 642-662, 2008.
[20] “Motorcycle and bicycle helmet use laws.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx. [Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[21] J. MacLeod, J. C. DiGiacomo, and G. Tinkoff, “An Evidence-Based Review: Helmet Efficacy to
Reduce Head Injury and Mortality in Motorcycle Crashes: EAST Practice Management
Guidelines,” The Journal of Trauma, vol. 69, no. 5, p. 1101, 2010.
[22] A. Muller, “Florida’s motorcycle helmet law repeal and fatality rates,” American journal of
public health, vol. 94, no. 4, p. 556, 2004.
[23] K. J. Mertz and H. B. Weiss, “Changes in motorcycle-related head injury deaths, hospitalizations,mmand hospital charges following repeal of Pennsylvania’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law,”
American journal of public health, vol. 98, no. 8, p. 1464, 2008.
[24] “FARS Encyclopedia: Trends - Alcohol.” [Online]. Available: http://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Trends/TrendsAlcohol.aspx. [Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].
[25] R. B. Voas, A. S. Tippetts, and J. C. Fell, “Assessing the effectiveness of minimum legal drinking
age and zero tolerance laws in the United States,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 35, no. 4,
pp. 579-587, 2003.
[26] A. T. McCartt, L. A. Hellinga, and B. B. Kirley, “The effects of minimum legal drinking age 21
laws on alcohol-related driving in the United States,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 41, no. 2,
pp. 173-181, 2010.
[27] K. Whetten-Goldstein, F. A. Sloan, E. Stout, and L. Liang, “Civil liability, criminal law, andother policies and alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities in the United States: 1984–1995,”
Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 723-733, 2000.
[28] A. F. Williams, “Alcohol-impaired driving and its consequences in the United States: the past 25
years,” Journal of safety research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 123-138, 2006.
[29] D. Johnson and J. Fell, “The impact of lowering the illegal BAC limit to. 08 in five states in theUS,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995.
[30] A. C. Wagenaar, M. M. Maldonado-Molina, L. Ma, A. L. Tobler, and K. A. Komro, “Effects oflegal BAC limits on fatal crash involvement: analyses of 28 states from 1976 through 2002,”
Journal of Safety Research, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 493-499, 2007.

184

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande[31] D. C. Grabowski and M. A. Morrisey, “The effect of state regulations on motor vehicle fatalities
for younger and older drivers: a review and analysis,” Milbank Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 517545, 2001.
[32] T. S. Dee, D. C. Grabowski, and M. A. Morrisey, “Graduated driver licensing and teen traffic
fatalities,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 571-589, 2005.
[33] D. D. Vernon, L. J. Cook, K. J. Peterson, and J. Michael Dean, “Effect of repeal of the national
maximum speed limit law on occurrence of crashes, injury crashes, and fatal crashes on Utah
highways,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 223-229, 2004.
[34] D. Albalate and G. Bel, “Speed limit laws in America: The role of geography, mobility andideology,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 337-347,
2012.
[35] H. Son, M. D. Fontaine, and B. Park, “Long-Term Speed Compliance and Safety Impacts ofRational Speed Limits,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 135, no. 8, pp. 536-544,
2009.
[36] C. M. Farmer, R. A. Retting, and A. K. Lund, “Changes in motor vehicle occupant fatalities after
repeal of the national maximum speed limit,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 31, no. 5, pp.
537-543, 1999.
[37] D. C. Grabowski and M. A. Morrisey, “Systemwide implications of the repeal of the national
maximum speed limit,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 180-189, 2007.
[38] R. Retting and I. Cheung, “Traffic speeds associated with implementation of 80 mph speed limits
on West Texas rural interstates,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 529-534, 2008.
[39] “Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide -- Crash Aren’t Accidents.”[Online]. Available: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/Archive04/PresBelt/crash_accident.html. [Accessed: 17-Jan-2012].

185

Changes in Traffic Safety Policies and Regulations in USA (1950-2010)

Anurag Pande

Author:Dr. Anurag Pande
Assistant Professor
College of Civil and Environmental Engineering
California Polytechnic State University, USA

Dr. Pande has significant experience in the collection and analysis of traffic data related to safetymeasurement. His research interests also include driver behavior, traffic simulation, emergency
evacuation, and the scholarship of teaching. He received the “Young Researcher Award” from theTransportation Research Board’s Committee on Safety Data, Analysis, and Evaluation in 2007. He has
co-authored close to 30 papers that have been either published or are forthcoming in peer reviewed
journals such as AAP, TRR, and IEEE Transactions on ITS. He is currently working on several
sponsored projects including a study of driver behavior funded by the National Science Foundation.

186