Photo by ©Captain Jane Imming, Davenport Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

Findings from a Statewide Survey

Hope M. Tiesman, PhD

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Rebecca J. Heick, PhD

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Health and Human Services

se Control and Prevention

 for Occupational Safety and Health 
This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted.

Disclaimer

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, 

citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement 

of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, 

NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses 

referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.

Ordering Information

To receive documents or other information about occupational 

safety and health topics, contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

Website: www.cdc.gov\info

or visit the NIOSH website at www.cdc.gov/niosh.

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to NIOSH eNews by visiting 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

Suggested Citation

NIOSH [2014]. Law enforcement officer motor vehicle safety: findings from a statewide survey. By Tiesman, HM and Heick, RJ. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2015 -101.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2015 -101

November 2014

Safer • Healthier • PeopleTM
Findings from a Statewide Survey iii

Executive Summary

Research on occupational motor-vehicle operations has largely focused on transportation workers. Significant gaps exist in the research among emergency service 

personnel, including law enforcement officers (LEOs). Even though motor-vehicle 

crashes are the leading cause of occupational fatality among LEOs, data on current 

motor-vehicular injury and crash trends are scant. Unfortunately, the limited availability of data makes it difficult to develop evidence-based prevention programs. 

To further our understanding of motor-vehicle operations among LEOs, the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sponsored a statewide survey 

on officers’ thoughts about and experiences with motor-vehicle-related incidents. 

The survey was conducted in Iowa in 2011 and included a random sample of 60 law 

enforcement agencies and nearly 1,500 sworn LEOs. Iowa was chosen because of 

pre-existing relationships with various law enforcement entities. Respondents were 

queried on a wide range of topics: motor-vehicle crashes and roadside incidents (being struck by or nearly struck by a moving vehicle), seat belt usage, written motorvehicle policies, and frequency and type of occupational motor-vehicle training. 

Key Findings—Training

■ Nearly all Iowa LEOs reported receiving some type of in-service training annually (93%); however, only 29% received any type of motor-vehicle training. The most common type of motor-vehicle training 

was related to the reading and understanding of written motor-vehicle policy. Approximately one-third of officers reported hands-on 

motor-vehicle training like pursuit driving (37%), use of driving course 

(38%), or emergency vehicle operation courses (EVOC) (35%).

■ Iowa State Patrol officers and those in large agencies (51 or more officers) were significantly more likely to report regular in-service training 

on motor-vehicle operations. 

■ Nearly all Iowa LEOs believed that driver training is critical to their 

safety in the field (96%). Also, only half of Iowa LEOs believed that 

driver training provided at law enforcement academies adequately 

prepares officers to safely function in the field, and 12% believed that 

the average academy recruit has sufficient driving skills to operate a 

law enforcement vehicle. 

Key Findings—Policies

■ Ninety percent of Iowa LEOs reported their agency had a written 

motor-vehicle policy, general order, or standard operating procedure; 

however, only 66% received formal training on the policy. Officers 

who worked daytime hours, Iowa State Patrol officers, and those from 

medium or large agencies (at least 21 officers) were more likely to have 

been trained on this policy than their counterparts. 
iv Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

■ The most common element of agency-written motor-vehicle policies 

was a seatbelt requirement for drivers (82%). The two least common 

elements were speed restriction when using lights/siren (27%) and 

restricting use of cell phones/mobile devices (39%). 

Key Findings—Motor-vehicle Crashes and Roadside Incidents

■ Twenty percent of Iowa LEOs were in at least one motor-vehicle crash 

in the prior 3 years. As officers’ time in law enforcement increased, 

the probability of experiencing a motor-vehicle crash significantly decreased.

■ Most motor-vehicle crashes occurred during daylight (49%), in clear 

weather (70%), during non-emergency calls (64%), and at speeds lower 

than 50 mph (79%). Most officers reported wearing a seatbelt at the 

time of the crash (93%). 

■ Sixteen percent of Iowa LEOs reported being struck by or nearly 

struck by a motor vehicle at a roadside incident in the prior 3 years. 

Iowa State Patrol officers, officers from small agencies (20 or fewer 

officers), patrol officers, and those working nighttime hours were 

significantly more likely to report a roadside incident in the prior 3 

years. Law enforcement experience was not associated with fewer 

roadside incidents. 

■ The majority of roadside incidents occurred during daylight (60%) and 

in clear weather conditions (60%). Nearly half of roadside incidents 

occurred during a traffic stop (47%). 

Recommendations

Training

■ Regularity in in-service motor-vehicle training varied statewide. Iowa 

agencies could consider policies to ensure periodic motor-vehicle 

training, especially among agencies with fewer than 20 officers. One 

study conducted by the California Commission on Peace Officer 

Standards and Training found that behind-the-wheel motor-vehicle 

training resulted in the fewest collisions if conducted every 2 years 

[BLS 2011a]. While this research finding needs to be replicated in 

other studies, our study results indicate that Iowa officers desire more 

behind-the wheel motor-vehicle training. 

■ Approaches for improving the frequency and quality of motor-vehicle training could include the development of a statewide training 

network, sharing of human and material resources across agencies, 

identification of fixed training sites, and the utilization of mobile 

driving simulators.

■ Only half of officers believed that driver training at the academy level 

adequately prepared officers for driving in the field. Since the majority 
Findings from a Statewide Survey v

of officers in our study attended the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, 

we suggest that the state of Iowa conduct an analysis of their statebased training programs to assess the consistency and effectiveness of 

their motor-vehicle training efforts. The state could consider expanding hours of motor-vehicle training and providing more opportunities 

for hands-on training. Also, to ensure that seatbelt safety practices 

become second nature for new officers, the state could continue to 

stress the importance of wearing a seatbelt and the practices associated with buckling/unbuckling while wearing full gear.

Policy

■ One of the least common components of written motor-vehicle policies was restrictions on cell phone use. Research among commercial 

drivers shows that cell phone use significantly degrades driver performance, leading to an increased risk for crash. Several large agencies 

have instituted policies to reduce distractions in law enforcement 

vehicles. While the impact of these policies on officer-involved crashes 

has not been scientifically evaluated, state-level cell phone bans 

appear to significantly reduce fatal crash rates. Based on the current 

available evidence, agencies should consider implementing similar 

policies that restrict the use of cell phones while officers are engaged 

in driving tasks. 

■ Another uncommon component of written motor-vehicle policies 

was speed restriction. Both the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration and California Commission of Peace Officer Standards 

and Training found that “driving too fast for conditions or in excess of 

posted speed” was a leading factor in many officer-involved crashes. 

Agencies have implemented or revised their speed-cap policies. Again, 

the impact of these policies has not been scientifically evaluated. Until 

stronger evidence becomes available, agencies should consider implementing similar policies that restrict speed.

Use of Personal Protective Equipment

■ Eighty-one percent of Iowa LEOs reported wearing a seatbelt while 

driving a patrol car and 77% when riding as a front-seat passenger. 

Agencies should strive to get to 100% by implementing policies and 

supporting officers in the wearing of seatbelts. 

■ Between 4%–10% of Iowa LEOs reported regularly wearing reflective gear while outside of a patrol car. The wearing of high-visibility 

personal protective equipment can significantly reduce an officer’s 

chances of being struck on the roadway. Agencies should encourage 

officers to wear high-visibility apparel whenever they work in the vicinity of moving vehicles.

■ Officers with more law enforcement experience were less likely to 

have had a motor-vehicle crash in the prior 3 years, more likely to 
vi Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

view driving as a dangerous job activity, and more likely to practice 

safe driving techniques. Agencies could consider implementing a 

more formal mentoring program that may help to change the agency’s 

driving culture. Formal mentoring programs in law enforcement have 

been found to lead to higher job satisfaction and a stronger work ethic. 

■ Agencies could also consider adding into driving safety training, the 

personal testimonies of their own officers who have been involved 

in motor-vehicle crashes. This approach is used in popular programs 

like Below 100 and the Street Survival Seminar, which utilize personal stories of officers who were involved in critical incidents. Peerreviewed literature suggests that personal stories can have a large 

impact on workers of all backgrounds. 

■ Motor-vehicle-related events have an enormous impact on officer 

safety and health. Many large U.S. agencies have implemented changes 

to motor-vehicle-related policies and training agendas to better 

protect their officers from the risk of motor-vehicle events. We suggest 

that agencies of all sizes consider adopting the recommendations in 

this report. 
Findings from a Statewide Survey vii

Contents

Executive Summary .......................... iii

Key Findings—Training iii

Key Findings—Policies iii

Key Findings—Motor-vehicle Crashes and Roadside Incidents iv

Recommendations iv

Acknowledgments ........................... viii

List of Abbreviations ......................... ix

List of Table and Graphs x

1. Survey Background ........................ 1

2. Survey Methods .......................... 2

Process for Selecting Agencies to Participate in the Survey 2

Recruitment and Data Collection 2

Survey Development 3

Data Collection and Management 3

Participation Rate 3

Data Analysis 4

Characteristics of the Sample 4

Limitations 4

3. Results ............................... 6

A. Law Enforcement Officer Occupational 

Safety and Health Training 6

B. Iowa Law Enforcement Agency Written 

Motor-vehicle Operations and Policies 10

C. Iowa Law Enforcement Officer Non-fatal 

Motor-vehicle Crashes 12

D. Iowa Law Enforcement Officer Non-fatal 

Roadside Incidents 14

E. Iowa Law Enforcement Officers and On-duty 

Motor-vehicle Use 16

Conclusions .............................. 22

Training 22

Policy 23

Use of Personal Protective Equipment 24

References .............................. 26
viii Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Jeff Rojek from the University of South Carolina, Brian 

Montgomery from the National Institute of Justice, and Paul Moore and Dr. Stephanie 

Pratt from the Division of Safety Research for their thoughtful review and helpful 

comments. They would also like to thank the Iowa State Patrol, Iowa sheriffs, chiefs 

of police, and officers who reviewed and provided comments on drafts of this 

report. Finally, the authors thank all of the law enforcement officers who took the 

time to complete the survey and provide insight into these important issues. 
Findings from a Statewide Survey ix

List of Abbreviations

CPS Current Population Survey 

EVOC emergency vehicle operations course 

LEO law enforcement officer

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

SOP standard operating procedure
x Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

List of Table and Graphs

Table 1. Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Iowa Law Enforcement Officers 

in the Study Sample, all Iowa Law Enforcement Officers, and U.S. Officers

Table 2. Most Common Elements of In-service Training 

Table 3. Most Common Elements of Motor-vehicle-related In-service Training 

Table 4. Officers’ Ranking of the Most Important In-service Training Elements

Table 5. Officers’ Perceptions of Motor-vehicle Training by Time in Law Enforcement

Table 6. Presence of Written Motor-vehicle Policy, General Order, or 

SOP by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency 

Table 7. Reported Elements of Written Motor-vehicle Policy

by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency 

Table 8. Characteristics of Non-fatal Motor-vehicle Crashes 

Table 9. Characteristics of Non-fatal Roadside Incidents

Table 10. Driving Situations When an Officer Was ‘Most Likely’ to Wear a Seatbelt

Table 11. Ranking of Specific Seatbelt Use Barriers 

Table 12. Factors in Officers’ Decision to Wear a Seatbelt On-duty

Table 13. Ranking of Safety Practices by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Table 14. Regularly Practiced Roadway Safety Procedures 

Graph 1. Motor-vehicle-related In-service Training by Size of Law Enforcement Agency 

Graph 2. Motor-vehicle-related In-service Training by Type of Law Enforcement Agency 

Graph 3. Percent of Officers Receiving Formal Training on Written Motor-vehicle 

Policy, General Order, or SOP by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Graph 4. Percent of Officers Involved in Motor-vehicle Crashes in the Prior 

Three Years by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Graph 5. Percent of Officers Involved in Motor-vehicle Crashes

in the Prior Three Years by Years in Law Enforcement 

Graph 6. Non-fatal Roadside Incidents by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Graph 7. Seatbelt Usage by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Graph 8. Seatbelt Usage by Number of Years in Law Enforcement 

Graph 9. Seatbelt Usage While Riding as a Front-seat Passenger On-duty 

by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency

Graph 10. Barriers to Seatbelt Use by Size and Type of Law Enforcement Agency
Findings from a Statewide Survey 1

1. Survey Background 

Motor-vehicle-related incidents are the leading cause of occupational injury 

death in the United States and have a devastating impact on workers, their families, and businesses. In 2010, motor-vehicle-related events accounted for approximately two out of every five fatal work injuries in the United States [BLS 2011a]. 

Non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes can result in serious long-term injuries, permanent disabilities, and costly medical care. To date, the bulk of occupational 

motor-vehicle research has focused on transportation workers, such as truck 

drivers. Notably absent has been research addressing the safety of law enforcement officers (LEOs) who not only spend a significant amount of time behind 

the wheel, but often drive in dangerous weather and high-speed conditions. 

Law enforcement work remains a dangerous occupation. In 2010, the fatality rate 

for police was five times higher than the national average (18.1 per 100,000 workers 

versus 3.6) [BLS 2011b]. While officer safety is a principal consideration of law 

enforcement, motor-vehicle safety has been overlooked. This is surprising given 

that motor-vehicle fatality rates for police are comparable to rates in other highrisk occupations such as transportation workers [Tiesman et al. 2011]. Regarding 

non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes, the California Commission on Peace Officer 

Standards and Training show that on a statewide annual basis, more than 100 officer 

injury collisions occur for each fatal collision [Gustafson and Cappitelli 2010]. 

Recent research identified low seatbelt usage among officers and an association 

between crash risk and unsafe driving behaviors such as driving too fast for conditions. These findings have led many agencies to conclude that wide-spread cultural 

change is needed [NHTSA 2011; CalPOST 2009]. However, research into current 

injury and crash trends is scant, and the development of evidence-based prevention programs has been limited by a lack of risk factor data. The law enforcement 

community recognizes that motor-vehicle crashes are an important and preventable form of occupational death; however, they have little evidence on how to best 

prevent them. To further understand motor-vehicle operations and crashes among 

LEOs, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sponsored 

a statewide survey from September 2011 to December 2011 in the state of Iowa. 
2 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

2. Survey Methods 

The survey of Iowa law enforcement officers was conducted from September 

2011 to December 2011 and respondents were queried about the following:

■ Socio-demographics, such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, and 

education level

■ Occupational characteristics, including rank, division, officer certification, years on the job, shift worked, hours worked, agency size, 

and type of agency

■ Motor-vehicle-related training, including regular in-service training 

and driver training provided at the Iowa State Police Academy

■ Motor-vehicle operation policies, general orders, and standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) 

■ On-duty driving characteristics and behaviors, including type of 

vehicle driven, amount of time driving, seatbelt usage, and barriers 

to seatbelt usage

■ Occupational safety practices, including safe driving techniques, 

wearing reflective gear, and wearing of ballistic vests

■ Perceptions of injury or fatality risk associated with assaults, 

weapons, motor-vehicle crashes, and roadside incidents

■ Motor-vehicle crashes and roadside incidents (being struck by or 

nearly struck by a moving vehicle) in the prior 3 years 

Process for Selecting Agencies to Participate in the Survey 

At the time of the survey, Iowa’s 99 counties had approximately 400 law enforcement agencies, including 98 county sheriff ’s departments, 292 municipal departments, and 400 state patrol officers (discoverpolicing.org). The survey sample was 

developed in 2010 using publically accessible online resources (discoverpolicing.

org, usacops.com, Wikipedia, iowa.gov). A list of all Iowa law enforcement agencies was compiled and stratified by type of agency (municipal, sheriff, state patrol) 

and size (small = 20 or fewer officers, medium = 21–50 officers, large = 51 or more 

officers). Random numbers were assigned to each agency and a simple random 

sample was drawn using Statistical Analysis Software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, 

Cary, North Carolina). A total of 162 agencies were selected—103 municipal and 

58 sheriff departments. Though not selected randomly, the Iowa State Patrol was 

included in the sample. When active recruitment began, 26 agencies (2 sheriff and 24 

municipal departments) were no longer active. These were removed from the study 

sample, leaving a total of 136 agencies (Iowa State Patrol, 56 sheriff, 79 municipal). 

Recruitment and Data Collection

The research study was approved by the NIOSH Human Subjects Research 

Board and the U.S. Government Office of Management and Budget. A variety of 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 3

recruitment activities were directed at the head of the agency to gain agency participation. Phone calls were made to the head of each agency, followed by mailing 

a study packet that included a cover letter, “frequently asked questions,” and flyer. 

Recruitment emails were also sent. Of the 136 agencies, 60 agreed to participate (32 

municipal, 27 sheriffs, and the Iowa State Patrol). The overall agency response rate 

was 44%. Of the participating agencies, 4 were large, 28 medium, and 27 small.

Survey Development 

The survey comprised six sections: (1) demographics, (2) occupational characteristics, 

(3) motor-vehicle safety training, (4) motor-vehicle policies, (5) occupational safety 

behaviors, and (6) motor-vehicle crashes/roadside incidents. Sections were derived 

using existing validated tools when possible. Items on demographics and occupational 

characteristics came from the questionnaire used in the Buffalo Police Health Study 

[Violanti 2000]. Questions on motor-vehicle safety training, occupational driving safety 

behaviors, and motor-vehicle crashes/roadside incidents came from the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety 

Survey [NHTSA 2008]. Questions on motor-vehicle policies and overall occupational 

safety behaviors were derived from the POST Driver Training Study, a study of vehicle 

operations and driver training among California officers [CalPOST 2009] conducted 

by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Questions 

on officers’ perceptions of risk were independently developed for this study by the 

authors. The entire survey was pilot-tested and peer-reviewed prior to use in the field. 

Data Collection and Management 

Study packets, including an introduction letter, paper-and-pencil survey, and self-addressed stamped envelope, were delivered to the head of each participating agency. 

Questionnaires were coded with a unique alpha-numeric string mapped to each 

agency, but not to individual officers. These codes were used to monitor survey returns 

by agency. Agency heads determined how best to distribute surveys to their officers, 

including hand-delivery and distributing at shift change, weekly staff meetings, or daily 

briefings. Officers used the self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes to return completed surveys directly to researchers. Four weeks after the distribution of the surveys, 

agency leadership was told of the number of non-responders and asked to remind 

officers to return surveys. Additional surveys were left with agencies for this purpose. 

Participation Rate

The participation rate was calculated by dividing the number of received 

surveys (whether complete or not) by the total number (provided by 

agency leadership) of sworn officers in each participating agency. Using 

this formula, the participation rate was 79% (1,157 ÷ 1,466). 

Data Analysis

The study findings describe Iowa officers by law enforcement experience, agency size, 

history of motor-vehicle crashes and roadside incidents, perceptions of occupational 
4 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

risks, as well as their agency’s policies for motor-vehicle training and other aspects of 

motor-vehicle safety. These outcomes were examined separately by gender, age, education, and job characteristics (rank, agency size, type of agency, division, length of 

shift, years on the job, total hours worked, and time of shift). In order to examine the 

influence of officer rank, analysis were conducted separately for major occupational 

categories. Many tables and charts provide two separate tabulations: one by agency 

size (small, medium, large) and another by agency type (municipal, sheriff, and state 

patrol). Because numbers presented in this report generally exclude “don’t know,” 

“refused,” and other similar responses, sample sizes (n) can vary from table to table. 

Small agencies include those with 20 or fewer sworn officers, medium agencies 

include those with between 21 and 50 officers, and large agencies include those 

with 51 officers or more. While the typical distinction of a large agency in the law 

enforcement community is greater than 100 officers, this categorization would 

limit the sample size since there were only 4 agencies with greater than 100 officers. Also, Iowa State Patrol officers were removed from the large agency category 

since they made up the vast majority of this category. Therefore, data presented 

by size of the agency only reflect sheriff departments and municipal agencies. 

Characteristics of the Sample 

The survey sample consisted of 1,157 sworn Iowa law enforcement officers 

(LEOs). To determine the representative nature of the sample, selected demographic characteristics (age, race, gender, and ethnicity) were compared with U.S. 

and Iowa LEOs (Table 1). Data for these populations were derived from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) [BLS 2003]. The demographic characteristics of the survey sample differed from the Iowa and U.S. LEO 

populations. Compared to the U.S. LEO population, the survey sample underrepresents Hispanics, Non-Whites, and women. Compared to the Iowa LEO population, the survey sample underrepresents Hispanics, Non-Whites, and men. 

Limitations 

Study limitations include reporting and non-response biases. Reporting bias refers to 

a tendency to underreport undesirable behaviors or outcomes. Sworn officers may 

not provide truthful responses on topics such as safe driving behaviors. However, we 

attempted to minimize reporting bias by performing the data collection in a completely anonymous fashion. Second, while the individual officer response rate was 

high at 79%, the possibility for non-response bias cannot be excluded. It is likely that 

differences existed between officers who returned a survey and those who did not. 

Also, the overall agency response rate was 44% and there could be differences between 

agencies who chose to participate and those that did not. Finally, findings from the 

study may have limited generalizability to agencies and officers in other states. 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 5

Table 1. Comparison of demographic characteristics of Iowa law enforcement 

officers in the study sample, all Iowa law enforcement officers, 

and U.S. officers

Characteristic

Iowa survey

n (%)

Iowa

n (%)

U.S.

n (%)

Age

16–24 25 (2) 300 (4) 37,200 (4)

25–34 337 (29) 3,000 (37) 280,900 (29)

35–44 400 (35) 3,500 (43) 335,400 (34)

45–54 289 (25) 1,100 (13) 211,900 (22)

55–64 82 (7) 200 (2) 88,100 (9)

65+ 0 (0) 0 (0) 23,300 (2)

Gender

Male 1,062 (92) 7,900 (97) 831,600 (85)

Female 78 (7) 200 (3) 145,200 (15)

Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic 1,102 (95) 7,500 (93) 839,800 (86)

Hispanic 21 (2) 600 (7) 137,000 (14)

Race

White 1,093 (94) 7,300 (90) 812,800 (83)

Non-white 41 (4) 800 (10) 164,100 (17)

Total 1,157* 8,100* 976,800*

*Frequencies do not sum to total because of missing values.
6 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

3. Results

A. Law Enforcement Officer Occupational Safety and 

Health Training

Presence, Level, and Elements of In-service Training 

Ninety-three percent of officers reported receiving some type of in-service training at least once per year and of those, nearly all reported that the training was 

mandatory (n = 1,056, 98%) (data not shown). Thirty percent of officers reported 

16 or fewer hours of annual in-service training, 28% reported between 17 and 40 

hours, and 21% reported more than 40 hours (data not shown). Officers in small 

agencies and municipal departments reported the fewest annual in-service training hours. Officers were asked which subjects were commonly covered during inservice training (Table 2). The most common element was Firearms (90%) and the 

least common was Ethics (25%). For motor-vehicle topics, Pursuit Driving ranked 

#9, General Driving ranked #10, and EVOC ranked #11. This aligns closely with 

the current required elements of yearly in-service training for Iowa law enforcement officers (Iowa Administrative Code; Law Enforcement Academy; Chapter 

8, Mandatory In-service Training Requirements). These requirements state that 

Iowa officers must receive annual firearms and CPR in-service training. 

Table 2. Most common elements of in-service training 

Rank Element n (%)

1 Firearms 1,040 (90)

2 CPR 837 (72)

3 Defensive tactics such as hand to hand combat 702 (61)

4 Legal issues 673 (58)

5 General officer safety 628 (54)

6 Less lethal methods (Taser, Pepper Spray) 625 (54)

7 First aid 622 (54)

8 Policy reviews and updates 611 (53)

9 Pursuit driving 389 (34)

10 General driving (seatbelt use, safe driving, misc.) 345 (30)

11 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) 301 (26)

12 Ethics 290 (25)

Note: Officers could select “all that apply.”

Motor-vehicle-related In-service Training 

Half of Iowa officers reported that they received in-service training related to motorvehicles less than once per year (n = 583, 50%). Over a quarter reported motor-vehicle 

training yearly (n = 322, 29%), and 4% (n = 44) reported motor-vehicle training more 

than once per year. Officers in large agencies and the Iowa State Patrol were 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 7

significantly more likely than their counterparts to report having annual motor-vehicle 

training (Graphs 1 and 2). The most common element of motor-vehicle in-service 

training was Motor-vehicle Operation Policies (51%) and the least common was 

Driving Simulator (2%) (Table 3). Officers also reported having behind-the-wheel 

motor-vehicle training such as pursuit driving (37%), EVOC (35%), or driving course 

practice (38%).

Graph 1. Motor-vehicle-related in-service training by size of law 

enforcement agency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Less than once

per year

Once per year More than once

per year

Don't know

Percentage

Small

Medium

Large

Graph 2. Motor-vehicle-related in-service training by type of law 

enforcement agency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than once

per year

Once per year More than

once per year

Don't know

Percentage

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol
8 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Table 3. Most common elements of motor-vehicle-related in-service training 

Rank Element

Total

n (%)

1 Policies related to motor-vehicle operations 590 (51)

2 Driving course 444 (38)

3 Pursuit driving 432 (37)

4 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) 405 (35)

5 Safety at traffic stops/roadway scenes 391 (34)

6 Safety issues inside the vehicle (seatbelt) 290 (25)

7 Driving simulator 27 (2)

Note: Officers could select multiple responses. 

Law Enforcement Officers’ Perceptions of In-service Training 

Officers were asked to choose the in-service training element they deemed 

the most important to their safety (Table 4). Regardless of age, gender, time 

on the job, shift, size, or type of agency, officers reported the most imporant 

element was General Officer Safety (35%), followed by Firearms (32%). A small 

percentage of officers ranked driving elements as most important, including EVOC (2.5%), Pursuit Driving (1.7%), and General Driving (1.1%).

Table 4. Officers’ ranking of the most important in-service training elements

Rank Element

Total

n (%)

1 General officer safety 402 (35.0)

2 Firearms 373 (32.0)

3 Legal issues 95 (8.0)

4 Defensive tactics such as hand to hand combat 85 (7.0)

5 Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC) 29 (3.0)

6/7 Policy reviews and updates 20 (2.0)

6/7 Pursuit driving 20 (2.0)

8 First aid/CPR 16 (1.0)

9 General driving (seatbelt use, safe driving, misc.) 13 (1.0)

10 Ethics 11 (1.0)

11 Less lethal methods (Taser, Pepper Spray) 7 (0.6)

Total 1,077
Findings from a Statewide Survey 9

Officers were asked about motor-vehicle operations training provided at the law 

enforcement academy where they received their certification (Table 5). Ninety-six 

percent of officers believed that driver training is critical to their safety while on the 

job; however, only 51% believed the driver training provided at their law enforcement 

academy prepared them to safely function in the field. This percentage significantly 

decreased as officers’ time on the job increased. Only 12% of officers agreed with the 

statement, “The average academy recruit already possesses basic driving skills that 

would allow them to safely operate a law enforcement vehicle in emergency situations.” 

When responses to this question were examined across officers with varying levels of 

experience, officers with more years of law enforcement experience were less likely to 

agree with this statement. 

Table 5. Officers’ perceptions of motor-vehicle training by time in law enforcement

Less than 6 years 6–15 years 16–20 years

Greater than 

20 years Total*

Perception

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

Agree

n (%)

Disagree

n (%)

Driver training at 

the law enforcement academy 

prepares officers 

to safely function 

in the field

131 (68) 20 (10) 233 (55) 89 (21) 85 (45) 49 (25) 130 (42) 73 (24) 587 (51) 236 (20)

Driver training 

is a critical 

component of 

preparing officers 

to function safely 

in the field

189 (98) 2 (1) 414 (97) 2 (0.5) 184 (96) 1 (0.5) 309 (98) 0 (0) 1110 (96) 6 (0.5)

Using a driving 

simulator would 

help officers be 

better prepared 

to drive safely 

on the job

109 (56) 18 (9) 273 (64) 37 (9) 124 (63) 20 (10) 183 (57) 33 (10) 701 (61) 109 (9)

Average academy 

recruit has the 

driving skills to 

allow them to 

safely operate a 

law enforcement 

vehicle in emergency situations

45 (23) 102 (52) 52 (12) 275 (65) 21 (11) 145 (74) 16 (5) 259 (81) 137 (12) 792 (69)

* Frequencies do not sum to total because of missing values.
10 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

B. Iowa Law Enforcement Agency Written Motor vehicle 

Operations and Policies

Motor-vehicle Operations Policy, General Order, 

or Standard Operating Procedures

Ninety percent of Iowa officers reported that their agency had a written motor-vehicle operation policy, general order, or standard operating procedure (SOP) 

(Table 6). More Iowa State Patrol officers (98%) reported the presence of a written 

motor-vehicle policy than sheriff ’s officers (84%) or municipal officers (95%). 

Generally, officers from medium (96%) and large agencies (93%) were more likely 

to report a written motor-vehicle policy than officers from small agencies (80%). 

Table 6. Presence of written motor-vehicle policy, general order (GO), or standard 

operating procedure (SOP) by size and type of law enforcement agency 

Policy, 

GO, SOP

Small

n (%)

Medium

n (%)

Large

n (%)

Municipal

n (%)

Sheriff

n (%)

State Patrol

n (%)

Total*

n (%)

Yes 262 (80) 297 (96) 271 (93) 425 (95) 402 (84) 192 (98) 1,044 (90)

No 28 (9) 2 (1) 3 (1) 8 (2) 25 (5) 0 (0) 34 (3)

Not Sure 33 (2) 7 (2) 10 (3) 9 (2) 41 (9) 3 (2) 54 (5)

Total* 329 309 293 449 479 196 1,157 

*Frequencies do not sum to Total because of missing values.

Formal Training on Written Motor-vehicle 

Policy, General Order, or SOP

While the majority of Iowa officers reported the presence of an agency-written 

motor-vehicle operations policy, only 66% reported having been trained on the policy 

(data not shown). Seventeen percent reported that they had not been trained on 

the motor-vehicle policy and 11% were not sure. Officers from medium (74%) and 

large agencies (68%) were significantly more likely to report being trained on the 

motor-vehicle policy than officers from small agencies (47%) (Graph 3). Significantly 

more Iowa State Patrol officers (87%) reported receiving training on their agency’s motor-vehicle policy than municipal (75%) or sheriff ’s officers (51%) (Graph 3). 

Also, officers who worked daytime hours (6 am to 6 pm) (73%) were significantly 

more likely to report that they had received training on motor-vehicle policies than 

officers who worked nighttime hours (6 pm to 6 am) (65%) (data not shown). 

Common Elements of Written Motor-vehicle 

Policy, General Order, or SOP

The most common element of a law enforcement agency’s written motor-vehicle policy 

was the requirement that the driver wear a seatbelt (82%) and that the front-seat 

passenger wear seatbelts (78%) (Table 7). The least common element was a speed 

restriction when using lights/sirens (27%). Iowa State Patrol officers were more likely to 

have elements requiring the driver to wear a seatbelt (95%), requiring the passenger to 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 11

wear a seatbelt (93%), and restricting the use of mobile devices (79%) than officers 

from municipal or sheriff agencies. However, Iowa State Patrol officers were less likely 

to have procedures for monitoring speed (30%) and elements restricting speed when 

using lights and sirens (2%) than officers from municipal or sheriff ’s agencies. Officers 

in large agencies were significantly more likely to report elements requiring the driver 

to wear a seatbelt (90%), requiring the passenger to wear a seatbelt (86%), and restricting the use of mobile devices (38%) and procedures for monitoring speed (59%) than 

officers in small or medium agencies. 

Table 7. Reported elements of written motor-vehicle policy by size and type of

law enforcement agency

Element

Small

n (%)

Medium

n (%)

Large

n (%)

Municipal

n (%)

Sheriff

n (%)

State Patrol

n (%)

Total

n (%)

Require use of 

driver seatbelt

246 (75) 237 (77) 263 (90) 363 (81) 380 (79) 187 (95) 951 (82)

Require use of passenger seatbelt

227 (69) 220 (71) 252 (86) 340 (76) 356 (74) 183 (93) 899 (78)

Establish procedures 

for monitoring speeds

78 (24) 170 (55) 174 (59) 250 (56) 169 (35) 58 (30) 489 (42)

Restrict use of cell 

phones or mobile devices

76 (23) 102 (33) 110 (38) 183 (41) 103 (22) 154 (79) 447 (39)

Restrict speed when 

using lights/sirens

58 (18) 162 (52) 79 (27) 193 (43) 105 (22) 4 (2) 307 (27)

Total 329 309 293 449 479 196 1,157

Note: Officers could select multiple responses. 

Graph 3. Percent of officers receiving formal training on written motor-vehicle 

policy, general order, or SOP by size and type of law enforcement agency 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol

Formal training on written motor-vehicle policy, 

general order or SOP
12 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

C. Iowa Law Enforcement Officer Non-fatal 

Motor-vehicle Crashes

Non-fatal Motor-vehicle Crashes in Prior 3 Years

Twenty percent of Iowa officers had been in at least one motor-vehicle crash in the 

prior 3 years. Slightly more Iowa State Patrol officers reported a motor-vehicle crash 

(25%) than municipal (18%) or sheriff officers (19%) (Graph 4). Slightly more officers 

from medium-sized agencies (22%) reported a motor-vehicle crash than officers from 

small (18%) or large (15%) agencies (Graph 4). These differences were not significant. 

Twenty-five percent of officers reported being in more than one crash in the prior 3 

years (n = 56). There were no differences in the prevalence of motor-vehicle crashes 

by officers’ gender, education, length of shift (in hours), or time of shift (nighttime 

versus daytime). As the officers’ amount of time in law enforcement increased, the 

probability of experiencing a motor-vehicle crash in the prior 3 years significantly 

decreased (Graph 5).

Characteristics of Non-fatal Motor-vehicle Crashes 

Officers reported details on their most recent motor-vehicle crash (Table 8). Of these, 

70% occurred in clear weather and 49% in daylight. Nearly all of the crashes occurred in 

a car or sports utility vehicle (94%). The majority of crashes occurred at speeds below 

50 mph (79%) and during non-emergency calls (64%). In approximately half of the 

crashes, the officer’s car was the striking vehicle. The most common type of crashes 

were broadside (31%), rear-end (27%), and single vehicle (20%). In 6% of the crashes, 

the officer reported that they were unrestrained. Officers were injured in 17% of the 

crashes and received medical treatment in 16%. In 13% of the crashes, the officer filed 

a workers’ compensation claim.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol

Motor-vehicle crashes

Graph 4. Percent of officers involved in motor-vehicle crashes in the prior 

three years by size and type of law enforcement agency
Findings from a Statewide Survey 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perce

ntage

Motor-vehicle crashes

Less than 6 yrs

6-15 yrs

16-20 yrs

Greater than 20 yrs

Graph 5. Percent of officers involved in motor-vehicle crashes in the prior three 

years by years in law enforcement

Table 8. Characteristics of non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes

Characteristic n (%)

Weather

Clear 157 (70)

Freezing Rain/Snow 47 (21)

Overcast/Rain 19 (9)

Emergency Response 

No 143 (64)

Yes 77 (34)

Speed 

Less than 30 mph 138 (61)

30–50 mph 40 (18)

Greater than 50 mph 44 (20)

Type of Motor-vehicle

Car or Sports Utility Vehicle 211 (94)

Van, motorcycle, truck 11 (5)

Restraint Status

Restrained driver or front-seat 

passenger

208 (93)

Unrestrained 13 (6)

(continued)
14 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Table 8 (Continued). Characteristics of non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes

Characteristic n (%)

Type of Collision

Broadside 69 (31)

Rear-end 60 (27)

Single vehicle 46 (20)

Head-on 40 (18)

Rollover 6 (3)

Time of Day

Day 111 (49)

Night 98 (44)

Dusk 13 (6)

Which Vehicle Were You In?

Striking 111 (49)

Struck 98 (44)

Total* 225

Note: Rows do not sum to TOTAL because of missing data; Officers could select ”all that apply.”

D. Iowa Law Enforcement Officer Non-fatal Roadside Incidents

Non-fatal Roadside Incidents

Sixteen percent of Iowa officers experienced a roadside incident in the prior 3 

years. Many differences were found in roadside incidents. Significantly more Iowa 

State Patrol officers (28%) reported a roadside incident than municipal (12%) 

or sheriff ’s officers (15%) (Graph 6). Significantly more officers from small agencies (17%) reported a roadside incident than officers from medium (14%) or large 

(9%) agencies (Graph 6). Significantly more patrol officers (19%) reported a roadside incident than non-patrol officers (11%) (data not shown). Also, significantly 

more officers working nighttime hours (6pm to 6am) reported a roadside incident 

(21%) than those working daytime hours (6 am to 6 pm) (15%) (data not shown).

Characteristics of Non-fatal Roadside Incidents 

Of the roadside incidents reported by the 184 officers, 47% occurred during a traffic 

stop, 41% when the officer was working a motor-vehicle crash, 24% when assisting 

a disabled vehicle, and 3% during a pedestrian stop (Table 9). Sixty percent occurred 

during daylight and 60% in clear weather. The officer was located on the shoulder 

in 39% of incidents, next to the involved vehicle in 27%, on the roadway in 26%, 

and next to their vehicle in 21% of the incidents. In 76% of the roadside incidents, 

the officer was struck by or nearly struck by oncoming traffic. The officers used a 

variety of safety precautions to warn other motorists at the time of the incident. 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 15

The most common precautions used were warning lights (88%), using the vehicle 

to block traffic (49%), and wearing reflective gear (39%). Of the roadside incidents 

reported by the 184 officers, 3% resulted in injury. All of the officers who reported 

being injured received medical treatment and filed a workers’ compensation claim.

Table 9. Characteristics of non-fatal roadside incidents

Characteristic

Total*

n (%)

Type of scene

Traffic stop 87 (47)

Motor-vehicle crash 75 (41)

Disabled vehicle 44 (24)

Pedestrian stop 6 (3)

Location

On the shoulder 72 (39)

On the roadway 47 (26)

Next to involved vehicle 50 (27)

Next to emergency vehicle 39 (21)

Striking object

Oncoming traffic 139 (76)

Opposing traffic 36 (20)

Flying debris 7 (4)

Involved vehicle 6 (3)

Graph 6. Non-fatal roadside incidents by size and type of law enforcement agency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage

Roadside incidents

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol

(continued)
16 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Characteristic

Total*

n (%)

Time of day

Day 110 (60)

Night 80 (44)

Dusk 10 (5)

Weather

Clear 111 (60)

Freezing rain/Rain 73 (40)

Overcast 22 (12)

Safety precautions

Warning lights 161 (88)

Use vehicle to block traffic 90 (49)

Reflective gear 72 (39)

Flares 17 (9)

Injured? 6 (3) 

Received medical treatment? 6 (3) 

Placed on restricted duty? 3 (2) 

Filed workers’ compensation? 6 (3) 

* Rows do not sum to TOTAL because of missing data; officers could select “all that apply.”

E. Iowa Law Enforcement Officers and On-duty 

Motor-vehicle Use 

Basic Motor-vehicle Information 

Seventy-six percent of officers drove a 2- or 4-door vehicle, 14% drove a sports utility 

vehicle, and 9% drove a van, pickup, or motorcycle. Officers spent an average of 

22 hours a week driving while on the job. Patrol officers drove significantly more 

hours per week (26.9 hours) than non-patrol officers (13.7 hours). Officers who 

worked nighttime hours (6pm–6am) drove more hours (25.2 hours) than officers 

who worked during the day (21.3 hours). Officers in small agencies drove the most 

hours (small = 23.3, medium = 21.3, large = 18.7). Iowa State Patrol officers drove 

the most hours per week (municipal = 21.9, sheriff = 20.6, state patrol = 27.7). 

Statewide, 81% of officers reported wearing their seatbelt all of the time, 12% reported 

wearing the belt most of the time, 4% reported wearing the belt some of the time, 

and 1% reported rarely or never wearing their seatbelt. There were no significant 

differences across size of agency (Graph 7); however, there were differences across 

agency type. Iowa State Patrol officers (97%) were significantly more likely to report 

wearing their seatbelt all of the time than municipal (71%) or sheriff ’s officers (85%). 

There were also significant differences in on-duty seatbelt usage across law enforcement experience (Graph 8). The longer officers were in law enforcement, the more 

Table 9 (Continued). Characteristics of non-fatal roadside incidents
Findings from a Statewide Survey 17

likely they were to report wearing their seatbelt all of the time, (less than 6 years = 72%; 

6–15 years = 78%; 16–20 years = 89%; greater than 20 years = 87%). Also, officers 

working nighttime hours (76%) were significantly less likely to report wearing their 

seatbelt all of the time than officers working daytime hours (84%).

There were significant differences in on-duty seatbelt usage when officers rode in the 

front seat as a passenger as well (Graph 9). Statewide, 77% of officers reported wearing 

a seatbelt all of the time while riding as a front-seat passenger. There were significant 

differences across agency type. Iowa State Patrol officers (94%) were significantly more 

Graph 7. Seatbelt usage by size and type of law enforcement agency

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

All of the time

Percentage

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol

Graph 8. Seatbelt Usage by Number of Years in Law Enforcement

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Less than 6 years 6-15 years 16-20 years Greater than 20 years

Percentage

All of the time
18 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

likely to report wearing a seatbelt all of the time while a front-seat passenger than 

sheriff ’s officers (78%) or municipal officers (69%). The longer officers were in law 

enforcement, the more likely they were to report wearing their seatbelt all of the time 

while a front-seat passenger (less than 6 years = 70%; 6–15 years = 71%; 16–20 years = 

83%; greater than 20 years = 85%). 

Seatbelt Practices 

Iowa officers were asked at what point while responding to a call for service did they 

unbuckle their seatbelt (data not shown). Most officers unbuckled their seatbelts 

when they arrived at the scene but before the vehicle came to a complete stop (47%), 

followed by when they arrived at the scene but when the car was at a complete stop 

(29%). Officers were also asked about specific types of potentially risky driving situations when they would most likely wear a seatbelt (Table 10). Officers were most 

likely to wear a seatbelt in a high-speed pursuit (96%), driving long distances (95%), 

in inclement weather (95%), during lights and siren (95%), and while driving on the 

interstate (95%). Officers were the least likely to wear a seatbelt in a low-speed pursuit 

(91%), though this was still a large percentage of officers reporting seatbelt usage.

Perceptions of Seatbelt Usage 

Officers were asked if there were barriers to the consistent use of a seatbelt while on 

duty (Graph 10). The majority of Iowa officers did not believe there were barriers to 

consistent use of the seatbelt (79%); however, this differed significantly across type of 

agency and time of shift. Iowa State Patrol officers (9%) were less likely to report 

barriers than municipal (27%) or sheriff ’s officers (17%). Also, officers who worked 

nighttime hours (25%) were more likely to report barriers than officers working 

daytime hours (18%). Officers were also asked to rank barriers to seatbelt use while 

Graph 9. Seatbelt usage while riding as a front-seat passenger on-duty by size 

and type of law enforcement agency

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

All of the time

Percentage

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol
Findings from a Statewide Survey 19

Table 10. Driving situations when an officer was ‘most likely’ to wear a seatbelt

 Rank Driving situation

Very likely

n (%)

1 High-speed pursuit 1,114 (96)

2 Driving longer distances 1,101 (95)

3 Inclement weather 1,097 (95)

4 During lights and/or siren 1,096 (95)

5 Driving on the highway/interstate 1,095 (95)

6 Ride-along/officer-in-training in the vehicle 1,074 (93)

7 Driving in heavy traffic 1,069 (92)

8 Low-speed pursuit 1,049 (91)

on-duty (Table 11). Of those officers who reported barriers, the most significant was “Design makes it difficult to quickly and easily remove seatbelt when exiting” (46%), followed by “Uniform and equipment interfere with seatbelt use ( firearm, TaserTM, miscellaneous)” (31%). 

Officers were also asked how important specific factors were in their decision 

to wear a seatbelt (Table 12). Statewide, 75% of officers believed that the risk of 

a high-speed motor-vehicle crash was a very important’ factor in their decision 

to wear a seatbelt. This was followed closely by the risk of a crash while driving 

long distances (69%) and habit (68%). The factor that was the least popular 

among officers when deciding to wear a seatbelt on-duty was agency policy. 

Sixty percent of officers found agency policy to be a very important factor. 

Graph 10. Barriers to seatbelt use by size and type of law enforcement agency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perce

ntage

Barriers to seatbelt use

Small

Medium

Large

Municipal

Sheriff

State Patrol
20 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Table 11. Ranking of specific seatbelt use barriers

Rank Barrier

Most significant

n (%)

1 Design makes it difficult to quickly and easily remove 

seatbelt when exiting

104 (46)

2 Uniform and equipment interfere with seatbelt use 

(firearm, Taser, misc.)

70 (31)

3 Vehicle equipment locations make it difficult (control 

panel, shotgun, misc.)

44 (19)

4 Design is uncomfortable to wear on-duty 21 (9)

5 Characteristics that can’t be altered (call volume, type 

of vehicle, misc.)

18 (8)

Total 226

Note: Officers could select multiple responses.

Table 12. Factors in officers’ decision to wear a seatbelt on-duty

Factor

Not at all 

important

n (%)

Minimally 

important

n (%)

Somewhat 

important

n (%)

Important

n (%)

Very important

n (%)

Risk of highspeed crash19 (2) 17 (1) 35 (3) 215 (19) 856 (75)

Risk of crash 

while driving 

long distances

22 (2) 27 (4) 78 (11) 232 (31) 783 (69)

Habit 38 (3) 28 (2) 54 (5) 242 (21) 782 (68)

Setting a 

good example 

for others

44 (4) 46 (4) 93 (8) 219 (19) 741 (65)

Agency policy 71 (6) 58 (5) 96 (8) 233 (20) 683 (60)

Occupational Safety Practices 

Officers were asked to rank the importance of several occupational safety 

practices for their safety in the field (Table 13). The occupational safety practice ranked as most important by municipal or sheriff ’s officers was the 

wearing of the ballistic vest (37%); conversely, Iowa State Patrol officers perceived wearing a seatbelt as the most important occupational safety practice 

(30%). The larger the agency, the less likely it was that the officer viewed the 

wearing of a seatbelt as important (small, 26%; medium, 20%; large, 15%). 

Officers were asked how often they practiced certain roadside safety practices 

(Table 14). The most commonly used roadside safety practice was activating lights 

on highways (83%) and activating lights on residential streets (83%). Safety practices such as parking offset behind a stopped vehicle were more common on 

residential and city streets. Practices such as activating lights and using a passenger-side approach were more common on highways and interstates. The 

least common roadside safety practice was wearing reflective gear (4%–10%).
Findings from a Statewide Survey 21

Table 13. Ranking of safety practices by size and type of law enforcement agency

Most Important

Size Type

Small

n (%)

Medium 

n (%)

Large 

n (%)

Municipal 

n (%)

Sheriff 

n (%)

State Patrol 

n (%)

Wearing a 

ballistic vest

127 (39) 112 (36) 105 (36) 168 (37) 176 (37) 49 (25)

Maintaining good 

physical condition

85 (26) 63 (20) 77 (26) 113 (25) 111 (23) 32 (16)

Wearing a seatbelt 85 (26) 61 (20) 45 (15) 81 (18) 111 (24) 58 (30)

Using safe 

driving practices

63 (19) 28 (9) 54 (18) 62 (14) 83 (17) 40 (20)

Training regularly 

with firearms

47 (14) 35 (11) 45 (15) 56 (13) 70 (15) 30 (15)

Practicing 

defensive tactics

21 (6) 17 (6) 22 (8) 31 (7) 28 (6) 10 (5)

Training in safe 

driving techniques

15 (5) 11 (5) 16 (6) 15 (3) 27 (6) 16 (8)

Following agency 

policy, procedure

23 (7) 14 (5) 13 (4) 18 (4) 31 (7) 3 (2)

Table 14. Regularly practiced roadway safety procedures

Roadway safety 

procedures

Type of roadway

Residential street

n (%)

City street

n (%)

Highway

n (%)

Interstate

n (%)

Rural roads

n (%)

Parking at an 

angle behind 

stopped vehicle

287 (25) 296 (26) 393 (34) 393 (34) 296 (26)

Parking offset 

behind stopped 

vehicle

894 (77) 898 (78) 832 (72) 784 (68) 845 (73)

Positioning to 

observe occupants 

and toadway

737 (64) 736 (64) 737 (64) 708 (61) 708 (61)

Activating lights 

to indicate traffic 

should move over

962 (83) 956 (83) 964 (83) 924 (80) 908 (79)

Using a passengerside approach277 (24) 291 (25) 580 (50) 686 (59) 316 (27)

Wearing 

reflective gear

47 (4) 46 (4) 95 (8) 112 (10) 60 (5)
22 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

Conclusions

In 2011, NIOSH sponsored a statewide survey in the state of Iowa on law enforcement 

officers’ experiences with on-duty motor-vehicle incidents. In the prior 3 years, 20% of 

officers had been in at least one motor-vehicle crash, and 16% reported being struck 

by or nearly struck by a motor-vehicle while outside their patrol car. These numbers 

indicate the relatively high prevalence of motor-vehicle incidents among Iowa law 

enforcement personnel. 

Officers were also asked about motor-vehicle-related policy, training, and use of 

occupational safety practices. Most officers reported their agency had a written 

motor-vehicle policy; however, only 66% received formal training on the policy. Less 

than half the officers from agencies with 20 or fewer sworn officers received formal 

training on motor-vehicle policies (47%). Policy elements varied, but overall, speed 

restriction when using lights/siren (27%) and restricting use of mobile devices (39%) 

were the least common elements of written motor-vehicle policies. Statewide, 82% of 

officers stated that they had a written motor-vehicle policy that required the use of a 

seatbelt when driving a patrol car. 

Regarding training, 29% of Iowa officers and only 8% of officers from agencies with 20 

or fewer sworn officers reported receiving annual motor-vehicle training. Among those 

officers who reported any type of regular motor-vehicle training, just over a third had 

hands-on driver training such as a driving course (38%), pursuit driving (37%), or an 

EVOC (35%). Motor-vehicle training provided at the academy level was not viewed in a 

positive light; just over half of the officers believed that academy motor-vehicle training 

prepared them to safely function in the field (51%). However, nearly all officers believed 

that driver training was critical to their safety in the field (96%). 

Statewide, 81% of officers reported wearing a seatbelt all of the time while operating a 

patrol car and 77% while riding in the front seat as a passenger on-duty, but this differed by agency. Members of the Iowa State Patrol generally had better seatbelt wearing 

practices than their municipal or sheriff counterparts. Overall, 21% of officers believed 

there were barriers to the consistent use of seatbelts while on-duty and the most 

common barrier listed was that “design makes it difficult to quickly and easily remove 

seatbelt when exiting.” Regarding roadside safety practices, only 4%–10% of officers 

reported wearing reflective gear, depending on the type of roadway. 

Law enforcement experience played a significant role in the motor-vehicle perceptions and behaviors of officers. Officers with more law enforcement experience were 

less likely to have had a motor-vehicle crash in the prior 3 years, more likely to view 

driving as a dangerous job activity, and more likely to practice safe driving techniques 

than those with less experience. Based on our findings, we suggest the following 

recommendations: 

Training

■ Regularity in annual in-service motor-vehicle training varied statewide. Iowa agencies could consider policies to ensure periodic 

motor-vehicle training, especially among agencies with fewer than 

20 officers. One study conducted by the California Commission on 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 23

Peace Officer Standards and Training found that behind-the-wheel 

motor-vehicle training, such as EVOC, resulted in the fewest collisions 

if conducted every 2 years [CalPOST 2009]. While this research finding 

needs to be replicated in other experimental studies, our study results 

indicate that Iowa officers desire more behind-the wheel motor-vehicle 

training. 

■ Approaches to consider for improving the frequency and quality 

of motor-vehicle training include developing a statewide training 

network, sharing human and material resources across agencies, identifying fixed training sites, and developing mobile driving simulators.

■ Only half of officers surveyed believed that driver training at the 

academy level adequately prepared officers for driving in the field. 

Since the majority of officers in our study attended the Iowa Law 

Enforcement Academy, we suggest that the state of Iowa conduct an 

analysis of their state-based training programs to assess the consistency and effectiveness of their motor-vehicle training efforts. The state 

could consider expanding hours of motor-vehicle training and providing more opportunities for hands-on training. Also, the state could 

continue to stress the importance of wearing a seatbelt and practices 

associated with buckling/unbuckling while wearing full gear to ensure 

that this safety practice becomes second nature for new officers.

Policy

■ One of the least common components of written motor-vehicle policies was restrictions on cell phone use. Research among commercial 

drivers shows that cell phone use, and other types of distracted driving, 

significantly degrades driver performance leading to an increased 

risk for crash [FMCSA 2011]. While no similar studies have been 

conducted among law enforcement, common officer duties involve 

many activities that can divert an officer’s attention away from driving. 

Recognizing this, several agencies, including the Washington State 

Patrol, Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), and Las Vegas Metropolitan 

Police Department (LVMPD) have instituted policies to reduce distractions in law enforcement vehicles. For example, the FHP Wireless 

Voice/Data Communications policy states, “Members must be able 

to maintain both hands on the steering wheel while the vehicle is 

in motion and using the device (cell phone)” [FHP 2010]. Another 

example from the LVMPD states that their officers may not type messages or use cellphones during Code 3 responses (lights and siren) and 

that they may not text or send and receive e-mail in a moving vehicle 

[LVMPD 2012]. While the impact of these policies on officer-involved 

crashes has not been scientifically evaluated, state-level cell phone 

bans appear to significantly reduce fatal crash rates [Lima and Chip 

2013]. Based on this current available evidence, agencies could consider implementing similar policies that restrict the use of cell phones 

while officers are engaged in driving tasks. 
24 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

■ Another uncommon element of written motor-vehicle policies in the 

state of Iowa was speed restriction. Both the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration and California Commission of Peace Officer 

Standards and Training found that “driving too fast for conditions or in 

excess of posted speed” was a leading factor in many officer-involved 

crashes. Many agencies have implemented and/or revised their speedcap policies. Again, the impact of these policies on officer-involved 

crashes has not been scientifically evaluated. Until stronger evidence 

becomes available, agencies could consider implementing similar policies that restrict speed.

Use of Personal Protective Equipment

■ An adequate proportion of Iowa LEOs reported wearing seatbelts 

on-duty: 81% wore a seatbelt all of the time while driving a patrol 

car and 77% when riding as a front-seat passenger. Agencies should 

continue to implement policies and support officers in the wearing of 

seatbelts on-duty and strive to achieve 100% compliance. 

■ Depending on the roadway type, between 4%–10% of Iowa LEOs 

reported regularly wearing reflective gear while outside a patrol car. 

The wearing of high-visibility personal protective equipment can significantly reduce an officer’s chances of being struck on the roadway. 

The code of federal regulations states that all workers within the 

right-of-way of a federal-aid highway and exposed to traffic shall wear 

high-visibility safety apparel [Worker visibility, 2007]. Agencies should 

encourage officers to wear high-visibility apparel whenever they work 

in the vicinity of moving vehicles.

■ The amount of officers’ law enforcement experience was associated 

with motor-vehicle outcomes. Officers with more law enforcement 

experience were less likely to have had a motor-vehicle crash in the 

prior 3 years, more likely to view driving as a dangerous job activity, 

and more likely to practice various safe driving techniques. While older 

officers may informally mentor younger officers in a variety of police 

practices, a more formal mentoring program may help to change an 

agency’s driving culture. Formal mentoring programs in law enforcement have been found to lead to higher job satisfaction and a stronger 

work ethic [Sprafka and Kranda 2000]. 

■ Agencies could also consider adding into driving safety training, the 

personal testimonies of their own officers who have been involved 

in motor-vehicle crashes. This approach is used in popular programs 

like Below 100 and the Street Survival Seminar, which utilize personal stories of officers who were involved in critical incidents. Peerreviewed literature suggests that personal stories can have a large 

impact on workers from all backgrounds [Ricketts et al. 2010]. 
Findings from a Statewide Survey 25

Given the impact of motor-vehicle events on officer safety and health, we recommend 

that agencies seriously consider ways to decrease the prevalence of officer-involved 

motor-vehicle crashes and roadside incidents. Many large U.S. agencies have implemented changes to motor-vehicle policies and training agendas to better protect their 

officers from these events. It is our hope that this report and its recommendations will 

be used by more agencies improve safety of their officers.
26 Law Enforcement Officer Motor Vehicle Safety

References

BLS [2003]. Labor force data received from the Current Population Survey, chapter 1. In: BLS 

handbook of methods. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/

opub/hom/homch1_a.htm. 

BLS [2011a]. Fatal occupational injuries resulting from transportation incidents and 

homicides, all United States, 2010. Table A-2. In: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 

2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/

cfoi/cftb0251.pdf. 

BLS [2011b]. Fatal occupational injuries, total hours worked, and rates of fatal occupational 

injuries by selected worker characteristics, occupations, and industries, civilian workers, 

2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/

cfoi_rates_2010hb.pdf.

CalPOST [2009]. POST driver training study, volume 1 and 2. Sacramento, CA: California 

Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training.

FHP [2010]. Wireless voice/data communications, policy number 7.10. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Highway Patrol, www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/Manuals/0710.pdf. 

FMCSA [2011]. Synthesis of literature relating to cellular telephone/personal digital assistant use in commercial truck and bus operations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Report Number 

FMCSA-RRR-11-01513.

Gustafson B, Cappitelli P [2010]. SAFE driving: the role of the chief. The Police Chief, 

March:38–41.

Lima SH, Chip J [2013]. Cellphone bans and fatal motor vehicle crash rates in the United States. 

J Pub Health Pol 34:197–212. 

Tiesman H [2012]. Telephone conversation between H. Tiesman, Division of Safety Research, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and M. Joseph Special Operations 

Division, Las Vegas Municipal Police Department, July 5. 

NHTSA [2008]. 2007 motor vehicle occupant safety survey, volume 1 methodology report. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 810 974. 

NHTSA [2011]. Characteristics of law enforcement officer’s fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. 

Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Ricketts M, Shanteau J, McSpadden B, Fernandez-Medina K [2010]. Using stories to battle 

unintentional injuries: narratives in safety and health communication. Soc Sci Med 

70:1441–1449.

Sprafka H, Kranda A [2000]. Institutionalizing mentoring into police departments. Alexandria, 

VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/

Publications/BP-Mentoring.pdf.

Tiesman H, Konda S, Hendricks S, Pratt S [2011]. Trends in work-related motor vehicle fatalities among U.S. law enforcement. Presentation at the 2011 National Occupational Injury 

Research Symposium, Morgantown, WV, October 18–20.

Violanti J [2000]. The Buffalo Police health baseline study. Epidemiology 11(4):S57. 

Worker visibility 23 CFR 634 [2007], http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/

pdf/23cfr634.4.pdf.

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about occupational safety 

and health topics, contact NIOSH:

1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

Website: www.cdc.gov\info

or visit the NIOSH website at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to NIOSH eNews by visiting 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2015 -101

safer • healthier • peopleTM