Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HEP-10-001 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference

5. Report Date 

February 2010

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 

Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-05-D-00026-T-08-00

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety E71-115 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

May 2009-September 2009

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA: Tamiko Brim-Burnell, Office of Safety; Lorrie Lau and Susan Grosser, Office of Planning

16. Abstract 

The updated Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference includes strategies derived from the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program’s (NCHRP) Report 500 Guidance for Implementation of the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Strategic Highway Safety Plan. All 22 emphasis areas are now covered, including five new 

ones (young drivers, bicycle collisions, speeding, head-on collisions on freeways, and motorcycles). Additional sections on 

collecting and analyzing highway safety data and developing emphasis area plans have also been added. This document 

discusses the planner’s role in transportation safety and the incorporation of safety into the transportation planning 

process. Each emphasis area section includes: overview of the problem; data defining the problem; descriptions of safety 

strategies that are most relevant to planners; crash modification factors that can be used to determine the reduction in 

crashes anticipated from specific safety improvements; and additional resources and best practices, where available. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No of Pages 22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
.
Foreword

This report is an update of the 2007 Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference, 

a reference document on safety for use by transportation planners and other related 

transportation safety practitioners. This report serves as a companion to the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Report 500, Guidance for Implementation of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan. The updated version contains all of the 22 safety emphasis areas.

This report describes an overview of transportation safety planning, the potential roles 

that transportation planners can play to advance it, a framework for incorporating safety 

into the transportation planning process, available resources that may be accessed to fund 

safety and safety planning programs, and a menu of possible safety strategies. The Desk 

Reference is of special interest to transportation planners who wish to incorporate safety into 

their planning process to improve safety on their transportation systems. This document is 

being distributed electronically via the Transportation Planning Safety Working Group and 

Federal Highway Administration (Planning and Safety) Web sites.

The following chapters contain revised or new material:

• Safety Data and Analysis

• Development of an Emphasis Area Plan

• Young Drivers

• Pedestrian Collisions

• Bicycle Collisions

• Speeding

• Head-on Collisions on Freeways

• Motorcycles

Joseph S. Toole 

Associate Administrator 

Offi ce of Safety 

Federal Highway Administration

Gloria M. Shepherd

Associate Administrator

Offi ce of Planning, Environment and Realty

Federal Highway Administration
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for its contents or use thereof.

The contents of this report refl ect the views of the contractor who is responsible for the 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial 

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or 

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of this document.
Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference

Report No. FHWA-HEP-10-001

prepared by 

Cambridge Systematics Inc.

Bethesda, Maryland

prepared for

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation

February 2010
.
i

Preface

The Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference is a resource providing a range of 

safety strategies in 22 emphasis areas that may be implemented by or coordinated by 

transportation planners. The strategies in the document are derived from the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) Report 500 Guidance for Implementation 

of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan that covers the 22 key emphasis areas identifi ed in the AASHTO Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan, as well as additional sections on collecting and analyzing highway 

safety data and developing an emphasis area plan. Each emphasis area section provides an 

overview of the problem, data defi ning the problem, and descriptions of strategies that are 

most relevant to planners. When available, crash modifi cation factors are included that can 

be used to determine the reduction in crashes anticipated from specifi c safety improvements. 

Each section provides lists of additional resources and best practices, when available.

The Desk Reference provides a summary of how safety can be integrated into the 

transportation planning process. The document describes the range of agencies and 

organizations involved in safety and their roles. The Desk Reference describes how the 

efforts of the engineering, enforcement, emergency response, and education communities 

are integrated and must collaborate for greatest effi cacy in reducing transportation deaths 

and injuries. This document details how safety fi ts into the planning process and how 

safety must be integrated from the earliest stages of goal setting and performance measure 

development to achieve measurable results. The document also lists funding sources that 

may be accessed for safety programs. 

The Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference is an initiative led by the Transportation 

Safety Planning Working Group, an ad hoc partnership of Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and professional associations representing the 

state Departments of Transportation (DOT), safety, law enforcement, traffi c engineering, and 

planning communities. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) convenes and moderates 

the TSPWG. The development of this document is sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration.
.
iii

Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................vii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................I-1

The Four Es of Transportation Safety ...................................................................................... I-2

The Planner’s Role ...................................................................................................................... I-3

Safety Funding and Costs ......................................................................................................... I-4

Resources ..................................................................................................................................... I-6

Incorporating Safety into the Transportation Planning Process .......................................... II-1

State and Regional Planning ....................................................................................................II-1

Local Planning ...........................................................................................................................II-7

Resources ....................................................................................................................................II-8

Safety Emphasis Areas .................................................................................................................III-1

Emphasis Areas ....................................................................................................................... III-3

Safety Data and Analysis........................................................................................................ III-3

Development of an Emphasis Area Plan ........................................................................... III-10

Older Persons’ Safe Mobility ............................................................................................... III-14

Young Drivers ........................................................................................................................ III-18

Pedestrian Collisions ............................................................................................................. III-22

Bicycle Collisions ................................................................................................................... III-27

Aggressive Driving ............................................................................................................... III-32

Speeding ................................................................................................................................. III-35

Unlicensed Drivers ................................................................................................................ III-40

Signalized Intersections ........................................................................................................ III-43

Unsignalized Intersections ................................................................................................... III-46

Run-Off-Road Collisions ...................................................................................................... III-53

Head-On Collisions ............................................................................................................... III-59

Head-On Collisions on Freeways ....................................................................................... III-60

Horizontal Curves ................................................................................................................. III-64

Tree Collisions........................................................................................................................ III-67

Utility Pole Collisions .......................................................................................................... III-69

Occupant Protection .............................................................................................................. III-71

Heavy Truck Collisions ........................................................................................................ III-75

Motorcycles ............................................................................................................................ III-81

Work Zone Collisions ........................................................................................................... III-87

Drowsy or Distracted Driving ............................................................................................. III-90

Rural Emergency Medical Services ..................................................................................... III-95

Alcohol-Involved Collisions ................................................................................................ III-97

Notes ............................................................................................................................................III-101
.
v

List of Exhibits

I-1 The Four Es of Transportation Safety ................................................................................ I-2

II-1 Assessing the Role of Safety in the Planning Process .................................................... II-5

II-2 The Transportation Planning Process .............................................................................. II-5

II-3 Relationship of Safety Planning to the Planning Process .............................................. II-6

III-1 Projected Growth in U.S. Population Age 65 and Older ............................................III-14

III-2 Fatalities by Age of Driver ..............................................................................................III-15

III-3 Advance Street Name Sign Tyler District, TxDOT .......................................................III-16

III-4 Modify Signal Change Interval ......................................................................................III-17

III-5 Cause of Death among Persons Ages 16 to 20, U.S. ....................................................III-19

III-6 A Pedestrian’s Chance of Death Based on Speed of Vehicle .....................................III-23

III-7 Pedestrian Fatalities by Year 1997-2007 ........................................................................III-24

III-8 Walkways Should be Part of Every New and Renovated Roadway ........................III-24

III-9 It Is Sometimes Useful to Supplement Crosswalk Markings with Motorist 

Warning Signs ...................................................................................................................III-25

III-10 Install Raised Median at Crosswalks.............................................................................III-25

III-11 Chicane .............................................................................................................................III-26

III-12 Pedalcyclist Fatalities 1997-2007 ....................................................................................III-27

III-13 Intersection Realignment ................................................................................................III-29

III-14 Chevron Shared Lane Marking in San Francisco ........................................................III-29

III-15 Rubberized Railroad Crossing to Improve Bicycle Safety .........................................III-30

III-16 Intoxicated and Speeding Drivers in Fatal Collisions by Time of Day (2006) .........III-36

III-17 Percentage of Drivers Judged to be Alcohol Positive by License Status ..................III-40

III-18 Manner of Collision for Fatal Crashes at Signalized Intersections ...........................III-43

III-19 Remove a Traffi c Signal ...................................................................................................III-44

III-20 Install Red-Light Cameras ..............................................................................................III-45

III-21 Manner of Collision for Fatal Crashes at Unsignalized Intersections ......................III-46

III-22 Add Exclusive Left-Turn Lane .......................................................................................III-48

III-23 Add Exclusive Right-Turn Lane ....................................................................................III-49

III-24 Convert to All-Way Stop Control from Two-Way Stop Control ...............................III-51

III-25 Install Roundabout ...........................................................................................................III-51

III-26 Distribution of Single-Vehicle ROR Fatalities for Two-Lane, Undivided, 

Noninterchange, Nonjunction Roads First Harmful Event .......................................III-54
List of Exhibits (continued)

III-27 Distribution of Single-Vehicle ROR Fatalities for Two-Lane, Undivided, 

Noninterchange, Nonjunction Roads Most Harmful Event ......................................III-55

III-28 Add Shoulder Rumble Strips .........................................................................................III-56

III-29 Change Shoulder Width and/or Type ..........................................................................III-57

III-30 Percentage Reduction of Single-Vehicle and Total Crashes Due to Sideslope 

Flattening on Two-Lane Rural Roads ...........................................................................III-58

III-31 Percentage Reduction in “Related Accidents” Due to Increasing the Roadside

Clear Recovery Distance on Two-Lane Rural Roads ..................................................III-58

III-32 Install/Upgrade Guardrail along Embankment..........................................................III-58

III-33 Centerline Rumble Strips Implemented in Maryland ................................................III-59

III-34 Add Centerline Rumble Strips .......................................................................................III-59

III-35 Add Passing Lanes Two-Lane Roads ............................................................................III-60

III-36 Fatal Crashes by Manner of Collision on Interstates/Freeways ...............................III-61

III-37 Location of Fatal Crashes on Horizontal Curves by Roadway 

Classifi cation .....................................................................................................................III-65

III-38 Improve Curve Superelevation ......................................................................................III-66

III-39 Fatal Tree Crashes by Number of Travel Lanes, 2007 ................................................III-67

III-40 High-Speed Rural Road with Utility Poles Less Than 15 Feet from the Edge 

of the Outside of a Horizontal Curve ............................................................................III-69

III-41 Percent Reduction in Crashes for Moving Poles Farther from the Roadway .........III-70

III-42 Safety Belt Use Rates by State, 2006 and 2007 ..............................................................III-72

III-43 National Safety Belt Use Rates 1983-2007 .....................................................................III-73

III-44 Critical Event for Crashes Involving Single-Unit and Tractor Trucks .....................III-76

III-45 Number of Travel Lanes for Fatal Crashes Involving Trucks ...................................III-77

III-46 Motorcycle Fatalities 1997-2007 ......................................................................................III-81

III-47 Type III Barricade Spaced at Intervals in Closed Lane to Reduce Intrusion Risk ..III-88

III-48 Specifi c Sources by Percentage of Driver Distraction Identifi ed in the 

Weighted 2000 to 2003 CDS Data ...................................................................................III-91

III-49 Distribution of Driver Attention Status with Categories of Driver Age,

Based on Weighed 2000 to 2003 CDS Data ...................................................................III-91
vii

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our deep appreciation to the members of the Transportation Safety 

Planning Working Group for providing information and guidance during the development 

of this publication, including:

• America Walks;

• American Automobile Association; 

• American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators;

• American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Offi cials;

• American Planning Association;

• American Public Transportation 

Association;

• American Public Works Association;

• Association of Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations;

• Community Transportation Association 

of America;

• Federal Highway Administration;

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration;

• Federal Transit Association;

• Governors Highway Safety Association;

• Institute of Transportation Engineers;

• International Association of Chiefs of 

Police;

• National Association of County 

Engineers;

• National Association of Development 

Organizations;

• National Association of Regional 

Councils;

• National Conference of State Legislators;

• National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program;

• National Governors Association;

• National Highway Traffi c 

• Safety Administration;

• Society for the Advancement of Violence 

and Injury Research (SAVIR); and

• Transportation Research Board.

Special thanks also go to the following agencies for their contributions to the Desk Reference:

• Hampton Roads Planning District 

Commission;

• North Jersey Transportation Planning 

Authority;

• Mid-America Regional Council;

• Houston-Galveston Area Council;

• North Central Texas Council of 

Governments;

• Florida DOT; and

• Minnesota DOT.
.
I-1

SECTION I

Introduction

The Transportation Planner’s Safety Desk Reference is an initiative of the Transportation Safety 

Planning Working Group (TSPWG), which is an ad hoc partnership of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) agencies: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and 

National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA), and professional associations 

representing the state DOTs, safety, law enforcement, traffi c engineering, and planning 

communities. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) convenes and moderates the 

TSPWG. The TSPWG has reviewed the guidance provided in the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) Report 500 Guidance for Implementation of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan that covers the key emphasis areas identifi ed in the AASHTO Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan. This guidebook identifi es and summarizes key strategies helpful to state and 

local transportation planners.

Safety planning is by its nature a multidisciplinary effort. Every state has gone through the 

process of developing a Federally required Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which 

involves engaging a wide range of stakeholders. An excellent fi rst step for transportation 

planners looking to advance safety through their planning process is to make contact 

with the state DOT, which has the responsibility for coordinating SHSP development and 

generally works closely with the State Highway Safety Offi ce (SHSO). The SHSO is housed 

within the DOT in approximately one-third of states; in most other cases, it is located 

within the Department of Public Safety (DPS) or the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 

Planners committed to improving transportation safety should not only use the SHSP 

as a resource for planning but also become involved in updating and implementing the 

SHSP. As planners incorporate safety into the planning process, the SHSP will be the major 

source of information in terms of problem identifi cation and potential countermeasures. In 

addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation requires the consideration and implementation of 

projects, strategies, and services that will increase the safety of the transportation system for 

nonmotorized as well as motorized users on all public roads.

Transportation planners work to improve all forms of transportation, including roadway, 

freight, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. The SHSP process should include the full 

range of transportation agencies and is designed to consider a wide range of strategies. 

By providing mobility alternatives to the auto, transit reduces vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT), resulting in fewer traffi c incidents, injuries, and fatalities. Transit ridership can be 

encouraged among the groups with the highest crash rates, such as young and older drivers, 

to reduce the potential for crashes. Guaranteed ride home programs at events can help 

prevent impaired driving.

Elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bicycle paths, and bicycle parking that 

support successful transit service also enhance bicycle use and walking, thus reducing VMT. 

Safe access to and egress from park-and-ride lots contributes to safe transit use. Two 
I-2

SECTION I– INTRODUCTION

sections of this Desk Reference specifi cally address pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

Transportation planners are encouraged to incorporate nonmotorized transportation and 

transit into their transportation safety planning.

The Four Es of Transportation Safety

When addressing transportation safety, 

the four Es are frequently referenced to 

describe the multidisciplinary nature 

of transportation safety planning. The 

four Es are Engineering, Education, 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 

or, more broadly emergency response, 

and Enforcement. The area in which 

planners have the most ability to effect 

change is likely to be engineering 

and the development of physical 

improvements to the transportation 

system. Since physical improvements 

to the transportation system are a 

shared responsibility of engineering 

and planning staff, the planner’s role 

will be to inform the transportation 

infrastructure improvement process with safety principles and data and facilitate 

development of engineering safety strategies within the overall process. 

The education and behavioral aspects of transportation safety have historically resided 

largely under the responsibility of the State Highway Safety Offi ce. Each SHSO receives 

a number of Federal grants targeting behavioral aspects of safety, primarily focusing on 

impaired driving and occupant protection. These offi ces execute nationally developed 

programs, such as “Click It or Ticket” targeting safety belt use. Planning agencies also can 

conduct safety education and awareness efforts. A wide range of educational programs 

impact highway safety and transportation planners are encouraged to consider educational 

efforts in the widest sense. Education can take the form of driver’s education programs, 

education of the general public on driving risks such as distraction, or programs promoting 

safety belt use and prevention of impaired driving. 

The safety community widely acknowledges education programs must be complemented 

by enforcement to be successful. For example, the “Click It or Ticket” program developed 

by NHTSA and implemented at the state level always combines enforcement with paid 

and earned media. A strong relationship with DPS and other enforcement agencies is an 

important part of the overall safety effort. Laws are only effective in deterring dangerous 

behavior if they are enforced. Underscoring the integrated nature of transportation safety 

is the fact that the crash data on which safety programs are based is collected in the fi eld by 

local police offi cers, sheriffs, and state troopers who fi ll out traffi c crash forms. Work with 

the enforcement community at the state and local level is a major component of an effective 

transportation safety program.

EXHIBIT I-1

The Four Es of Transportation Safety
I-3

SECTION I – INTRODUCTION

The fourth E, EMS, cannot be underestimated in its importance to the fi nal outcome of a 

traffi c crash. While many transportation safety strategies are designed to prevent crashes; 

once one does occur, quick medical treatment can mean the difference between life and 

death and mitigate injury severity. Transportation planners are encouraged to involve the 

medical community in their work on transportation safety for both injury prevention and 

the development of effective processes for administering emergency medical treatment to 

victims of traffi c crashes.

The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) tools, such as dynamic message signs, 

help manage the safe fl ow of traffi c when an incident occurs and protect the safety of 

fi rst-responders at the scene. Planners can play an important role in determining the best 

locations for trauma centers to ensure appropriate emergency vehicle routing and minimize 

transfer time so victims have the best chance of receiving treatment within the “golden 

hour.” Potential sites for new hospitals and trauma centers should include consideration 

of transportation routes from potential high-crash locations, ensure routes avoid congested 

areas or dense neighborhoods, and identify alternative routes where possible. 

The Planner’s Role

Planners have the skills and multidisciplinary orientation that uniquely position them to 

make a difference in transportation safety. They have the ability to analyze crash data, use 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map high-crash areas, and defi ne safety problems. 

Their understanding of data and performance measures is a key building block for 

developing comprehensive approaches to safety. Planners are accustomed to working with 

diverse groups to help them understand an issue and develop solutions. Their collaborative 

orientation and experience with the public are tools for helping stakeholders work together. 

Planners are experienced at conducting public outreach through a variety of efforts such as 

during the long-range planning process.

Many transportation safety improvement tactics involve legislative or policy changes. 

Planners possess the data and analysis capability required to develop a rigorous case for 

policy change. They can explain that even the safest roadways cannot protect people who 

engage in dangerous behaviors, and legislation is needed to address behavioral aspects (e.g., 

requiring safety belt use or reducing the blood alcohol limit).

Transportation planners are trained to analyze operations at the corridor level. Many 

aspects of corridor management provide opportunities for safety improvements. The 

provision of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities not only helps reduce congestion, 

but also reduces the number of vehicle trips and lowers roadway exposure. Corridor 

intersection treatments such as signal optimization can signifi cantly improve travel times 

and reduce levels of frustration and aggressive driving. Access management policies may 

impact both the capacity and safety of roadways. Individual intersection improvements 

make turning movements safer for both drivers and pedestrians. Transportation planners 

can work with operations and engineering staff to identify operations and infrastructure 

problems and program improvements. Planners also can work with law enforcement on 

corridor-based efforts to reduce impaired driving and speeding and increase safety belt use.

Given the broad range of players in the transportation safety community, institutional 

challenges will arise identifying lead agencies for various strategies. Defi ning where the 
I-4

SECTION I– INTRODUCTION

appropriate resources and responsibilities exist for implementing strategies is one of the 

most challenging aspects of transportation safety. Diffi culties will occur in determining 

whether the agency to implement a strategy should be the state DOT, highway safety offi ce, 

state police/patrol, metropolitan planning organization (MPO), city, county, or another 

agency. A strong network of partnerships among people committed to safety will assist in 

overcoming this challenge. The transportation planner can serve as the facilitator and an 

advocate for facilitating agencies in addressing the common goal.

By making safety a priority, planners can signifi cantly impact safety in their communities. 

Planners can increase their role in safety in the following ways:

• Make safety a priority – be an advocate or a champion;

• Develop a safety vision;

• Develop a comprehensive approach and performance measures;

• Collaborate with the safety community;

• Continue to improve data and analytical tools;

• Address policies and facilities (behavioral and physical);

• Integrate safety into plans and programs;

• Focus on investments that address safety;

• Inform and involve the community on safety issues;

• Use the state’s SHSP; 

• Monitor safety implementation; and 

• Analyze effectiveness.

Safety Funding and Costs

Many of the institutional challenges will involve resources and funding. While some 

dedicated sources of transportation safety funding exist, many safety strategies can be 

incorporated into existing programs. For example, rumble strips can be incorporated into 

programmed infrastructure projects, such as roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation. 

Existing driver education and licensing programs can be improved. In many cases, it is not 

necessary to seek stand-alone funding to implement transportation safety countermeasures.

States and local jurisdictions will want to evaluate the benefi t/cost ratio for strategies under 

consideration before implementation. Given the wide variation in the local application of 

solutions, each state or jurisdiction will need to make its own calculations. In some cases, 

due to limited information, such analyses will not be available or possible. The Resources 

sections throughout this guide include information on published references that provide 

guidance on this and other aspects of transportation safety planning.
I-5

SECTION I – INTRODUCTION

Funding Sources

Many sources of funding exist that are either designated for safety projects or fl exible and 

may be used for safety projects. For further information about eligibility of funds for safety 

improvements, please refer to “A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects” (http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/Federalaid/projects.cfm) or contact any FHWA Division Offi ce.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This new core Federal-aid funding 

program began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 with the goal of achieving a signifi cant reduction 

in traffi c fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Each state is required to have 

a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifi es and analyzes safety problems 

and opportunities to use HSIP funds for new eligible activities under 23 USC 148. HSIP 

requirements include a crash data system that can perform problem identifi cation and 

countermeasure analysis. It must address all aspects of safety – engineering, education, 

enforcement, and emergency medical services – on all public roads.

High-Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). This component of the HSIP supports road 

safety program efforts through construction and operational improvements on high-risk 

rural roads. The HSIP, including the HRRRP element, must consider all public roads. 

Safe Routes to School (SRTS). This program is designed to enable and encourage children 

to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more 

appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects that 

improve safety and reduce traffi c, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of 

schools. Each state is apportioned funds based on its relative share of total enrollment in 

primary and middle schools (kindergarten through eighth grade), but no state receives less 

than $1 million.

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 402 State and Community 

Highway Safety Grants. Section 402 funds can be spent on a full range of highway safety 

behavioral programs, including alcohol countermeasures; occupant protection; police 

traffi c services (e.g., enforcement); emergency medical services; traffi c records; motorcycle 

safety; pedestrian and bicycle safety; nonconstruction aspects of roadway safety; and 

speed. A minimum of 40 percent of a state’s Section 402 funds must be expended by local 

governments, or be used for the benefi t of local governments. To receive Federal highway 

safety grant funds, SHSOs must submit an annual Highway Safety Performance Plan (HSPP) 

to NHTSA.

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 405 Occupant Protection 

Incentive Grants. This program provides incentive grants to encourage states to adopt 

and implement effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from 

individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles.

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 406 Safety Belt Performance 

Grants. This incentive program encourages states to enact and enforce primary safety belt 

laws. A state may use these grant funds for any behavioral or infrastructure safety purpose 

under Title 23, for any project that corrects or improves a hazardous roadway location or 

feature, or proactively addresses highway safety problems. However, at least $1 million of 

each state’s allocation must be obligated for behavioral highway safety improvements.
I-6

SECTION I– INTRODUCTION

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 408 State Traffi c Safety 

Information System Improvement Grants. This program encourages states to adopt 

and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 

uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state data needed to identify priorities for 

national, state, and local highway and traffi c safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness 

of efforts to make such improvements; to link the state’s data systems, including traffi c 

records, with other data systems within the state; and to improve the compatibility of the 

state’s data system with national data systems and data systems of other states to enhance 

the ability to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and 

circumstances.

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 410. The purpose of this 

grant program is to provide an incentive to states that implement effective programs to 

reduce traffi c safety problems resulting from impaired driving.

SAFETEA-LU State Highway Safety Grant Programs: Section 2010 Motorcyclist 

Safety Grants. The purpose of this program is to provide grants to states that adopt and 

implement effective programs to reduce the number of crashes involving motorcyclists. 

Funds can be used only for motorcycle training and motorist awareness programs.

CFR Title 49 Part 350 Commercial Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). 

This Federal grant program provides fi nancial assistance to states to reduce the number and 

severity of crashes and hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles 

(CMV). The goal of MCSAP is to reduce CMV-involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries 

through consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety programs.

Resources

Each of the NCHRP 500 Series reports includes a lengthy list of references to which planners 

may refer for additional background. The references from all the 500 Series books are not 

reproduced here.

FHWA has posted fact sheets on SAFETEA LU programs under its Fact Sheets on Highway 

Provisions section. Fact sheets exist for HSIP, STP, HRRRP, SRTS, and Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets.htm.

The GHSA web site section on State Information and Laws includes information about 

Section 402, 405, 406, 408, 410, 2010, and 2011 grants: 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/grants/.

A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects can be found at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Federalaid/projects.cfm.
II-1

SECTION II

Incorporating Safety into the Transportation 

Planning Process

State and Regional Planning

Safety should be integrated in the planning processes undertaken by state DOTs, MPOs, 

and regional planning agencies. The following reasons are identifi ed in NCHRP Report 546, 

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning:

• Travel safety is affected by how the transportation system is designed, constructed, 

operated, and maintained. Given that transportation planning leads to changes in the 

transportation system, safety should be integrated in the planning process.

• The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes is staggering. According to a study of 85 

urban areas in the United States, the cost has reached $164.2 billion per year in just those 

communities, or an average of $1,051 per person in 2005 (AAA).

• Motor vehicle fatalities and injuries are a leading public health problem in the United 

States. In 2007, 41,059 people were killed and 2.5 million people were injured in motor 

vehicle crashes.1

• Crashes represent a major source of nonrecurring congestion, which is estimated in at 

least some locations to account for half of all congestion.

• Evidence from around the world and throughout the United States suggests that many 

crashes are preventable. In 2007, nearly 32 percent of U.S. motor vehicle fatalities 

involved alcohol and 32 percent of fatalities involved speeding (FARS).

• Effective safety programs involve a wide range of stakeholders. The transportation 

planning process can be an important forum for fostering safety program collaboration 

at the state and metropolitan levels.

The fi rst step in transportation safety is problem identifi cation. Where are crashes 

occurring, what types of crashes are occurring, what are the contributing factors, and what 

population segments are most at risk? To understand these issues, planners should obtain a 

copy of the state’s SHSP from the state DOT. The SHSP will help identify the top 

transportation safety issues at a state level. The plan should be organized by key emphasis 

areas addressing the top problems identifi ed via state crash data analysis. The SHSP 

provides a guide for identifying regional problems, developing goals, and targeting safety 

partners. Regional safety priorities should support and be consistent with the SHSP where 

proven appropriate through data analysis. 

To conduct a safety analysis, the initial step is to assemble data. First, explore gaining access 

to state crash data. According to the Federal transportation legislation SAFETEA-LU passed

1

 NHTSA.
II-2

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

in 2005, all states must develop traffi c records data systems. Your state already may have 

a system in place, or be in the process of developing or upgrading its management of crash 

data. Some MPOs have created a regional crash database for conducting regional crash data 

analysis.

Obtain a copy of the state crash form, which shows exactly the crash data elements captured 

and the types of analysis that can be performed. The focus should be on fatal and severe 

injury crashes to ensure that countermeasures are focused on the most severe problems 

and not on “fender-benders” where property damage is the main result. The section on 

Safety Data and Analysis in Part III provides detailed information on data sources and data 

analysis considerations.

Crash data helps planners:

• Identify high-crash corridors and intersections (ideally via GIS mapping);

• Determine types of crashes (e.g., rear-end collisions, lane departures);

• Identify contributing factors (e.g., failure to yield at a stop sign, excessive speed, 

distraction); and

• Determine key human factors or behaviors that are associated with number and severity 

of crashes (e.g., nonuse of safety belts or helmets, impairment by alcohol or drugs, etc.).

Road safety audits (RSA) provide additional information for identifying safety issues. RSAs 

are formal safety performance examinations of an existing or future road or intersection by 

an independent audit team. They qualitatively estimate and report on potential road safety 

issues and identify opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. An RSA seeks 

to answer:

• What elements of the road may present a safety concern, to what extent, to which road 

users, and under what circumstances? 

• What opportunities exist to eliminate or mitigate identifi ed safety concerns? 

Road safety audits can be used in any phase of project development from planning to 

preliminary engineering, design, and construction. They can be used on any size project 

from minor intersection and roadway retrofi ts to megaprojects. RSAs present advantages 

over traditional safety review processes in place in most state DOTs because they involve 

a multidisciplinary team, consider all road users, address road user capabilities and 

limitations, generate a formal report, and require a formal response.

Once the state or region has an understanding of the major transportation safety issues, 

countermeasures can be developed, starting with the areas with the highest number of and 

most severe crashes. Safety countermeasures are strategies and tactics developed to address 

specifi c safety problems. For example, rumble strips address travel lane departure crashes, 

as well as distraction and fatigue. Transportation safety strategies are included in the SHSP.

A range of countermeasures is presented in this Desk Reference. Some strategies are more 

appropriate than others for inclusion at the state or regional level. The document focuses 

on outcomes; not methods or specifi c programs. The list of strategies is not all-inclusive. 

A number of additional strategies employed at state or regional levels, such as incident 

management and congestion management, can impact safety.
II-3

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

Most behavioral strategies will be implemented at the state level, such as legislation on 

impaired driving and occupant protection. Enforcement occurs at both the state level 

with state troopers, and at the local level with municipal police departments and sheriffs. 

State DOTs have a large role in implementing safety strategies as they conduct ongoing 

highway construction programs that address safety in some way. They also manage the 

Federally mandated HSIP. Every state has a highway safety offi ce that manages the state 

highway safety grant programs from NHTSA and the Federally mandated Highway Safety 

Performance Plan (HSPP).

States and MPOs are required to include safety as a planning factor in project development. 

The planning process begins with safety data analysis. This knowledge will help determine 

safety’s role in the vision for a transportation plan. How does safety factor in among the 

community goals of prosperity, environmental quality, and quality of life/social equity?

Safety must be established as a priority early in the process, when goals and objectives for 

the plan are developed. Goals and objectives lead to determining system performance 

measures. Performance measures target data collection and resulting information needs 

on those aspects of performance that decision-makers determine important for the state or 

region. For example, many transportation performance measures have been defi ned that 

monitor whether traffi c safety, congestion, average speeds, system reliability, and mobility 

options have changed over time. Most importantly, performance measures are used to 

determine the effectiveness of safety policies and countermeasures and how changes in the 

system affect performance. Common safety performance measures include the following:

• Rate of traffi c deaths – annual fatalities per 100 million VMT;

• Rate of traffi c injuries – annual injuries per 100 million VMT;

• Rate of crashes – annual crashes per 100 million VMT; 

• Annual number of fatalities; and

• Annual number of injuries.

Safety performance measures currently are undergoing analysis and discussion within the 

safety community. For example, fatality rates show improvements in safety as a function of 

miles traveled on the system and are an important measure of safety improvement related to 

population growth, vehicle miles of travel, or vehicle ownership. However, an improvement 

in fatality rate may not indicate real safety improvements – a rate reduction may result from 

the number of fatalities staying constant while the amount of travel increases. Rates can also 

be inconsistent between aggregate data and subsets of data. For example, VMT fatality rate 

comparisons can be misleading unless rural and urban rates are shown separately because 

rural rates are substantially higher than urban rates. The raw number of fatalities is another 

measure used by many states in their SHSPs. However, the limitation of raw numbers is 

that they do not consider other factors such as demographic and travel distance changes. 

GHSA, NHTSA, the states, et al. developed Traffi c Safety Performance Measures for States and 

Federal Agencies (August 2008) and plans are in place for all states to begin using a minimum 

set of 14 performance measures in FY 2010 to achieve a level of consistency (www.ghsa.org). 

This guidance recommends use of a range of measures to provide a more complete picture 

of safety performance.
II-4

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

Performance measures may be defi ned based on specifi c aspects of safety, such as:

• Observed safety belt use;

• Percent of fatal crashes involving alcohol; and

• Percent of serious injury crashes involving excessive speed.

When incorporating safety into system performance measures, a number of issues should 

be considered. Performance measures must be sensitive enough to assess changes in safety 

performance after strategies are implemented. Agencies must be capable of collecting or 

accessing timely and accurate data relevant to the performance measures. Finally, the safety 

performance measures should be linked to the evaluation criteria for assessing the relative 

benefi ts of one project or strategy over others. 

Performance measures must be understandable to transportation and enforcement 

professionals as well as decision-makers and the general public. Use of GIS to locate 

safety “hot spots” is helpful because maps of these data provide a visual mechanism for 

understanding safety issues and targeting where additional analysis may be warranted. 

Transportation projects and strategies developed at the state and regional level are then 

evaluated for consideration. Most safety evaluation efforts use one of three methods: 1) 

listing the evaluation criteria and showing how the alternatives compare; 2) assigning 

weights or scores to the evaluation factors; or 3) conducting cost/benefi t analysis. The 

priority setting process involves a multitude of stakeholders interested in a wide range of 

issues. Safety advocates must be part of the priority setting process.2

To ensure safety is integrated into the planning process in a meaningful way, a number of 

questions can be asked as part of an assessment. These questions are listed in Exhibit II-1.

The questions in Exhibit II-1 provide a point of departure for assessing whether the 

transportation planning process considers safety in meaningful and substantive ways. If the 

answer to any of the questions is “no” then safety issues should be given higher priority and 

greater emphasis in the transportation planning process.

The transportation planning process shown in Exhibit II-2 results in a wide range of 

planning products. States regularly develop long-range Statewide Transportation Plans, 

and MPOs develop and update Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTP). These feed 

into the shorter-term Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for MPOs and State 

Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP), identifying near term projects to be 

programmed and built. On an annual basis, MPOs develop their Unifi ed Planning Work 

Program (UPWP) and states develop a State Planning and Research (SPR) program. Safety 

programs can be added to the UPWP such as safety forums, crash analysis programs, and 

coordination with law enforcement. To gain inclusion of safety programming in the STIP, 

planners must work closely with programmers to demonstrate the state’s safety problems 

and solutions and advocate for safety countermeasures. If states or MPOs develop a 

separate transportation safety plan, it must be linked explicitly to the comprehensive 

transportation plan to ensure they work in tandem. 

2

 NCHRP Report 546, Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning, 2006.
II-5

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

EXHIBIT II-1

Assessing the Role of Safety in the Planning Process

Source: NCHRP Report 546: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning.

EXHIBIT II-2

The Transportation Planning Process

Source: NCHRP Report 546: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning.
II-6

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

How safety is refl ected in state and MPO plans defi nes how safety is addressed in the 

planning process. All states have developed Federally required SHSPs coordinated by 

the state DOT that involve engaging a wide range of stakeholders. The new planning 

rule encourages transportation planning to be consistent with the SHSP,3

 and longrange statewide and MPO plans should include a safety element that incorporates or 

summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects contained in the SHSP.4

 Safety 

stakeholders must be closely involved throughout the process to ensure transportation plans 

include projects, programs, and strategies with safety benefi ts. 

States and regions develop a range of other plans that should be consistent with the SHSP. 

The state’s Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) under the guidance of the FMCSA 

addresses safety strategies to reduce heavy truck crashes. The Highway Safety Plan (HSP) 

developed by the Governor’s Offi ce of Highway Safety (GOHS) mainly addresses the 

behavioral aspects of safety. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) developed 

by state DOTs defi nes infrastructure improvements to address safety and also feeds into the 

STIP. In addition, a state or region may develop other plans such as bicycle and pedestrian 

plans, freight plans, or motorcycle safety plans that should be consistent with the SHSP. The 

relationship between the wide range of transportation planning products and safety plans is 

shown in Exhibit II-3. To most effectively address safety, it is critical that each of these plans 

be data driven and coordinated to ensure that transportation funds are spent most effi ciently 

on areas with the greatest opportunity for safety improvements. 

3

 23 CFR 450.208(h) and 450.306(h).

4

 23 CFR 450.214(d) and 450.322(h).

EXHIBIT II-3 

Relationship of Safety Planning to the Planning Process

Source: FHWA SHSP Champion’s Guide, modifi ed.
II-7

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

Although state DOTs and MPOs follow essentially the same planning process, the 

implementation of strategies differs. MPOs are largely advisory agencies and seldom 

directly implement safety projects. MPOs must work closely with state and local 

governments to include safety analysis or strategies in their corridor studies, identifi cation 

of problem locations, capital projects, etc. This makes planning and collaboration that 

much more important in safety implementation. The need for certain strategies and their 

likely effectiveness must be clearly demonstrated so the various governments will pursue 

implementation. TIP development usually involves advisory or coordinating committees 

with representatives from various governmental agencies. These groups should consider 

safety when prioritizing projects and developing implementation strategies.

While an MPO, Regional Planning Agency (RPA), or Area Development District (ADD) may 

not identify emphasis areas itself, Section III – Development of an Emphasis Area Plan may 

be useful for regional planning agencies to:

• Improve understanding of the variety of safety issues and possible measures;

• Understand the SHSP planning process;

• Provide a menu of strategies that could be used in the region to support the SHSP;

• Refi ne proposed projects or strategies to improve safety based on emphasis area 

research;

• Identify potential Crash Modifi cation Factors (CMF) for use in project evaluation for the 

long-range plan or TIP;

• Identify approaches and strategies to consider in the long-range plan, corridor plans, 

safety studies, and regional safety plans;

• Assist nonmotorized or other planning committees in considering the safety implications 

of proposed projects and strategies and in developing new approaches; and

• Serve as a resource for developing the long-range plan’s safety element.

Local Planning

Incorporating safety into local planning is the fi rst step to including projects in the MPO’s 

regional long-range plan and TIP. Seventy-seven percent of all roads are locally owned and 

maintained,5

 and many key safety improvements are implemented at a local level. 

If a local jurisdiction has a crash database and conducts its own safety analysis, it will 

be a primary resource for identifying where and what types of safety improvements are 

needed. Crash databases maintained by local jurisdictions may be housed in a range of 

departments, such as traffi c engineering, public works, or police departments. Larger 

jurisdictions are more likely to maintain a crash data system than smaller jurisdictions. The 

types of information that can be extracted from these data are described in the previous 

section. Additional discussion of data sources is located in Section III under Safety Data and 

Analysis.

5

 FHWA, 2006 Conditions and Performance Report, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/es02h.htm.
II-8

SECTION II – INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS

If local data are not available, local jurisdictions can obtain data and analysis from the 

state or MPO. Local transportation planners can then work with their public works and 

engineering departments to review crash data and gain an understanding of where the 

problems are in the community. Local and district engineers and local law enforcement also 

may provide useful input on key transportation safety issues.

Planners can work with traffi c, engineering, and public works staff to develop a policy 

to implement safety countermeasures that can be incorporated into rehabilitation or 

improvements of roadways as standard practice. New projects to address critical safety 

issues also can be developed. Safety is often an issue that local residents fi nd very personal 

and compelling, and jurisdiction staff will likely fi nd local support for work on safety issues.

Local planning staff also can take on the role of facilitator with stakeholders outside 

local government. They can present data on safety issues to key partners, such as utility 

companies to discuss placement of utility poles or area agencies on aging to discuss the 

provision of alternative transportation for older populations. Local staff can meet with 

local law enforcement to discuss enforcement efforts and learn what offi cers are observing 

about traffi c safety in the fi eld. Planners can distribute educational materials in local 

government offi ces, or identify appropriate partners to help with the dissemination of 

information. Many opportunities exist to implement relatively low-cost, but effective, safety 

countermeasures at the local level.

Local resources are limited, and to maximize effi ciency local planners can adopt programs 

such as model ordinances for access management. These ordinances should be included in 

local comprehensive plans and/or implementing ordinances.

This Desk Reference does not include all strategies that can be implemented on a local 

level to improve safety. It focuses on the emphasis areas profi led in the NCHRP Report 

500 series. Other local strategies, such as land use planning, access management, and 

nonmotorized transportation strategies, are methods for impacting traffi c volumes and 

congestion and improving traffi c safety.

Resources

• NCHRP Report 546, Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning, 2006.

• Considering Safety in the Transportation Planning Process, U.S. DOT, undated, 

http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/320/.

• NCHRP Research Results Digest 299, Crash Reduction Factors for Traffi c Engineering and 

Intelligent Transportation System Improvements: State-of-Knowledge Report, November 2005.

• FHWA Offi ce of Safety Road Safety Audits web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.

• NHTSA Crash Forms Catalogue: http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/crashforms/.

• NCHRP Synthesis 321: Roadway Safety Tools for Local Agencies: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_321.pdf.
III-1

SECTION III

Safety Emphasis Areas

This section presents the 22 safety emphasis areas, plus sections on Safety Data and Analysis 

and Development of an Emphasis Area Plan. Each discussion consists of a brief description 

of the problem, followed by a discussion of data relating to the problem. Multiple potential 

solutions are then presented in the form of objectives, under which multiple strategies 

for achieving those objectives are provided. In addition, examples of best practices and 

additional information resources are noted under each objective, if available.

The discussions in this section also address costs, crash modifi cation factors, and evaluations 

associated with the strategies presented. More detail on how the discussions treat these 

issues is given below.

Costs

If data exist on costs or benefi ts for a specifi c strategy, information is provided in 

parentheses or in a text box adjacent to the strategy. The relative cost to implement and 

operate a strategy is categorized in four levels: low, moderate, moderate to high, and high 

costs. These categorizations do not relate to exact ranges of costs, but represent the relative 

cost of various strategies. The following icons are used next to the strategies to indicate their 

relative cost:

• Low – $;

• Moderate – $$;

• Moderate to High – $$$; and

• High – $$$$.

Crash Modifi cation Factors

The crash reduction benefi ts of some engineering strategies are available. The primary 

source for data included here is NCHRP Report 617, Accident Modifi cation Factors for Traffi c 

Engineering and ITS Improvements. The forthcoming Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 

transitions use of the term Accident Modifi cation Factor (AMF) to Crash Modifi cation 

Factor (CMF). To be consistent with the HSM this document uses the term CMF. This 

publication includes CMFs to estimate the reduction in crashes from a specifi c safety 

treatment or installation. CMFs are multiplied by the current crash rate to generate the 

expected new crash rate after a new safety treatment is implemented. For example, if a 

treatment is expected to reduce the number of crashes by 15 percent, the CMF is 0.85. One 

of the challenges of using CMFs is that they are generally calculated based on individual 

treatments, while in practice more than one treatment is often implemented at once. 

Therefore, it is unknown whether predictions based on combining CMFs accurately capture 

the combined effect.
III-2

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

In NCHRP Report 617, a level of predictive certainty was assigned to each CMF, based on 

reviews of the caliber of existing research on that countermeasure. CMFs are included in 

this Desk Reference only for strategies with a high- or medium-high-level of predictive 

certainty. The Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors published by FHWA provides 

additional crash reduction factors for intersection, roadway departure, and pedestrian 

crashes. NCHRP Report 622, Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, is a 

manual for application of behavioral highway safety countermeasures, and a framework 

and guidance for estimating the costs and benefi ts of emerging, experimental, untried, 

or unproven behavioral highway safety countermeasures. The new web-based CMF 

Clearinghouse is a one-stop location for resources related to CMFs (for more information see 

Other Safety Analysis Tools in Section III).

Research on costs and effectiveness of countermeasures is ongoing, and planners should 

make use of new research results when they are available. The HSM is a tool for highway 

designers that will provide information on safety design features and countermeasures with 

associated crash modifi cation factors. This tool will be of use in preliminary or advanced 

design and include prediction models to compare the safety performance of design options. 

The document is expected to be available in early 2010.

Use and Evaluation of Strategies

The strategies listed in this document were derived from the NCHRP Report 500 series 

on Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. These 

strategies were identifi ed from a number of sources, including the literature, contact with 

state and local agencies throughout the United States, and Federal programs. Some of 

the strategies have been widely used, and some have been subjected to well-designed 

evaluations to prove their effectiveness. However, many strategies have been widely used, 

but not adequately evaluated. Therefore, the reader should be prepared to use caution in 

many cases before adopting a particular strategy for implementation. To provide guidance 

as to the extent of use and evaluation, most strategies have been classifi ed into one of three 

categories. To identify the cases and research to document whether a strategy is proven or 

tried, planners will need to refer to the full NCHRP reports. Each category is identifi ed by a 

letter symbol throughout the guide:

• Proven (P) – Strategies used in one or more locations and for which properly designed 

evaluations have been conducted that show them to be effective;

• Tried (T) – Strategies implemented in a number of locations and may even be accepted 

as standards or standard approaches, but for which evaluations have not been 

documented; and

• Experimental (E) – Suggested strategies that at least one agency has considered 

suffi ciently promising to try on a small scale in at least one location.
III-3

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Emphasis Areas

The full list of emphasis areas addressed in this section is provided below. The fi rst two 

sections provide guidance on safety data and analysis and identifi cation of priority emphasis 

areas and strategies, which apply to all of the subsequent emphasis areas:

Safety Data and Analysis

Problem Description

The basic principle for developing an effective safety plan is to achieve the greatest results 

with the least cost, or to identify the strategies and countermeasures with the greatest 

benefi t/cost (B/C) ratio for each safety concern (location, user group, vehicle type, or 

crash type), and the combination of strategies that provide the best B/C ratio across the 

entire system. To determine what these ratios are, data about crashes and the vehicles and 

people involved in them, as well as data associated with the effectiveness and costs of each 

countermeasure must be collected, organized, linked, and analyzed.

In many cases, the available data are limited or unknown. While police crash records are 

the most basic form of roadway safety data, the information recorded on the report may 

vary from location to location, as different forms are used in different places. The crash 

location also can be reported with varying levels of specifi city. Other data sources, such 

as hospital and other medical records, insurance records, and licensing information, may 

or may not be available and may or may not be linked to crash data. Roadway inventory 

information in some jurisdictions is detailed and linked to crash records, while in others 

the information is limited and may be diffi cult to link to crash data. Also, for many of the 

strategies suggested in the following sections, valid studies exist to provide expected crash 

reduction factors. 

• Safety data and analysis;

• Development of an emphasis area plan;

• Older persons’ safe mobility;

• Young drivers;

• Pedestrian collisions;

• Bicycle collisions;

• Aggressive driving;

• Speeding;

• Unlicensed drivers;

• Signalized intersections;

• Unsignalized intersections;

• Run-off-road collisions;

• Head-on collisions;

• Head-on collisions on freeways;

• Horizontal curves;

• Tree collisions;

• Utility pole collisions;

• Occupant protection;

• Heavy truck collisions;

• Motorcycle collisions;

• Work zone collisions;

• Drowsy or distracted driving;

• Rural emergency medical services; and

• Alcohol-involved collisions.
III-4

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data Sources

Local and Statewide Crash Data

Records on traffi c crashes are derived from the law enforcement report form that is usually 

completed by investigating police offi cers at the crash site. A typical crash report contains 

about 100 pieces of information that describe the crash, the location, and the people and 

vehicles involved. Crash reports may be used individually to explore the circumstances and 

factors that contributed to a particular event, and they may be used in aggregate to develop 

a picture of the safety performance of a given location or jurisdiction. Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) is a voluntary guideline that helps states collect 

consistent crash data for a wide range of transportation safety planning applications.

FARS – Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FARS contains annual data on a census of fatal traffi c crashes within the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. According to NHTSA, “...to be included in FARS, a 

crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling on a traffi cway customarily open to the public, 

and must result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist within 30 days of 

the crash.” FARS data are available annually back to 1975. Each new year’s fi le is typically 

available about six months following the end of the year; however, the FARS analyst in each 

state has access to their own state’s fatal crashes at all times. It contains more than 100 data 

elements related to the driver, vehicle, involved persons, and the crash itself. FARS has 

proven to be a rich information source for research and program evaluation focusing on fatal 

crashes. The quality of FARS data is quite high due to extensive training provided to the 

FARS analysts.

CODES – Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System

CODES is an enhanced state-based crash data system in which police crash data are linked 

with detailed information on the medical consequences of the crash. At a minimum, 

basic statewide police crash data is supplemented with hospital data and either EMS 

data or emergency department data. Some states also add data for each driver and other 

occupant concerning driver license status, vehicle registration, citation/conviction records, 

insurance claims, rehabilitation and long-term care, and other items. The linkage of medical 

information to crash and driver data is done through “probabilistic linkage technology”

since direct linkage is not often possible due to missing personal information and privacy 

concerns.

MCMIS – Motor Carrier Management Information System

MCMIS is a comprehensive truck safety database that is the source of data for many of the 

FMCSA’s other data fi les (e.g., Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System (SAFER)) and 

analysis procedures (e.g., SafeStat). Data are entered into MCMIS via the SafetyNet system 

accessed by personnel in each state’s Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) 

agency. The database is maintained by FMCSA to allow analysis of motor-carrier issues. 

MCMIS consists of fi ve fi les, with input to each fi le from each state and from carriers subject 

to Federal truck safety regulations in all states:
III-5

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Registration (“Census”) fi le;

• Crash fi le; 

• Roadside Inspection fi le; 

• Compliance Review fi le; and 

• Enforcement fi le. 

MCMIS data are the primary safety data used by FMCSA and state truck safety staff in all 

safety-related efforts. State-based crash tables can be used to look at major factors associated 

with truck crashes. 

Roadway Inventory Data

State Inventory Data

Each state highway agency and some local transportation and public works departments 

and regional planning agencies (e.g., MPO, RPA) collect and maintain roadway inventory 

data on each section of roadway within the highway systems for which they are responsible. 

The data are generally “cross-section” information on the roadway – number of lanes, 

shoulder type and width, median descriptors, pavement types, etc. Most states have 

supplemental fi les describing bridges (as part of the National Bridge Inventory) and railroad 

grade crossings (as part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Grade-Crossing 

Inventory) that can usually, but not always, be linked to the basic roadway inventory fi le. 

A very few state systems also include information on curves and grades, two important 

safety predictors. A limited number of states have developed intersection and interchange 

inventory fi les providing detailed descriptions of such items as intersection type, traffi c 

control type, turning lanes, mainline and crossroad traffi c volumes, interchange type, ramp 

length, etc. Additional roadway-oriented supplemental fi les may exist on such safetyrelated information as skid numbers, intersection turning counts, intersection signalization 

phasing, pavement condition, and speed profi les. 

HPMS – Highway Performance-Monitoring System

Many of the state roadway inventory systems were expansions of the HPMS system, a 1978 

congressionally mandated data system to collect data on the nation’s highways. HPMS is 

similar to the state inventory systems but is based on a sample of locations from different 

functional classifi cations in each state, rather than containing the full state system. It 

contains limited data on all public roads. Data are input each year by every state, analyzed, 

and reported to Congress by FHWA. In general, the state analyst will use the state system 

data, which is usually far more complete and accurate than HPMS data, in state-based safety 

analyses.

Other Roadway and Intersection Characteristic Data

Other data on roadway and intersection characteristics can be obtained from photologs 

or aerial photographs. In particular, orthophotos are geographically converted to allow 

accurate measurement. The ongoing development of asset management databases by 
III-6

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

state and local highway agencies will provide a potentially valuable source of roadway 

and intersection characteristics data. These data sources may be particularly useful in 

development of safety plans if they can be linked to the location reference system used in 

crash data.

Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)

Though not referenced in the NCHRP 500 Series, the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements 

(MIRE) provides a listing of roadway inventory and traffi c elements essential to safety 

management and proposes standardized coding for each. The fi nal report, containing MIRE 

1.0, will be completed in the summer of 2010 and will be available on the FHWA Offi ce of 

Safety website (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/).

Traffi c Volume Data

State highway agencies collect and maintain data on traffi c volumes (Average Annual 

Daily Traffi c – AADT) for roads on the state-controlled system. In addition to AADT, state 

agencies also collect and maintain large-truck counts or percentages for each roadway 

section. Local jurisdictions will have traffi c volume information, but the consistency 

and quality varies by jurisdiction. In general, traffi c volume data is more limited in local 

jurisdictions than for the state-system roads.

Driver History Files

Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) maintain driver records of all licensed drivers in the 

state. Driver records are typically generated when a person enters the state licensing system 

to obtain a license or when unlicensed drivers have a violation or crash in the state. The 

record contains basic identifi ers (e.g., name, address, driver license number), demographic 

information on the driver (e.g., birth date, gender), and information relevant to license 

and driver improvement actions (e.g., license issuance and expiration/renewal dates, 

license class, violation dates, suspension periods). In some states, information on crash 

involvements (e.g., occurrence date, crash severity) is also available. Driver records are 

especially useful for examining issues related to driving history and rates of recidivism (e.g., 

reoffending for moving violations and traffi c-related criminal convictions). 

Vehicle Registration Files

Departments of motor vehicles maintain motor vehicle registration fi les for use in vehicle 

licensing and taxation. These fi les contain information on the vehicle identifi cation number 

(VIN); plate number; and vehicle weight, model, make, and year. Vehicle registration data 

can be used in developing safety strategies when, for example, information on the number of 

licensed vehicles by type is needed. 

SWISS – Statewide Injury Surveillance System 

With the growing interest in injury control programs within the traffi c safety, public health, 

and enforcement communities, a number of local, state, and Federal initiatives are driving 

the development of a SWISS. These systems typically incorporate prehospital (EMS), 
III-7

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

trauma, emergency department (ED), hospital in-patient/discharge, rehabilitation, and 

morbidity databases to track injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes. Often, these 

systems rely upon other components of the traffi c records system to provide information 

on injury mechanisms or events (e.g., traffi c crash reports). The custodial responsibility for 

various fi les within the SWISS is typically distributed among several agencies and/or offi ces 

within a State Department of Health. The SWISS should support integration of the injury 

data with police-reported traffi c crashes and make this information available for analysis to 

support research, public policy, and decision-making. In most states, this integration is most 

likely to happen through a CODES probabilistic linkage process. 

NEMSIS – National Emergency Medical Services Information System 

The ability to evaluate and improve EMS systems has long been hampered by the lack of 

consistent and detailed EMS data at either the state or national level. While a state’s EMS 

system is usually coordinated at the state level, with EMS providers trained and certifi ed 

by the state EMS offi ce, the system itself is composed of multiple local providers. Thus, the 

data required in a state (and ultimately national) database must be collected by these local 

agencies. Because of both the lack of a universal set of “endorsed” data variables and the 

fact that there is often no legal requirement for systematic collection of such data, state EMS 

data systems have varied greatly in terms of the composition and completeness of their data. 

Working with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA), NHTSA is coordinating the NEMSIS project, which will ultimately 

lead to a national EMS database, populated from participating state databases. The raw data 

will continue to be collected by the individual local providers, but the data collected will be 

based on a data dictionary containing standardized variables and codes. 

Population Census Files

The U.S. Census Bureau and the state demographer maintain data on population 

characteristics that can be useful in safety analyses. Typically, these data will give estimates 

of total population with gender, age, and ethnicity subpopulations broken out within 

political subdivisions. These data can be used to develop measures of crash risk, injury risk, 

and fatality risk for specifi c groups based upon residence location and any demographic 

characteristics recorded in the crash and population databases. While these types of 

analyses are most often used for epidemiological research, they are gaining acceptance 

among highway safety practitioners because of the additional insight they provide into a 

jurisdiction’s crash experience, especially when countermeasures may involve education or 

road user behavior-related programs. 

Citation Tracking and DUI Tracking Files 

A special case of multiagency data sharing is the creation of citation and DUI tracking 

databases. The citation tracking system is viewed as a “cradle to grave” database of every 

citation issued in the state. From the point of initial printing, through assignment to an 

agency, and/or individual offi cer, issuance by that offi cer, processing by the Court or 

administrative processes, and fi nal disposition, the citation is trackable. This supports 

a variety of safety-related analyses that are not possible if each agency controls their 

own citations and does not track what happens after the offi cer issues them. States have 
III-8

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

found that citation tracking systems are useful in detecting recidivism for serious traffi c 

offenses earlier in the process (i.e., prior to conviction) and for tracking the behavior of 

law enforcement agencies and the courts with respect to dismissals and plea downs. 

Such analyses can be useful in identifying training needs for law enforcement offi cers, 

prosecutors, court clerks and judges.

DUI tracking systems incorporate some features of a citation tracking system (however, only 

for drunk- or drugged-driving offenses) and add several other functions. In particular, a 

DUI tracking system is likely to contain data that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness 

of court-ordered and administrative actions required of offenders. The system can be used 

to track recidivism rates for people assigned to various treatment programs, or subject 

to various license restrictions. In this way, the state can learn which measures are most 

effective for ensuring offenders do not repeat prior behavior.

Local Data Files 

Local engineering and law enforcement agencies are likely to maintain data on roadways 

and incidents (crashes, citations, etc.) in their jurisdictions. The roadway data may closely 

mirror that in a statewide system, but could also contain additional traffi c counts, more 

precise or up-to-date information on changes to the roadway network and, perhaps, 

inventories of signs, markings, traffi c control devices, and other roadside appurtenances. 

Where such data exist, the state DOT and other users can potentially access it to develop a 

more complete description of safety experience in the state by including details for the local 

roadway system that may not exist in state fi les. Many local engineering agencies use GIS 

and have sophisticated mapping capabilities that users can access.

Local law enforcement agencies often have a record of every crash in the jurisdiction, and 

may have complete citation records as well. Law enforcement agencies use these records 

for manpower allocation and crime mapping, among other purposes. Other users may 

fi nd the data useful in developing a more comprehensive view of traffi c safety in a local 

area. Crashes that fall below the state’s reporting threshold may still be of interest to 

engineers looking for high-crash locations. Even crashes on private property may have 

some use for special analyses. One example would be an analysis of crashes in which one 

or more vehicles is backing up – the vast majority of such crashes occur in parking lots and 

are usually not recorded in the statewide crash database. The local law enforcement crash 

database provides a potential source for valuable information not already captured in the 

statewide crash database.

Other types of local databases may exist. For example, in the absence of a statewide 

EMS run database, or a statewide trauma registry, it may still be possible to obtain this 

information from local sources (EMS providers or trauma registries at designated trauma 

centers). A MPO or regional planning council/commission is often an excellent source 

of traffi c data, projections, and other highway design and usage information. With a few 

notable exceptions, court records are almost always obtainable only at the local level (if at 

all). These may be used to track citations through the court processes, look at recidivism 

rates, and document the frequency of plea bargaining in traffi c-related cases.
III-9

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Other Safety Files 

A variety of other fi les that might be useful in safety studies is sometimes available in a 

jurisdiction. Because of their effectiveness in reducing fatalities and serious injuries, perhaps 

the most important of the “other” safety data is occupant restraint (shoulder belt) use 

data collected in each state since 1998 in compliance with TEA 21 requirements. NHTSA 

developed detailed sampling criteria for data collection, and produces annual reports on 

changes in restraint use for all states (see an example at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/

injury/airbags/809713.pdf). These data are usually collected by the SHSO as part of the 

National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS). 

Speed surveys are collected by both state and local agencies. Note, however, that since 

statewide speed surveys on Interstate roads were essentially ended in 1995 with the repeal of 

the National Maximum Speed Limit, very few jurisdiction-wide speed surveys are conducted. 

Instead, speed surveys are usually conducted at specifi c sites where a change in speed limit 

is being considered or has been recently implemented. The speed data collected at these 

“special” locations should not be considered good indicators of jurisdiction-wide speeds. 

Thus, safety planning that needs speed data usually requires in-fi eld speed data collection.

Trauma registry and EMS data can be used to enhance the completeness of crash data in 

much the same way as medical records are used through the CODES database (see above). 

Data on roadway maintenance histories, including the types of maintenance actions and 

their locations and dates may be useful in development of safety plans. 

Finally, public opinion and customer service data can provide key inputs to safety plan 

development. Many highway agencies conduct or have access to results of surveys of the 

general public or, more specifi cally, of motorists. For example, NHTSA has a requirement 

for telephone surveys to measure the effect of media-based public information programs. 

Some state and local agencies may maintain customer service call logs, where the type and 

number of reported concerns can be tracked by location. Customer service data, including 

complaints from the public, may provide useful information on problem locations or safety 

programs that are not functioning as designed. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance 

System monitors health-risk behaviors of youth and young adults and includes an annual 

national school-based survey.

Time Dimension of Data

Some types of data used in safety planning by their nature cover specifi c time periods. For 

example, crash data and citation data document events that occurred at a specifi c time, and 

data fi les generally cover a specifi ed time period.

A second type of data fi le provides supplementary information gathered subsequent to 

a crash that, to be useful, must be linked to the crash record. Examples include medical 

records, which can be linked through the CODES database, and trauma registry data. Such 

data may not include the actual time or location of the crash and must, therefore, be linked 

through the victim’s identity.

A third type of data represents a snapshot of a population at a given point in time, but does 

not necessarily include the full history of that population. For example, driver history fi les 
III-10

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

typically include only drivers with active licenses at a specifi c point in time. The records for 

drivers who die or move out of state are deleted, so a current driver “history” fi le does not 

necessarily contain the history for all drivers during a given time period. Planning based on 

complete driver history data may need to consider historical fi les as well as current fi les.

Development of an Emphasis Area Plan

This section defi nes the three-stage process for developing an emphasis-area plan, choosing 

treatment strategies, and targeting them. Additional information on choosing emphasis 

areas of interest and setting the injury and death-reduction goals is covered in NCHRP 

Report 501: Integrated Safety Management Processes. 

Objective 1. Identify a Target Emphasis Area

The safety planning team will fi rst need to defi ne or choose the most pressing issues 

(emphasis areas) that need to be addressed. Numerous safety problems could be treated in 

any jurisdiction. However, extensive efforts have been made to identify the best possible 

low-cost but effective treatment strategies for use in the AASHTO 22 emphasis areas, thus 

making the development of a jurisdiction-specifi c safety program much easier. While not 

always the case, the same critical problems would most likely exist in any jurisdiction. So 

“defi ning” here is usually related to determining which of the 22 identifi ed emphasis areas 

addressed in this guide are most critical in the jurisdiction. 

Strategy

The analyst will generally fi rst perform multiple data runs of each variable in the crash data 

(e.g., driver age, crash type) to determine which variables show high frequencies of crashes. 

Since some crashes are more severe than others, crash severity as well as frequency should 

be considered. One method of combining both frequency and severity is through weighting 

each crash or each crash type by an economic cost based on its severity.

Objective 2: Set a Fatality and Injury Reduction Goal 

The emphasis-area team will then use a series of factors to defi ne a reduction goal for death 

and injuries in each of the emphasis areas chosen. 

Strategy

The death and injury reduction goal will be based on outputs of the Objective 1 analyses (i.e., 

the problem size, total crash cost, over-representation, and related outputs of the problemidentifi cation/drill-down analyses), on some estimate of possible strategy effectiveness, and 

on the budget established for the emphasis area. NCHRP Report 501 defi nes both an initial 

process and a revised process for establishing these goals. The initial process will be likely 

based on “best judgment” of the factors above. The revised process is much more iterative 

and analysis-driven where initial goals are modifi ed based on analyses that indicate what is 

realistic given the nature and size of the problem, the known or assumed countermeasure 

effectiveness for the fi nal list of chosen countermeasures, and the optimization of the 
III-11

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

existing budget either within a given emphasis area or across emphasis areas.

Objective 3: Defi ne the Alternative Treatments that Allow the Jurisdiction to Reach 

the Goal

Having now defi ned the issue/emphasis area(s) to be treated (e.g., run-off-road crashes, 

crashes involving impaired drivers) and having defi ned the crash/injury reduction goal 

(e.g., a 10 percent reduction in the number of fatal and serious injury run-off-road crashes 

on two-lane rural roads), the next step is to defi ne the treatment strategies to be employed 

and the target population for each strategy. 

Depending on the emphasis area and 

strategy, the term “population” may refer 

to humans (e.g., older drivers, pedestrians), 

vehicles (e.g., large trucks, motorcycles), 

or roadway sites (i.e., individual roadway 

features, segments, corridors, intersections, 

interchanges). High-level safety planning 

requires the limited available safety funds 

be used in the most effective ways. Funds 

should not be spent on treatments whose 

effects are small if those same funds could 

be used for other treatments that provide 

greater benefi ts. Thus, at a minimum, 

the goal should be to implement only 

treatments whose benefi ts exceed their 

costs, and the ultimate goal should be to 

implement the treatments with the highest 

ratio of benefi ts to costs. 

However, to base safety planning decisions on benefi ts and costs, the effectiveness of each 

potential treatment must be defi ned (e.g., treatment “X” will reduce run-off-road crashes by 

15 percent; treatment “Y” will reduce older driver crashes by 20 percent). A review of any of 

the NCHRP Report 500 Guides will indicate many treatments that have been tried, in some 

cases used very widely, and are generally considered to have a positive effect on safety, 

but have never been formally evaluated in a well-designed study from which an acceptable 

quantitative level of effectiveness (i.e., a specifi c CRF or CMF) has been developed. 

Strategies

Given the number of treatments that have been applied without formal evaluation, the 

process of choosing treatments and choosing targets for each treatment can be addressed via 

four different procedures:

• Procedure 1 – Choosing Roadway-Based Treatments and Target Populations When 

Treatment Effectiveness is Known, and Both Crash and Non-Crash Data are Available;

Crash Reduction Factor versus Crash 

Modifi cation Factor

The level of effectiveness of a treatment is referred to in 

much of the current safety literature as a Crash Reduction 

Factor (CRF) or Crash Modifi cation Factor (CMF). The 

two terms are just different ways of expressing treatment 

effectiveness levels. A CRF provides the expected 

proportional reduction in crash frequency, for all crashes or 

for specifi c crash severity levels, so a 15 percent reduction 

in crashes would correspond to a CRF = 0.15. 

Likewise, a 20 percent reduction in fatal and serious 

injury crashes would correspond to a CRF=0.20. A CMF 

is developed by subtracting the CRF from 1.00, with an 

CMF of 1.00 representing no effect on safety. Thus, a 

treatment with 15 percent effectiveness would have an 

CMF of 0.85 (i.e., 1.00-0.15). CMFs above 1.00 indicate 

that the treatment can be expected to result in an increase 

in crashes.
III-12

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Procedure 2 – Choosing Roadway-Based Treatments and Target Populations When 

Treatment Effectiveness is Known and Crash Data are Available, but Detailed Inventory 

Data are not Available;

• Procedure 3 – Choosing Driver, Vehicle or Roadway Treatments and Target Populations 

When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction is not Known; and 

• Procedure 4 – Choosing Treatments and Target Populations in Emphasis Areas for 

Which Some Candidate Treatments Have Known Effectiveness Estimates and Other 

Treatments Do Not.

Procedures 1 and 2 are based on an economic (benefi t/cost) analysis. Procedure 3 is not 

based on economic analysis, while Procedure 4 combines economic and noneconomic 

procedures. The selection and targeting of driver- and vehicle-based treatments is not based 

on an economic analysis. 

Procedures 1 and 2 generally result in plans whose expected safety benefi ts are more 

accurately known than Procedures 3 and 4, because Procedures 1 and 2 are applicable to 

treatments whose effectiveness has been well documented. Therefore, the safety planning 

process should generally exhaust funding opportunities under Procedures 1 and 2 

before proceeding to Procedures 3 and 4. Key considerations in choosing one of the four 

procedures are whether the effectiveness of the treatment(s) is known and whether the 

location data are available.

In many states, the achievement of a statewide goal for crash reduction will involve 

consideration of treatments both with and without known effectiveness and consideration 

of roads under both state and local jurisdiction, which are likely to involve crash data sets 

with and without location data. Many states may need to use more than one of the four 

procedures. For detailed guidance on how to apply each of these procedures, consult 

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 19: A Guide for Collecting and Analyzing Highway Safety Data.

Other Safety Analysis Tools

The procedures presented above supply a goal-oriented approach to developing plans 

for safety improvement programs. Users should be aware of other analytical tools under 

development. FHWA’s SafetyAnalyst software, released in July 2009, is intended for 

application to safety management of a highway system and may be an effective tool for 

safety planning. SafetyAnalyst is location- and budget-oriented, unlike the procedures 

presented above, which are goal-oriented. 

FHWA’s Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) is a suite of software analysis 

tools for evaluating safety and operational effects of geometric design decisions on two-lane 

rural highways. IHSDM will likely be expanded in the future to address other facility types. 

The forthcoming HSM, scheduled for publication in early 2010, will present formal 

procedures for estimating the crash/injury reduction effectiveness of specifi c improvement 

types, including an expanded set of CRFs and CMFs representing countermeasure 

effectiveness. CMFs developed for NCHRP Project 17-25 are presented in NCHRP Report 617. 
III-13

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

An additional tool not referenced in the NCHRP 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse offers 

transportation professionals a central, web-based repository of CMFs, as well as additional 

information and resources related to CMFs. Both CMFs and CRFs are presented in the 

clearinghouse because both are widely used in the fi eld of traffi c safety. Features of the 

CMF Clearinghouse include the ability to search by countermeasure, crash type, crash 

severity, and roadway type via a quick search. The advanced search tool enables searches 

by additional parameters such as intersection type, traffi c control, and whether the CMF is 

included in the Highway Safety Manual. The Clearinghouse provides information about 

applying CMFs as well as training, resources and publications. 

The following sections will address transportation safety emphasis areas and provide 

potential safety countermeasures.

Resources

NCHRP Report Volume 19: A Guide for Collecting and Analyzing Highway Safety Data: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

FARS Web-Based Encyclopedia provides links to national reports and statistics: 

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.

FARS data also can be obtained from NHTSA on a CD or via download from an ftp site: 

ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/fars/.

CODES information, including links to some participating states: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/codes/.

MCMIS Data Dissemination Program Catalog listing variables in the crash fi les: 

http://mcmiscatalog.fmcsa.dot.gov/beta/Catalogs&Documentation/.

CMF Clearinghouse: http://www.CMFClearinghouse.com.

MIRE://www.mireinfo.org.

Commercial motor vehicle safety reports and analysis tools can be found at: 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/facts-research.htm. 

The “Crash Profi les On-Line” tool within the “Analysis and Information On-Line” suite of 

tools provides state-by-state truck crash statistics: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/mcspa.asp. 

NEMSIS details and status: http://www.nemsis.org/.

IHSDM web site: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/ihsdm/ihsdm.htm.

SafetyAnalyst web site: www.safetyanalyst.org. 

HSM details and status: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org.

Examples of the application of Procedure 1: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ and http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/.

Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity within Selected Crash 

Geometries provides information on economic cost per crash by severity level for 22 

different crash types categorized by speed limit category: 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05051/.
III-14

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

NCHRP Report 501: Integrated Safety Management (Appendix D): 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_501.pdf.

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria: http://www.mmucc.us/.

Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors (FHWA) http://www.transportation.org/sites/

safetymanagement/docs/Desktop%20Reference%20Complete.pdf.

NCHRP 617: Accident Modifi cation Factors for Traffi c Engineering and ITS Improvements http://

onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_617.pdf.

NCHRP Report 622: Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_622.pdf.

Older Persons’ Safe Mobility

Problem Description

Older persons are at greater risk when driving because of their potentially reduced 

cognitive, perceptual, and physical capabilities. Although older drivers may drive fewer 

miles than other drivers, they have an increased rate of crashes based on miles traveled. The 

real safety concern for older drivers arises when one takes into consideration their increased 

likelihood of getting injured or killed in a crash. The safety problem confronting older 

adults is as much an issue of crash survivability as it is crash avoidance.

Data

• In 2007, 13 percent of the total U.S. 

resident population was people age 

65 and older.

• The United States population of 

older adults will double between 

2000 and 2030. One in fi ve 

Americans will be age 65 or older 

by 2030.

• Aging affects a variety of skills 

needed for safe driving. In 

particular, the aging population 

experiences deterioration in 

physical, perceptual, and cognitive 

skills.

• When crash rates are calculated on 

the basis of miles traveled, older adults are at increased risk. Drivers age 85 and older 

have about the same high crash rate per mile driven as 20- to 24-year olds.

Source: Administration on Aging, “a Profi le of Older Americans,” 

 2000, www.aoa.gov/prof/statistics/profi le/2002/2.asp.

EXHIBIT III-1

Projected Growth in U.S. Population Age 65 and Older
III-15

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Older drivers have an increased likelihood of being injured or killed in a crash. 

Compared with an overall fatality rate of 2 per 1,000 crashes, persons ages 65 to 74 have 

a fatality rate of 3.2. For those 75 to 84, the rate is 5.3, and at 85 or older the rate climbs 

to 8.6.

• The likelihood of being at fault 

in a crash also has been shown to 

increase with age: nearly 

70 percent of drivers ages 75 

and older involved in fatal twovehicle crashes were at fault, 

compared with fewer than 40 

percent for drivers aged 45 to 64. 

Specifi c crash types for 

which older drivers are 

increasingly likely to be found 

at fault include angle collisions, 

turns across traffi c collisions, 

and slowing or stopping 

collisions, indicating that older 

drivers may be more challenged 

by intersection situations than 

younger drivers.

• Ninety percent of trips taken by older adults are in a personal vehicle. Of those trips, 70 

percent involve the older person driving the vehicle.

Objective 1: Plan for an Aging Population

Strategies

Addressing the mobility needs of an aging population requires two approaches: increasing 

safety for older drivers and providing alternative mobility options, including pedestrian 

facilities and transit for those who cannot or choose not to drive. However, research clearly 

shows older persons who are no longer physically able to drive also are unlikely to be able to 

walk or use transit.

The fi rst overarching strategy to plan for an aging population is to establish a broad-based 

coalition to plan for older adults’ transportation needs. This coalition should be comprised 

of as many stakeholders as possible, including the state DOT, DMV, MPOs, transit agencies, 

and local planning offi ces, as well as specifi c advocacy or medical organizations with 

services for older people such as Area Agencies on Aging, and AAA.

Strategies generated by such groups may be very broad and extend beyond the activities 

that planners would implement. However, encouragement and facilitation of other groups 

by the planner may enable implementation of strategies that will complement the planner’s 

activities. The goal of screening and remedial programs is to maintain safe mobility for 

older drivers as long as possible to preserve quality of life.

Source: Cerelli, 1998.

EXHIBIT III-2

Fatalities by Age of Driver
III-16

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

To identify older drivers at increased risk of crashing and preventative intervention 

measures, the following strategies are recommended:

• Strengthen the role of medical advisory boards that may set policies on how medical 

conditions are addressed with respect to driving privileges (T, $);

• Update procedures for assessing medical fi tness to drive, such as determining the level 

of functional impairment for all persons with conditions known to affect driving ability 

(P, $$);

• Encourage external reporting of at risk drivers to licensing authorities by medical 

personnel, enforcement offi cers, and private citizens (friends and family) (T, $); and

• Provide remedial assistance to help functionally impaired older drivers lower their 

crash risk, such as training at local driving schools, mandatory adaptive equipment to be 

added to the driver’s vehicle, and occupational therapy (T, $).

To improve the driving competency of older adults in the general driving population, the 

following strategies are recommended:

• Establish resource centers within communities to promote safe mobility choices, such 

as a facility or call center that provides information on a variety of older people’s needs, 

including transportation, with one call (T, $$); and

• Provide educational and training opportunities to the general older driver population, 

including distribution of materials, such as those developed by the FHWA, NHTSA, and 

AAA, to help identify changing abilities (T, $$).

To reduce the risk of injury and death to older drivers and passengers involved in 

crashes, the following strategy is recommended:

• Increase safety belt use by older drivers and passengers through education and 

enforcement programs (P, $).

The fragility of older persons in crashes is one reason they are more at risk for death or 

injury. While the rate of safety belt use is high among this age group, 18 percent of adults 

aged 70 and older do not buckle up. A main reason that older people do not buckle up is 

comfort.

Objective 2: Improve the Roadway and Driving Environment to Better 

Accommodate Older Drivers’ Special Needs

Strategies

Several approaches help older drivers navigate the 

roadways more safely. Signage can be an important 

factor for helping drivers make timely decisions. 

The placement of advanced warning signs should 

be considered before changes in the roadway or 

environment, such as in advance of speed limit 

reductions, sharp curves, merging, pedestrian areas, 

or construction zones. Guide signs that provide 

EXHIBIT III-3

Advance Street Name Sign 

Tyler District, TxDOT

Source: NCHRP Report 500, Volume 9: A Guide for 

 Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers.
III-17

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

route identifi cation, interchanges, or destinations that are placed well in advance of a 

roadway decision point give the driver additional time to make necessary lane changes or 

route selection decisions. This additional time is 

especially important for older drivers, who generally 

take longer to process and react to information on 

signs. In addition, modifi cations to intersections, in 

terms of turn signals and clearance intervals, will 

assist with ensuring that those with diminished 

reaction time clear an intersection safely. 

In addition, larger signs, lighting, and roadway 

markings help with roadway visibility for older 

drivers, especially at night.

• Provide advance warning signs such as those that notify drivers that an intersection 

with a stop sign or traffi c signal is ahead (T, $);

• Provide advance-guide and street sign names that 

notify drivers that an intersection with a major 

roadway is ahead (T, $);

• Increase the size and letter height of roadway 

signs for greater visibility (T, $);

• Provide all-red clearance intervals at signalized 

intersections to ensure all cars have time to pass 

through an intersection safely (T, $);

• Provide more protected left-turn signal phases 

at high-volume intersections to allow people to 

execute left turns without having to judge the 

speed of oncoming traffi c (T, $);

• Improve lighting at intersections, horizontal 

curves, and railroad grade crossings (T, $$$);

• Improve roadway delineation to improve the 

driver’s understanding of the roadway operating 

area, including improved painted or raised 

pavement markings (T, $);

• Replace painted channelization with raised channelization to clearly defi ne desired 

vehicle movements, discourage undesired movements within an intersection, and 

minimize points of confl ict for turning vehicles (P, $$); and

• Improve traffi c control at work zones (T, $).

Best Practices

Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program (2003): 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/olddrive/modeldriver.

EXHIBIT III-4

Modify Signal Change Interval

Crash Type 

(Injury Crashes Only)

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Crashes 0.88

Multiple-Vehicle Crashes 0.91

Rear-End Crashes 1.08a

Right-Angle Crashes 1.06a

Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 0.63

a

 Results were not signifi cant at a 90 percent confi dence

 level. CMF of 1.0 recommended for these crash types.

Note: Both the yellow change interval and the 

 red clearance interval were adjusted at 

 the treatment sites to conform to the ITE 

Determining Vehicle Change Intervals: A 

 Proposed Recommended Practice.

The minimum STOP sign size, according to 

the Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices 

(MUTCD), is 24 x 24 inches. The Florida DOT, 

however, is replacing all of its 24 x 24-inch 

or 30 x 30-inch STOP signs with 48 x 48-inch 

signs to help accommodate the needs of its 

older driver population.
III-18

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

AAA education materials:

• http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/driver55.pdf;

• http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/older&wiser.pdf; and

• http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/ODlarge.pdf.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 9: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety 

Offi ces, Governors Highway Safety Association, (2009): http://www.ghsa.org/html/

publications/index.html#countermeasures.

NHTSA and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 2003 survey of all 

Medical Advisory Boards:

http://www.aamva.org/NR/rdonlyres/4C38EEE9-5DC7-449C-A496-15757A99C3F6/0/

SummaryOfMedicalAdvisoryBoardPractices1.pdf.

FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians: 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm.

FHWA Roadway Delineation Practices Handbook: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/93001/93001.pdf.

Young Drivers

Problem Description

In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20-

year olds,6

 and young drivers are overrepresented in motor vehicle crashes. Most novice 

drivers do not have suffi cient experience to handle the complex task of driving when they 

are fi rst licensed. Moreover, the late teen years involve continuing developmental changes 

that characterize the transition from childhood to adulthood. These result in a variety of 

behaviors that may be risky when they occur in a motor vehicle. Young drivers are more 

likely than older adults to engage in risky driving behaviors such as speeding and allowing 

shorter headways. Although such behaviors are sometimes intentional, young driver 

crashes generally result from errors in attention, failing to recognize hazards, and driving 

too fast for conditions. Reducing young driver crashes will involve effectively addressing 

both the youthful propensity to engage in risky behaviors and lack of experience. 

Data

Young drivers are more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle crash than any other age 

group. This is the case whether crash rates are measured per population, per licensed driver 

6

 2005 data, National Center for Health Statistics.
III-19

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

or per mile traveled. This greater crash involvement also results in additional injury risks 

because the youngest drivers tend to carry the largest number of passengers, typically other 

teens. And this group – drivers and passengers alike – is least likely to wear safety belts, 

foregoing the best protection against injury in the event of a crash. 

• In 2007, 3,174 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 years were killed in motor vehicle 

crashes (NHTSA).

• Although 15- to 20-year-olds represented 8.5 percent of the U.S. population and 6.4 

percent of licensed drivers, they accounted for 12.5 percent of drivers involved in fatal 

motor vehicle crashes (NHTSA, 2007).

• One-quarter (24.2 percent) of persons killed in crashes involving 15- to 17-year-old 

drivers are occupants of a vehicle other than the teen’s and another 7.5 percent are 

nonmotorists, e.g., a bicyclist or pedestrian (AAA, 2006).

• Only about 15 percent of the miles driven by 16- and 17-year-olds are during the period 

from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., but more than 40 percent of their fatal crashes take place 

during these hours (Williams & 

Pruesser, 1997).

• In 2007, 31 percent of the young 

drivers (15 to 20 years old) killed 

in crashes had a blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) of .01 grams 

per deciliter or higher, and 26 

percent had a BAC of .08 or higher. 

Drivers age 21-24 had the 

highest rate of alcohol 

involvement of all age groups, 

with 35 percent of those killed 

having BAC of .08 or higher.

• Crash rates for newly licensed 

drivers are highest during the 

fi rst six months of driving alone.

Objective 1: Implement or Improve Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) Systems

Strategies

A growing body of evidence suggests GDL systems are highly effective in reducing young 

driver crashes and the resulting injuries and fatalities. Most states have implemented 

GDL systems, although the specifi c provisions of GDL vary from state to state, and many 

are insuffi cient to provide the needed protection for young drivers as they develop from 

complete novice to moderately experienced driver. Simply having a GDL program in place, 

however, is not suffi cient. It is important for GDL systems to include the most benefi cial 

risk-reducing restrictions, such as the following:

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Exhibit III-5

Cause of Death among Persons Ages 16 to 20, U.S.
III-20

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Enact a Graduated Licensing System (P, $);

• Require at least six months of supervised driving for beginners starting at age 16 (P, $);

• Implement a night driving restriction that begins at 9:00 p.m. (P, $);

• Implement a teenage passenger restriction allowing no young passengers (T, $); and

• Prohibit cell phone use by drivers with a GDL license (T, $).

Objective 2: Publicize and Enforce Laws Pertaining to Young Drivers

Strategies

Some laws pertain specifi cally to young drivers, such as “zero 

tolerance” for driving after drinking and laws governing 

novice driver licenses. To ensure effectiveness, these laws 

must be adequately enforced. Other laws that govern all 

drivers are particularly important for young drivers because 

of their lower inclination to comply (e.g., safety belt and 

speed laws). Strategies include:

• Publicize and enforce GDL restrictions (E, $$);

• Publicize and enforce laws pertaining to underage 

drinking and driving (P, $$$); and

• Publicize and enforce safety belt laws (P, $$).

Objective 3: Assist Parents/Adults in Managing Teen 

Driving

Strategies

Parents are inescapably involved in the licensing process of their children even though 

they may not recognize the extent of their potential infl uence. They supervise their teen’s 

early driving experience, they determine the timing of licensure, they govern access to (and 

choice of) vehicles, and they may impose restrictions on driving privileges. In addition, they 

provide a highly salient model of driving behavior, whether consciously or not, which will 

affect their children’s driving. Strategies include:

• Facilitate parental supervision of learners (T, $$$);

• Facilitate parental management of intermediate drivers (E, $$); and

• Encourage selection of safer vehicles for young drivers (T, $).

Source: NCHRP 500 Volume 19: 

A Guide for Reducing 

 Collisions Involving Young 

 Drivers
III-21

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 4: Improve Young Driver Training

Strategy

The model followed by current driver education programs in the United States was 

developed in the late 1940s. There is widespread belief that both what is taught and how it 

is taught can be improved signifi cantly, with the promise that young driver crashes can be 

reduced as the result. Although there is no evidence indicating that formal driver education 

classes are effective in reducing subsequent crash rates among young drivers, a number of 

promising improvements that can be made in the training administered by states. The key 

strategy is:

• Improve content and delivery of driver education/training (E, $$$).

Objective 5: Employ School-Based Strategies

Strategies

Nearly all beginning drivers are in high school. This affords an opportunity to adopt 

strategies to reduce young driver crashes by implementing policies that take advantage 

of this natural grouping in both space and time to alter that environment. Recent 

developments in understanding human sleep needs indicate teenagers need more sleep than 

either younger children or adults, and they need to be asleep in the early morning hours. 

When transportation plans are developed for new or expanded schools, it is important to 

take into account that a high concentration of inexperienced teens will be driving in the 

vicinity of the high school. Strategies include:

• Eliminate early high school start times (e.g., before 8:30 a.m.) (T, $$); and

• Review transportation plans for new/expanded high school sites (E, $).

Best Practices

In recent years, a growing number of states have passed legislation prohibiting any cell 

phone use (either handheld or “hands-free”) by drivers with a GDL license, such as Colorado, 

Connecticut, and Delaware. Some cities and states such as California, New York, New Jersey, 

Chicago, and the District of Columbia prohibit handheld cell phone use for all drivers.

In 1997, Connecticut began requiring learners to hold permits for at least six months (four 

months for those who completed formal driver education). Fatal/injury crashes decreased 

by 22 percent among 16-year-old drivers following the longer learner permit period (Ulmer 

et al., 2001).

Delaware has a 90-minute GDL orientation program for parents to learn about GDL and 

about teen driving issues: http://www.dmv.de.gov.

In North Carolina, the night restriction begins at 9:00 p.m. for teens with an intermediate 

license. After GDL was introduced, crashes between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. decreased by 43 

percent among 16-year-old drivers, whereas daytime crashes decreased by 20 percent 
III-22

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

(Foss et al., 2001). Michigan’s night restriction begins at midnight. Following GDL, there 

was a 24 percent reduction in 16-year-old driver crashes during the daytime (5:00 a.m.-8:59 

p.m.), a nearly identical 21 percent reduction in crashes during the evening (9:00 p.m.-11:59 

p.m.) and a 53 percent reduction in nighttime crashes (midnight-4:59 a.m.) (Shope et al., 

2001).

The law enforcement community in Maine began the SAFEGuard program in 2005 to 

increase teen driver safety by partnering with parents. Police call the parents of teen drivers 

and their passengers following a traffi c violation. Contact the Maine State Police at 207-624-

7203 for more information or visit: 

http://www.themtsc.org/documents/Safeguardbrochure-FINAL.pdf.

The Raleigh, North Carolina Police Department has experimented with a program where 

parents receive a letter from the police department when their teen is found to violate GDL.

In Iowa, teen drivers are referred to a remedial driver improvement process if they receive 

a moving violation or are involved in a crash to which the driver contributed. Both the teen 

driver and a parent/guardian must participate in an interview with a DOT offi cial who, based 

on the circumstances of the incident, may impose additional driving restrictions or recommend 

license suspension. At a minimum, the teen driver must maintain a crash- and violation-free 

driving period after the incident before qualifying for the next licensing level. The remedial 

driver improvement process in Iowa has not yet been formally evaluated 

(Stutz, 2007). 

In North Carolina, multiteen-occupant crashes declined by 30 percent among 16-year-old 

drivers and by 13 percent among 17-year-old drivers following enactment of a restriction that 

limited intermediate-level drivers to carrying a single young passenger (Foss et al., 2006). 

Resources

NCHRP Report 500: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Young Drivers: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

A list of young driver licensing requirements for all 50 states is maintained by the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/grad_license.html.

National evaluation of GDL: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/NewDriver/

GDLReport/index.html.

NHTSA (2007) Traffi c Safety Facts: Young Drivers. DOT HS 811 001: 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811001.PDF.

“Novice Driver’s Road Map” from the Network of Employers for Traffi c Safety: 

http://traffi csafety.org/shop/novice-drivers-road-map.

“Family Guide to Teen Driver Safety” from the National Safety Council: 

http://shop.nsc.org/Family-Guide-to-Teen-Driver-Safety-P2049.aspx.

NHTSA (2005) Increasing teen safety belt use: A program and literature review. Report No. DOT 

809 899: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/NewDriver/TeenBeltUse/index.htm.
III-23

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Pedestrian Collisions

Problem Description

Walking is a basic human activity, and almost everyone is a pedestrian at one time or 

another. The AASHTO Green Book (2001) states that “pedestrians are a part of every 

roadway environment and attention should be paid to their presence in rural as well as 

urban areas.” An additional consideration for the provision of pedestrian facilities is 

that when people are walking in a safe environment or accessing transit versus using an 

automobile for transportation their exposure in a vehicle is reduced.

A portion of almost every trip 

includes walking, and there are 

specifi c groups that do not or cannot 

drive and depend on walking for 

transportation, including children, 

the elderly, the disabled, and lowincome populations. Whether 

building new infrastructure or 

renovating existing facilities, 

walking is a form of transportation 

and all plans should accommodate 

pedestrians.

Several factors must be examined 

when trying to determine how 

and why pedestrian injuries and 

fatalities occur. While driver 

behavior is often a signifi cant factor 

in the severity of crashes involving 

pedestrians, pedestrian behavior 

infl uences the likelihood of a crash. 

Alcohol involvement and speed are 

factors that negatively impact all 

crashes, especially those involving 

pedestrians.

The location of crashes involving pedestrians also must be studied when trying to reduce 

crashes. Pedestrian crashes occur most often in urban areas where the volume of both 

pedestrian and vehicle traffi c is high and the large number of intersections presents 

opportunities for confl ict. Rural areas also can be dangerous for pedestrians, as many 

rural areas do not have sidewalks, paths, designated crosswalks, or shoulders to serve as 

pedestrian facilities. In addition, lighting is often not adequate. Time of day also should 

be considered in reducing crashes involving pedestrians. FHWA has found pedestrian 

fatalities are most prevalent during nighttime hours, with 62 percent of fatalities occurring 

between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.7

7

 FHWA, http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/03042/part2.htm,.

Source: U.K. Department of Transport.

EXHIBIT III-6

A Pedestrian’s Chance of Death Based on Speed of Vehicle
III-24

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Approximately three-quarters of pedestrian fatalities occur at nonintersection locations, and 

one-quarter of pedestrian fatalities occur at intersections (Traffi c Safety Facts 2008, NHTSA). 

Some of the more common nonintersection crashes are referred to as midblock crashes. 

Midblock crashes include those where the pedestrian walked or ran into the roadway and 

was struck by a vehicle. The motorist’s view of the pedestrian may have been blocked until 

an instant before the impact, and/or the motorist may have been speeding. Pedestrians also 

may be struck when getting in or out of a stopped vehicle, or while crossing the road to/

from a mailbox, newspaper box, or ice cream truck, etc. At intersections, pedestrians may be 

struck by a vehicle traveling straight through the intersection or while the vehicle is turning 

right or left.

Safe Routes To School (SRTS) is an initiative to enable and encourage students and parents 

to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more 

appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects that 

improve safety and health and reduce traffi c, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the 

vicinity of schools. 

This program is funded through SAFETEA LU, and every state receives funding to 

implement SRTS programs.

Both land use and transportation planners have strong qualifi cations to improve safety for 

pedestrians. Planners understand the origins and destinations of trips in their communities 

or regions and know where heavy pedestrian activity occurs. They also hear from the public 

about locations with safety concerns. As more communities pursue mixed-use zoning to 

encourage walkability, create vibrant business districts, and manage traffi c congestion, 

emphasis on pedestrian safety will continue to increase.

Data

The percentage of journey-to-work trips on foot estimated in the 2000 Census is 2.9 percent, 

a decrease from the 1990 estimate of 3.9 percent. While the U.S. DOT’s National Biking 

and Walking Study’s goal was to increase the percentage of trips made by walking, the 

percentage has been decreasing. This may partly be 

due to land use patterns and lack of pedestrian 

facilities.

In 2007, 4,654 pedestrians were killed in traffi c 

crashes in the Unites States – a decrease of 13 

percent from the 5,321 pedestrians killed in 1997. 

Seventy thousand pedestrians were injured in 

traffi c crashes in 2007. The number of confl icts 

and fatalities remains high in many urban areas 

and for specifi c segments of the population. 

One-fi fth of the children between the ages of 

fi ve and nine killed in traffi c crashes 

were pedestrians. Source: NHTSA.

Exhibit III-7

Pedestrian Fatalities by Year 1997-2007
III-25

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 1: Reduce Pedestrian Exposure to 

Traffi c

Strategies

Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space 

to travel within the public right-of-way separated 

from vehicles on the roadway. Pedestrian signals 

provide gaps in traffi c long enough for pedestrians to 

safely cross the roadway. Other measures to reduce 

exposure are separation of pedestrian and roadway 

crossings and reduction of vehicle traffi c in areas with 

high pedestrian use. Strategies include:

• Develop comprehensive pedestrian system plans 

(T, $); 

• Provide sidewalks/walkways and curb ramps as part of every new and renovated 

roadway, and make every effort to retrofi t streets that currently lack sidewalks (P, $$$);

• Install or upgrade traffi c and pedestrian signals 

(P, T, & E, $$$);

• Construct pedestrian refuge islands and raised 

medians that allow pedestrians a safe place to 

wait if they cannot cross all lanes of the roadway 

at once (P, $$$);

• Provide vehicle restriction/diversion measures 

to limit auto through traffi c by preventing certain 

turning movements or blocking access to certain 

streets (P & T, $$$);

• Install overpasses and underpasses for 

pedestrians over and under busy roadways or 

rail tracks when appropriate; these may not be 

appropriate for certain communities because they 

are perceived as unsafe due to the potential of 

crime (P, $$$$); and

• Provide school route improvements, such as 

sidewalks, bicycle routes, and trained crossing 

guards (T, $).

Objective 2: Improve Sight Distance and Visibility for Motor Vehicles 

and Pedestrians

Strategies

EXHIBIT III-9

It Is Sometimes Useful to Supplement Crosswalk 

Markings with Motorist Warning Signs

Source: Michael Ronkin.

EXHIBIT III-8

Walkways Should be Part of Every New and 

Renovated Roadway

Source: Dan Burden.
III-26

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

The intent of marked crosswalks is to indicate the 

optimal locations for pedestrians to cross. 

Crosswalks help designate the right-of-way and may 

encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians. 

Acceptable crosswalk marking patterns are given in 

the Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices 

(MUTCD). Marked crossings are encouraged in 

areas of high pedestrian traffi c and may be combined 

with other roadway enhancements, such as warning 

signs or fl ashing warning lights. Countermeasures 

include:

• Provide crosswalk enhancements, such as bright 

pavement markings and motorist warning signs (P, $);

• Implement lighting and crosswalk illumination 

measures, such as continuous streetlights in pedestrian areas and lighting of approaches 

to crosswalks (P, $$$);

• Eliminate screening by physical objects by ensuring that, particularly on arterials and 

higher-speed facilities, drivers’ sight distance to crossing pedestrians is adequate with 

strategies, such as restricting parking in advance of a crosswalk and preventing vehicles 

from yielding too close to the crosswalk (T, $$); and

• Provide signals to alert motorists that pedestrians are crossing, such as pedestrian-activated 

yellow beacons and in-pavement lighted markers at uncontrolled crossings (T, $$).

Objective 3: Reduce Motor Vehicle Speed

Strategies

Continued growth and decentralization throughout the United States have increased the 

volume of vehicles on streets and highways. Traffi c calming measures to reduce vehicle 

speed are generally of two types: 1) those requiring motorists to change their direction of 

travel; or 2) those requiring motorists to change elevation. 

When considering traffi c calming measures or contextsensitive solutions, planners must balance the needs of 

pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and emergency 

transit vehicles with vehicle throughput needs for a 

specifi c type of street and area. Safety concerns must be 

addressed and balanced in narrowing roads, permitting 

on street parking, and potentially restricting access of 

emergency vehicles before decisions are made.

• Implement road narrowing measures, such as 

reducing lane widths and using excess pavement for 

bicycle lanes or shoulders, extending sidewalks and 

landscaped areas, and adding on-street parking 

(T, $$);

EXHIBIT III-11

Chicane 

Source: Dan Burden. 

A Chicane consists of alternatively placed curb 

extensions into the street that creates a horizontal 

shift in traffi c and reduces vehicle speeds.

Total Pedestrian Crashes 

(All Severities)

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

Marked Crosswalks 0.54

Unmarked Crosswalks 0.61

Applicable to urban and 

suburban multilane roads 

(up to 8 lanes) with 

traffi c volumes greater 

than 15,000 vpd

EXHIBIT III-10

Install Raised Median at Crosswalks
III-27

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Install traffi c calming on road sections, such as speed humps, serpentine street design, 

alternatively placed curb extensions in the street causing a horizontal shift in traffi c, or a 

choker with two curb extensions on opposite sides of the street narrowing the street 

(P, $$); and

• Install traffi c-calming at intersections, including extending curbs to reduce the pedestrian 

crossing distance and raised circular islands in the center of residential intersections (P, 

$$).

Objective 4: Improve Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Awareness and Behavior

Strategies

Strategies that may be effective in improving pedestrian, motorist, and motorcyclist safety 

awareness and behavior include providing education, outreach, training, and enforcement. 

A combination of enforcement and public information and education (PI&E) campaigns can 

effectively increase driver awareness of the obligation to share the roadway with pedestrians 

and bicyclists. Police enforcement of the traffi c code is the most potent means of giving 

credibility to traffi c control devices and traffi c safety educational programs (P, $$).

Best Practices

City of Edgewood, Washington guidance on crossing islands: 

http://www.ci.edgewood.wa.us/Police/safe%20journey/library/matrix.htm.

City of Los Altos Neighborhood Traffi c Management Program: 

http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/commdev/engineering/ntmp.html.

Resources

FHWA Safety Offi ce web site on pedestrian safety includes a Toolbox of Countermeasures, 

Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies, and other materials: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/ped/index.htm.

NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, including design and engineering guidance: 

http://www.walkinginfo.org/.

National Safe Routes to School Clearinghouse: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org.

Institute of Transportation Engineers web site on traffi c calming measures: 

http://www.ite.org/traffi c/index.html.

Project for Public Spaces, Traffi c Calming 101: 

http://www.pps.org/imagedb/category?gallery_id=837.
III-28

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Bicycle Collisions

Problem Description

Bicyclists are recognized as legitimate roadway 

users. The FHWA bicycle program provides 

guidance on numerous issues that include examples 

of statutory language emphasizing bicyclists as 

users of the transportation system and concludes 

bicyclists “should be included as a matter of routine”

in the planning, design, and operation of 

transportation facilities (FHWA, 1999). 

The safety interests of bicyclists are sometimes in 

confl ict with the interests of motorists given the 

substantially different characteristics of the two 

modes of transportation. Although bicycles can be 

ridden on most types of roads, the design interests 

of accommodating higher motor vehicle traffi c 

volumes and speeds during peak-hour congestion 

may create situations that are less safe for bicyclists. This section includes road treatments, 

countermeasures, and other options that support multiple users of the transportation 

system.

Data

• In 2007, 698 pedalcyclists8 were killed and 43,000 were injured nationwide in traffi c 

crashes.

• In 2007, pedalcyclists under age 16 accounted for 15 percent of all cyclists killed and 29 

percent of those injured in traffi c crashes, which represents a decline from 1997 when the 

share was 31 percent of those killed and 44 percent of those injured.

• The proportion of fatalities among adults ages 25 and up has been increasing, from 46 

percent of all cyclist fatalities in 1997 to 64 percent in 2007. 

• Most of the pedalcyclists killed in 2007 were males (88 percent).

• Alcohol involvement – either for the driver or the pedalcyclist – was reported in more 

than one-third of the crashes resulting in pedalcyclist fatalities in 2007.

• In 2007, 26 percent of pedalcyclist fatalities occurred between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 

9:00 p.m. 

• Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of bicycle fatalities occurred in urban areas, refl ecting 

the greater populations and more frequent riding that typically occur in urban areas.

8

 Includes bicyclists and other cyclists riding two-wheel nonmotorized vehicles, tricycles, and 

unicycles powered solely by pedals. Data includes crashes involving motor vehicles on public 

roads only.

Source: NHTSA.

EXHIBIT III-12 

Pedalcyclist Fatalities, 1997-2007
III-29

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Nearly two thirds (64 percent) of pedalcyclist fatalities occurred at nonintersection 

locations in 2007. 

• The types of crashes that are most severe are parallel path, rather than crossing path, 

crashes. Crossing path crashes occur at junctions (intersections or driveways) and more 

often in urbanized areas where speeds are often slower. 

Objective 1: Reduce Bicycle Crashes at Intersections

Strategies

A variety of strategies can be undertaken to reduce the number and severity of intersection 

crashes involving bicycles, including increasing intersection visibility, signage, pavement 

markings, and altering vehicle movements. Strategies include:

• Improve visibility at intersections by improving the sight distance/sight lines near the 

intersection and/or by improving the conspicuity of traffi c control devices at and near 

intersections (T, $$$); 

• Improve signal timing for bicycles and 

detection of bicycles at actuated 

signals 

(T, $$);

• Improve signing such as those indicating 

when vehicles must yield to bikes and 

intersection warning signs (T, $); 

• Improve pavement markings at 

intersections (T, $$);

• Improve intersection geometry (T, $$$);

• Restrict right turn on red (RTOR) 

movements (E, $);

• Accommodate bicyclists through 

roundabouts, which can be diffi cult for 

bicyclists to navigate (T, $$); and

• Provide an overpass or underpass for 

bicycles (T, $$$$). 

Objective 2: Reduce Bicycle Crashes along Roadways

Strategies

Roadway facilities that better identify appropriate travel areas for all road users and their 

expected behavior may provide a safer environment for bicyclists traveling along parallel 

paths and help reduce crashes. Strategies include:

• Provide safe roadway facilities for parallel travel, such as striped bicycle lanes and 

shared lane markings (T, $$);

CMF = exp (0.0040 SKEW) For three-legged intersections

and

CMF = exp (0.0054 SKEW) For four-legged intersections

where:

CMF = Crash modifi cation factor

SKEW = Intersection skew angle (degrees), expressed as the 

absolute value of the difference between 90 degrees and the 

actual intersection angle.

Multiplying the CMF by the proportion of bicycle/motor vehicle 

accidents at an intersection would give an indication of the 

expected number of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents that would 

be reduced due to this treatment.

Note: Research conducted at unsignalized intersections on 

rural two-lane highways.

Source: Harwood et al., 2000.

EXHIBIT III-13

Intersection Realignment
III-30

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide contrafl ow bicycle lanes, which 

establishes a two-way street for bicyclists on a 

street that only allows one-way motor vehicle 

traffi c (T, $$$);

• Improve bicyclists’ visibility via lighting 

(T, $$$);

• Improve roadway signage, e.g., 

designate bike routes, indicate shared 

roadways, prohibit parking in bike lanes, 

and indicate when to yield in compliance 

with the latest version MUTCD and 

AASHTO Bicycle Guide (T, $); and

• Provide bicycle-tolerable rumble strips, 

which decrease the level of vibration 

experienced by bicyclists (T, $$).

Objective 3: Reduce Bicycle Crashes at Midblock Locations

Strategies

Midblock bicycle crashes most often occur at major driveways. Reducing the speed of 

vehicles and the number of driveways mitigates this risk. Strategies include:

• Improve driveway intersections, such as using tighter turn radii to slow vehicles and 

skip striping of bicycle lanes to alert riders that vehicles may turn into the driveway 

(T, $$$); and

• Implement access management strategies (e.g., limit the number of driveways and 

allow right-in and right-out only movements (T, $$$). See the section on Unsignalized 

Intersections for more information about access management.

Objective 4: Improve Safety Awareness and Behavior of Bicyclists

Strategies

Safety behavior and awareness are major factors in many bicycle crashes. Strategies include: 

• Provide bicyclist education (T, $); and

• Improve enforcement of bicycle-related laws, such as helmet laws (T, $$).

Objective 5: Increase Use of Bicycle Safety Equipment

Strategies

EXHIBIT III-14 

Chevron Shared Lane Marking in San Francisco

Source: Deirdre Weinberg, San Francisco Metropolitan 

 Transportation Agency, 2004.
III-31

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

While wearing a helmet will not prevent a crash, studies have shown that riders wearing 

helmets are 70 to 88 percent less likely to suffer 

serious head injuries or fatalities in a bicycle crash 

than unhelmeted riders. Additionally, other devices 

and clothing that increase visibility can help prevent 

a crash. Strategies are:

• Increase use of bicycle helmets via education and 

legislation (P, $$); and

• Increase rider and bicycle visibility via use of 

front white lights and rear red refl ectors and 

wearing of retrorefl ective clothing (T, $).

Objective 6: Reduce Effect of Hazards

Strategies

Surface quality directly impacts the safety of 

bicyclists. A pothole that an automobile would 

hardly notice can have a large impact on a bicycle 

rider’s control and safety. Strategies include:

• Fix or remove surface irregularities, such as 

railroad crossings, drainage grates, potholes, 

and utility covers (T, $$); and

• Provide routine maintenance of bicycle facilities, including patching roads to a high 

standard, clearing sand and debris to the right edge of the road, and maintaining 

pavement markings and signs (T, $$).

Best Practices

State and local design or planning guidelines on bicycling safety: 

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/.

Portland, Oregon’s Bicycle Design and Engineering Guidelines: 

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=47426&.

Oregon DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml.

San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Safety Toolbox: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/.

Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook: 

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/docs/bike-facility.pdf. 

The “Bicycle Safety Education Resource Center,” developed by FHWA and hosted by PBIC 

at www.bicyclinginfo.org includes a database with hundreds of case studies, examples, and 

recommended education messages and practices for all age groups. 

The FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycling Safety website contains a variety of resources: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/.

EXHIBIT III-15 

Rubberized Railroad Crossing to Improve Bicycle Safety 

Source: Clarke and Tracy, 1995.
III-32

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

The two-day NHTSA course “Community Bicycle Safety for Law Enforcement” provides 

guidance to offi cers interested in working with their communities to encourage bicycling 

and improve bicycle safety, with a focus on assessing safety needs and promoting bicycle 

safety programming: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/enforcement/training.cfm.

NHTSA resource guide on laws related to pedestrian and bicycle safety: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/resourceguide/index.html.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Bicycles, at 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety includes goals, strategies, and short- and longterm actions that can be taken to reduce injury and mortality associated with bicycle-related 

incidents: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/bicycle_safety/.

“BikeSafe” software package developed by The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information 

Center (PBIC) and FHWA provides guidance on improvement measures and matching 

countermeasures to precipitating causes, as well as a catalogue of more than 70 case studies: 

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesafe. 

PBIC hosts “BikeCost,” a benefi t-cost estimation tool for bicycle-related infrastructure 

construction and maintenance: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost. 

National Bicycling and Walking Study: Ten Year Status Report, October 2004, FHWA: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/index.htm.

Safe Routes to School programs are comprehensive programs that involve making safetyrelated changes to the built environment, implementing extensive child bicyclist (and 

pedestrian) safety education, and increasing traffi c law enforcement around schools. Safe 

Routes to School On-Line Guide: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/.

Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003, FHWA: 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

FHWA resource site about rumble strips: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/

pavement/rumble_strips/.

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration Course on Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Transportation: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swtoc.htm.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) Guide for 

the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, D.C., 1999. 

Nabti, J.M., and M.D. Ridgway. Innovative Bicycle Treatments: An Informational Report of the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council. Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, 2002.

As of February 2009, there were 22 state laws (including the District of Columbia) requiring 

minors to wear helmets while bicycling, and at least another 192 local ordinances, some of 

which cover bicyclists of all ages. For a comprehensive, state-by-state review on bicycle laws 

in the United States, visit http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm.
III-33

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute study on the effect of bicycle helmet legislation on 

bicycling fatalities: http://www.helmets.org/leggrant.htm. 

League of American Bicyclists guidance on use of lights: 

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/advancedcycling.php.

Aggressive Driving

Problem Description

“Aggressive driving” is operating a motor vehicle in a selfi sh, pushy, or impatient manner, 

often unsafely, that directly affects other drivers. Traffi c safety experts suggest that the 

following elements constitute aggressive driving:

• Driving or attempting to drive at a speed different than the prevailing speed and doing 

any of the following:

 – Maneuvering to cause other drivers to react or take evasive action;

 – Flashing headlights or blowing the horn;

 – Following others too closely;

 – Preventing faster drivers from passing;

 – Directing verbal or nonverbal expressions of anger toward other drivers designed to 

encourage retaliation on the part of other drivers;

 – Deliberately ignoring traffi c controls, especially by increasing speed or failing to 

slow for the controls; and

 – Driving in a way that attempts to gain an advantage over other drivers (e.g., 

appearing to be taking an unfair advantage or breaking notions of equity, such as 

violating ramp meters and driving on the shoulder).

One important contributor to aggressive driving is frustration, which has been found to 

lead to aggression in other situations. The assumption is that drivers, when exposed to 

congestion and other frustrating situations, will experience increasing levels of aggression. 

This concept is important because addressing driver behavior may not be effective unless 

external frustration-causing elements also are addressed.

One approach to reducing aggression is use of variable message signs to inform drivers 

about travel-time reliability. These signs can help reduce the uncertainty about how long it 

will take to reach their destination.

Most driver-focused strategies to date have addressed aggressive driving through specifi c 

traffi c-enforcement programs. Some agencies have reported program successes measured 

by a reduction in crashes. With few exceptions, programs reporting success also have 

applied intensive traffi c law enforcement aimed at all traffi c violations. While these 

programs can be effective, the duration of most programs is limited because most police 

agencies do not have the resources for long-term maintenance. These strategies, combining 
III-34

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

education, enforcement, and engineering, will be most successful in combination; they will 

likely not have the desired impact if used independently.

Data

• According to a NHTSA survey about aggressive driving attitudes and behaviors, more 

than 60 percent of drivers see unsafe driving by others, including speeding, as a major 

personal threat to themselves and their families.

• More than one-half of people in a NHTSA survey admitted to driving aggressively on 

occasion.

Objective 1: Deter Aggressive Driving by Specifi c Populations, including those 

with a History of Such Behavior, and at Specifi c Locations

Strategies

Enforcement at problem locations targeting specifi c aggressive driving actions may help 

demonstrate aggressive behavior will not be tolerated. In this way, enforcement agencies 

may be able to target repeat offenders and gain an understanding of what conditions at a 

location cause such behavior.

• Conduct highly visible and intense enforcement complemented by a publicity campaign 

and targeted in locations identifi ed as having a problem with aggressive driving (T, $) 

that is.

• Conduct education and public information campaigns to help newer drivers (T, $$):

 – Learn to cope with situations where other drivers are displaying aggressive driving 

behaviors; and

 – Recognize and modify their own tendencies toward aggressive driving.

• Educate and impose sanctions against repeat offenders (E, $) by:

 – Identifying drivers with frequent crashes and citations resulting from aggressive 

driving;

 – Conducting courses using structured curricula designed to counter specifi c driving 

behaviors and teach anger management; and

 – Instituting driver sanctions, including license suspension or revocation, or vehicle 

impoundment, especially for repeat offenders with serious offenses.

Objective 2: Improve the Driving Environment to Eliminate or Minimize Aggressive 

Driving “Triggers”

Strategies

Operational changes in the roadway system that reduce congestion and facilitate good 

driving conditions would theoretically help mitigate driver frustration and minimize 
III-35

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

aggressive driving triggers. ITS strategies can be used to provide accurate and timely traffi c 

information about incidents or congestion and alternative route choices. These strategies 

have not been tested, however, and planners are encouraged to conduct a pilot before 

proceeding on any signifi cant scale. Strategies include:

• Change or mitigate effects of identifi ed elements in the driving environment (E, $$$), 

such as the following:

 – Uncoordinated signals or sequencing that 

encourages speeding and red-light running 

(the FHWA estimates that 75 percent of all 

signals need modernization, including 

signal coordination);

 – Lack of signal optimization, encouraging red-light running, especially for turning 

movements;

 – Lack of adequate turn bays or acceleration or deceleration lanes, encouraging 

shoulder or median driving;

 – Lack of adequate entrance ramps, encouraging improper merging;

 – Speed limits not representative of road design and external factors that encourage 

their disregard; and

 – Ineffective or undesirable traffi c control in work zones.

• Reduce nonrecurring delays and provide better information about these delays through 

ITS strategies (E, $$$), such as the following:

 – Incident management systems that help to clear incidents more quickly; and

 – Variable message signs (VMS) to warn drivers of incidents ahead and allow them to 

modify their route.

Best Practices

Washington State Patrol Aggressive Driver Apprehension Team: 

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/site_map/default.htm.

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Freeway Incident Management 

Course: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/safety/FIM.asp.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 1: A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Collisions: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasures Guide for State Highway 

Safety Offi ces, Chapter 3 – Aggressive Driving and Speeding: 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/index.html#countermeasures.

Intelligent Transportation Systems 2005 Update: Benefi ts, Cost, and Lessons Learned: 

http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14073_fi les/14073.pdf.

See Exhibit III-4 for Crash Modifi cation 

Factors for signal change interval modifi cation.
III-36

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

ITE A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffi c Congestion and Enhancing Mobility, 1997: 

http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/Toolbox_AlleviateCongestion1997.pdf.

NHI incident management course: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/incidentmgmt/training.htm.

FHWA Offi ce of Operations: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/siteindex.htm.

Speeding

Problem Description

Excessive or inappropriate speeds result from two basic 

problems, both of which involve human factors. Driver 

behavior, i.e., choosing a clearly inappropriate speed, is one 

aspect of the problem. The second is associated with driver 

response to the environment. For example, inadvertent 

selection of a speed that is inappropriate or unsafe, failure to adjust or change speeds, or 

failure to perceive the speed environment can result in a collision. 

NHTSA defi nes a speeding-related crash as one in which “the driver was charged with a 

speeding-related offense or if an offi cer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, 

or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash.” Approximately 

one-third of all fatal traffi c crashes involve speeding. Excessive speed reduces a driver’s 

ability to react and maneuver and requires a greater stopping distance. The severity of 

a collision increases dramatically with its speed. Alcohol use is common with speeding 

violations. Additionally speeding occurs more commonly during nighttime hours, as 

shown in Exhibit III-16. 

Data

• In 2007, 32 percent of traffi c fatalities involved 

speeding.

• In 2007, approximately 10 percent of all traffi c 

fatalities and 31 percent of all speeding-related 

fatalities occurred on low-speed roadways. These 

roads are defi ned as those with a speed limit of 40 

mph or less.

• High-speed roadways (with speed limits of 45 

mph or more) accounted for 66 percent of 

speeding-related fatalities (21 percent of all 

fatalities).

• Of speeding-related fatal crashes, 41 percent 

occurred in urban areas and 57 percent in rural 

areas. 

• Sixty-seven percent of speeding-related fatalities 

occurred on two-way, undivided roadways. Of 

See section on Aggressive Driving for 

additional discussion relevant to speeding.

Source: Traffi c Safety Facts 2007- Speeding, NHTSA.

EXHIBIT III-16

Intoxicated and Speeding Drivers in Fatal 

Collisions by Time of Day (2007)
III-37

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

these crashes, the predominant fi rst harmful event in the crash was collision with a fi xed 

object (34 percent of all speeding-related fatalities).

• Approximately 42 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes occurred on horizontal curves.

• Speeding-related fatalities occur primarily in single-vehicle crashes; 70 percent of 

speeding-related fatalities on low-speed roads and 65 percent on high-speed roads were 

single-vehicle crashes.

• Thirty-eight percent of speeding drivers in fatal crashes were under the age of 25.

Objective 1: Set Appropriate Speed Limits

Strategies

Setting speed limits consistent with the roadway environment can help improve driver 

respect for speed limits. Speed limits that appear inconsistent may sometimes be ignored 

by drivers, contributing to a lack of respect for speed limits and other traffi c laws. Strategies 

include:

• Set reasonable and prudent speed limits that account for roadway design, traffi c, and 

environment (T, $);

• Implement variable speed limits that depend on 

weather, lighting, work zone, school zone, and traffi c 

conditions (T, $); and

• Implement differential speed limits for heavy vehicles if 

appropriate (high speed only) (T, $).

Objective 2: Heighten Driver Awareness of Speeding-Related Safety Issues

Strategies

Informing drivers of the risks – both to themselves and to other road users – associated with 

speeding is intended to encourage drivers to obey speed limits and drive at speeds safe for 

the roadway environment. Strategies include:

• Increase public awareness of risks of driving at unsafe speeds (T, $$);

• Increase public awareness of potential penalties for speeding (T, $);

• Increase public awareness of risks of not wearing safety belts (T, $);

• Implement neighborhood speed watch/traffi c management programs (low speed only) 

(T, $); and

• Implement Safe Community Programs (low speed only) (T, $$).

For data on the relationship 

of auto speed to pedestrian 

fatalities, see Exhibit III-6.
III-38

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 3: Improve Effi ciency and Effectiveness of Speed Enforcement Efforts

Strategies

Many crashes are caused or aggravated by drivers’ noncompliance with traffi c control 

devices or traffi c laws. Effectiveness of enforcement can be increased if drivers perceive 

there is a signifi cant chance they will be cited for speeding and given a hefty fi ne. Visible 

conventional or automated enforcement programs, increased fi nes for repeat offenders, and 

upholding of citations and levying of fi nes by courts can increase drivers’ awareness of the 

enforcement-related risks of speeding. Strategies include:

• Use targeted conventional speed enforcement programs at locations known to have 

speeding-related crashes (P, $$);

• Implement automated speed enforcement (T, $$);

• Increase penalties for repeat and excessive speeding offenders (T, $);

• Strengthen the adjudication of speeding citations to enhance the deterrent effect of fi nes 

(T, $); and

• Increase fi nes in special areas (low speed only) (T, $).

Objective 4: Communicate Appropriate Speeds through Use of Traffi c Control 

Devices

Strategies

Speed information, including permanent speed limits, variable speed limits, and warning 

speeds, needs to be conveyed clearly to drivers at appropriate locations. Pavement 

markings can encourage drivers to proceed at appropriate speeds without actually posting 

the speed limit. Even though drivers have the responsibility to drive at a safe speed, they 

need to receive information from the roadway environment on what that safe speed is. 

Strategies include:

• Improve speed limit signage (T, $);

• Implement active speed warning signs (including truck rollover warnings) at high-risk 

locations where excessive speeds and potential confl icts are expected (T, $);

• Use in-pavement measures to communicate the need to reduce speeds (T, $$); and

• Implement variable message signs to display information on appropriate speeds for 

current conditions, as well as technologies to monitor conditions (high speed only) (T, $).
III-39

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 5: Ensure Roadway Design and Traffi c Control Elements Support 

Appropriate and Safe Speeds

Strategies

Roadway sections, intersection geometric design features, and traffi c signal operations 

need to refl ect desired speeds. Geometric elements that affect operating speeds, such as 

horizontal and vertical curves, can be designed in combination to encourage appropriate 

speeds. Intersections should be designed in a way that is appropriate for the context of the 

roadway. Providing proper signal coordination through intersections along a corridor can 

create uniform speeds and reduce the need for drivers to stop at the intersections. Strategies 

include:

• Use combinations of geometric elements to control speeds 

(horizontal and vertical curves, cross section), including 

design consistency along an alignment (T, $$$$);

• Effect safe speed transitions through design elements and 

on approaches to lower speed areas (T, $$$$);

• Provide appropriate intersection design for speed of 

roadway (T, $$$);

• Provide adequate change and clearance intervals at 

signalized intersections (P, $);

• Operate traffi c signals appropriately for intersections and corridors (signal progression) 

(T, $);

• Provide adequate sight distance for expected speeds (high speed only) (P, $$$);

• Implement protected-only signal phasing for left turns at high-speed signalized 

intersections (T, $$$);

• Install lighting at high-speed intersections (T, $$); and 

• Reduce speeds and/or volumes on both neighborhood 

and downtown streets with the use of traffi c calming and 

other related countermeasures (low speed only) (T, $$$).

Best Practices

The Smooth Operator Program in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area brought multiple 

agencies together to educate motorists of the risks involved with speeding and aggressive 

driving, and to stigmatize this behavior on the region’s roads: 

http://www.smoothoperatorprogram.com/about.html. 

Neighborhood Speed Watch Program examples include:

• Seattle: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/speedwatch.htm.

• Salt Lake City:

http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/transportation/Traffi cManagement/speedwatch.htm.

For Crash Modifi cation Factors for signal 

change intervals, see Exhibit III-4.

For additional traffi c calming strategies, 

see section on Pedestrians.

See sections on Signalized and 

Unsignalized Intersections for additional 

information on intersections.
III-40

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Neighborhood Traffi c Management Program (NTMP) examples include:

• Albuquerque, New Mexico: http://www.cabq.gov/streets/ntmp.html.

• Middleton, Wisconsin:

http://www.ci.middleton.wi.us/City/Departments/works/Engineering/

NTMP%20Report.pdf

Automated speed enforcement combines radar with cameras to photograph speeding 

vehicles and issue tickets. About 75 countries rely on cameras to enforce speed limits, which 

reduce high travel speed and crashes, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety (IIHS). In some countries, automated enforcement generates the majority of the 

speeding citations. Automated speed enforcement technology is beginning to be used more 

widely in U.S. communities. One example is the Montgomery County, Maryland program:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/poltmpl.asp?url=/content/pol/ask/speed.asp.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500: A Guide for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

NHTSA on-line table of penalties and state laws for speeding violations: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/enforce/speedlaws501/summary_table.htm.

NHTSA April 2006 Summary of State Speed Laws, DOT HS810572

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/Summary_StateSpeedLaws.pdf.

NHTSA guidelines for developing a municipal speed enforcement program:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/12qp/guidelines.html.

NHTSA National Survey of Speeding and Other Unsafe Driving Actions, Volume III: 

Countermeasures: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/aggressive/unsafe/counter/Chapt2.html.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety status of automated enforcement laws:

http://www.iihs.org/laws/automated_enforcement.aspx.

Unlicensed Drivers

Problem Description

No matter how well our highways and vehicles are designed and maintained, ultimately 

highway safety depends upon road user behavior, especially drivers. Every state has a 

driver-licensing program charged with ensuring licensed drivers are competent to operate 

on the roadway system. However, states generally require relicensure only once every 

several years (usually four or fi ve); and this interval has been lengthened by many states 

in an effort to cut costs and reduce delays at license issuing facilities. Some states do not 

even require an in-person renewal, and those that do usually administer only perfunctory 

evaluation. There are strong pressures on licensing programs to limit imposition, including 
III-41

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

costs, on renewal applicants. At the same time, licensing agencies have a legal responsibility 

to the greater public to license only qualifi ed drivers and to keep unqualifi ed drivers off the 

road.

In some regions of the country, drivers who have never held a proper license are often 

noncitizens who fear detection if licensure is sought. Convicted impaired drivers (i.e., DUI, 

DWI, or OWI offenders) probably 

represent the group of unlicensed, 

suspended, or revoked (U/S/R) 

drivers of greatest concern as they are 

overrepresented in fatal and serious 

crashes.

Planners can play a signifi cant role 

in this area by working to provide 

alternatives to driving for those who 

have lost the privilege of driving. 

By improving transit and nonmotorized transportation options, 

transportation planners can reduce 

the likelihood of people driving 

without proper licensure.

Data

• It is estimated that as many as three-fourths of drivers with suspended or revoked 

licenses continue to drive.

• A recent report analyzing fi ve years of Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data 

found that one out of fi ve fatal crashes involves at least one driver not properly licensed 

(unlicensed, suspended/revoked (S/R), expired, canceled or denied, unknown).

• According to a California study, drivers who have never sought a proper license, many 

of whom are illegal immigrants, are reported to be even more overrepresented in crashes 

than drivers with S/R licenses by a factor of 4.9 to 1.

• S/R drivers are predominantly male and younger than the average age of drivers (on 

average more than eight years younger in a California study). They also are more likely 

to have convictions for nontraffi c offenses, including violent offenses (De Young, 1990).

Traditional sanctions have been less effective with drivers that are unlicensed or have had 

their licenses suspended or revoked. When unlicensed drivers also are undocumented, 

it is not likely that traditional sanctions will keep them off the road as transportation is 

essential for their employment. Multiple DUI offenders have often failed to respond to 

more conventional sanctions or efforts to “rehabilitate” them, so the focus is moving from 

changing the individual’s behavior to modifying the environment to make it more diffi cult 

for the offender to operate a vehicle. Despite the marked over-involvement of improperly 

licensed drivers in fatal crashes, traffi c violations are often not treated seriously enough 

in the court system, where prosecutors consider burglaries, assaults, and other crimes of 

greater importance (even though people are at much greater risk of a crash injury than of 

being the victim of a crime). Traffi c courts that handle only traffi c offenses increase the 

likelihood of appropriate sanctions.

Source: Griffi n and DeLaZerda, 2000.

EXHIBIT III-17

Percentage of Drivers Judged to be Alcohol Positive 

by License Status
III-42

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 1: Eliminate the Need to Drive

Strategies

• Provide alternative transportation, such as fi xed-route or demand-response transit, to 

offer unlicensed people a transportation choice other than driving, especially when 

drinking (P, $$$).

 – This may take the form of specifi c programs that prevent drinking and driving, such 

as free transit rides or taxi rides on New Year’s Eve;

 – This strategy is most effective when transit service is available at any time of the 

day, such as having taxi service available when transit service ends, and if service is 

timely; and

 – To be effective, alternative ride programs require that training be conducted with bar 

managers and employees.

Objective 2: Apply Special Enforcement Practices

Strategies

Increased enforcement and checking license status can aid in the apprehension of 

unlicensed/suspended/revoked drivers who carry a license that appears valid. 

Countermeasures include the following:

• Selective enforcement in areas where U/S/R driving has been detected, complemented 

with a publicity campaign, and with cooperation of DMV and judicial personnel (T, $);

• Routine checks of drivers’ records against all citations to determine license status, ideally 

in real time when a citation is issued (T, $); and

• Create and distribute “hot sheets” (T, $) to enforcement agencies containing lists of 

drivers who live in the vicinity and whose license has been suspended or revoked.

Objective 3: Restrict Mobility through License Plate Modifi cation

Strategies

These strategies seek to mark the vehicles driven by U/S/R offenders so that they are 

prevented from using a vehicle or can be monitored by enforcement. Countermeasures 

include the following:

• Install zebra stripes on license plates or registration renewal stickers of vehicles owned 

and/or driven by U/S/R drivers to facilitate enforcement; the striping is considered 

probable cause for an offi cer to stop a vehicle and check license status (P, $$); and

• Impound or destroy license plates of U/S/R drivers arrested three or more times via an 

administrative process implemented by enforcement or the DMV (P, $$).
III-43

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Best Practice

Aspen Colorado’s Tipsy Taxi program: http://www.tipsytaxi.com/.

Resource

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.
III-44

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Signalized Intersections

Problem Description

The crossing and turning maneuvers at intersections create opportunities for vehicle-vehicle, 

vehicle-pedestrian, and vehicle-bicycle confl icts. Thus, intersections are likely points for 

concentrations of traffi c crashes.

Signalized intersections are generally the most heavily traveled intersection types, and 

are therefore a major element of the highway fatality and crash problem nationally. Fatal 

crashes at signalized intersections are primarily multivehicle. Signalized intersections are 

operationally complex, with many factors contributing to potential safety problems. The 

intent of a signal is to control and separate confl icts between vehicles, pedestrians, and 

cyclists to enable safe and effi cient operations. Good geometric design combined with 

effective traffi c control can result in an intersection that operates effi ciently and safely.

One of the major tasks transportation planners face is managing congestion. When planners 

evaluate how a corridor functions, signalization is a key consideration and traffi c signal 

optimization is a major tool for improving traffi c fl ow and safety. The improvement of 

corridor operations may reduce driver frustration and aggressive driving. Planners also are 

skilled at considering the multiple users of an intersection when improvements are made, 

including the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, if dedicated turning lanes 

are added to an intersection, planners can help make sure intersection modifi cations do 

not negatively impact the pedestrian experience by ensuring suffi cient crossing time and 

pedestrian amenities are provided. The planner can work with the engineering staff to 

ensure these kinds of problems are recognized and solutions are implemented.

Data

• Intersection-related crashes constitute more than 

50 percent of all crashes in urban areas and over 

30 percent in rural areas (Kuciemba and Cirillo, 

1992).

• Based on 2007 FARS data:

 – Twenty-two percent of fatal crashes occur at 

intersections;

 – Seven percent of all fatal crashes occur at 

signalized intersections;

 – Seventy percent of fatal single-vehicle 

crashes at signalized intersections involve 

pedestrians or bicyclists; and

 – Eighty-three percent of fatal crashes at 

signalized intersections occur in urban areas.

Source: 2007 FARS data.

Note: “Other” includes crashes categorized in FARS as 

 sideswipe same direction, sideswipe opposite 

 direction, other, and unknown.

EXHIBIT III-18

Manner of Collision for Fatal Crashes 

at Signalized Intersections
III-45

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 1: Reduce Frequency and Severity of Intersection Confl icts through 

Traffi c Control and Operational Improvements

Strategies

Effective management of traffi c signals can allow for 

safer turning movements, better traffi c fl ow, and a 

reduction in the potential for confl icts with other 

vehicles and with nonmotorized transportation 

modes. Strategies include the following:

• Employ multiphase signal operation, including 

protected left-turn phases and split phases 

that provide individual phases for opposing 

approaches (P, $);

• Optimize clearance intervals between the end of 

one green phase and the beginning of the next 

green phase for a confl icting movement (P, $);

• Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers, 

including left turns or right-turn-on-red (T, $);

• Employ signal coordination that allows a group of 

vehicles to proceed without stopping at multiple 

signalized intersections (P, $$);

• Employ emergency vehicle preemption that 

extends the green on an emergency vehicle’s 

approach or replaces the phases for the whole 

cycle (P, $$);

• Improve operation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities at signalized intersections, 

including pedestrian-only phase of signal operation, prohibition of right-turn-on-red, 

pedestrian signs and markings, and “Bicyclist Dismount” signs at intersections (P, $); 

and

• Remove unwarranted signals when traffi c conditions no longer require them (P, $).

Objective 2: Reduce Frequency and Severity of Intersection Confl icts through 

Geometric Improvements

Strategies

By controlling turning movements, providing improved pedestrian facilities, and other 

geometric improvements, intersection confl icts may be reduced in numbers and severity. 

Strategies include the following:

• Provide/improve left-turn channelization to guide vehicles through turning paths and 

reduce potential confl icts (P, $$) (see section on Unsignalized Intersections, Objective 2);

See Exhibit III-4 for Crashes Modifi cation 

Factors for signal change interval modifi cation.

EXHIBIT III-19

Remove a Traffi c Signal (Urban Environment)

Crash Type

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Crashes 0.76

Right Angle/Turning 0.76

Rear End 0.71

Pedestrian 0.82

Fixed Object 0.69

Light Conditions (All Severities)

Day 0.78

Night 0.70

Injury Severity

Severe 0.47

Minor 0.76
III-46

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide/improve right-turn channelization to guide vehicles through turning paths and 

reduce potential confl icts (P, $$) (see section on Unsignalized Intersections, Objective 2);

• Improve geometry of pedestrian and bicycle facilities (P, $), such as signed and marked 

crosswalks, median refuge areas, pedestrian/bicycle overpasses, widened outside 

through lanes or bike lanes, and physical barriers to restrict pedestrian crossing 

maneuvers at higher-risk crossing locations;

• Revise geometry of complex intersections, such as improving intersection skew angle 

and converting a four-leg intersection into two T intersections (P, $$$$); and

• Construct special solutions, such as reconstructing intersections, converting two-way 

streets to a one-way pair, and constructing interchanges (T, $$$$).

Objective 3: Improve Sight Distance and Driver Awareness at 

Signalized Intersections

Strategies

Improving the sight distance and visibility at intersections provides better awareness 

of maneuvers required in advance of entering the intersection. Strategies include the 

following:

• Clear sight triangles by removing vegetation or other obstructions (T, $);

• Redesign intersection approaches via horizontal or vertical realignment (P, $$$$);

• Improve visibility of intersections on approaches with methods, such as larger signs, 

improved delineation of lanes and roadway, and rumble strips on approaches (T, $); and

• Improve visibility of signals and signs at intersections with techniques, such as visors to 

shade signal lenses from sunlight, backplates, and larger (12-inch) signal lenses (T, $).

Objective 4: Improve Driver Compliance with Traffi c Control Devices

Strategies

Safety problems at signalized intersections cannot always 

be solved with engineering countermeasures. Traffi c 

enforcement and/or public education campaigns may 

improve intersection safety. 

Strategies include:

• Provide public information and education on 

safety problems at intersections (T, $);

• Provide targeted traffi c law enforcement (T, $$);

• Implement automated enforcement of red light 

running with cameras (P, $$);

EXHIBIT III-20

Install Red-Light Cameras

Crash Type

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Crash Severities

Rear-End Crashes 1.15

Right-Angle Crashes 0.75

Injury Crashes Only

Rear-End Crashes 1.24

Right-Angle Crashes 0.84
III-47

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Implement automated enforcement of approach speeds with cameras (T, $$); and

• Control speed on approaches (E, $$) via geometric design, signal control technology, and 

traffi c calming treatments.

Objective 5: Improve Access Management Near Signalized Intersections

Limiting the number of driveways in the area of an intersection reduces the number of 

potential vehicle confl ict points. Strategies include:

• Restrict access to properties using driveway closures, consolidations, or turn restrictions, 

especially within 250 feet of an intersection (T, $); and

• Restrict cross-median access near intersections (T, $).

Objective 6: Improve Safety through Other Infrastructure Treatments

Additional safety improvements at intersections may include addressing the roadway 

surface, drainage, or providing clear zones adjacent to the roadway. Strategies include:

• Improve drainage in intersections and on approaches (T, $$);

• Provide skid-resistance in intersection and on approaches, such as grooving or 

overlaying existing pavement (T, $$);

• Coordinate closely spaced signals near at-grade railroad crossings to avoid vehicle 

queues forming across the railroad tracks (T, $$);

• Relocate signal hardware out of the clear zone and as far from the pavement as possible 

(T, $$); and

• Restrict or eliminate parking on intersection approaches (P, $).

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 12: A Guide for 

Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

See the next section for additional intersection 

resources.

Unsignalized Intersections

Problem Description

Nationally, many more unsignalized intersections 

are in place than signalized, so the number 

of crashes is undoubtedly much higher at 

unsignalized intersections than at signalized 

intersections. As population and 

EXHIBIT III-21

Manner of Collision for Fatal Crashes at 

Unsignalized Intersections

Source: 2007 FARS data.
III-48

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

development increases, traffi c volume at unsignalized intersections grows as does the number 

of crashes. There is increasing demand for signalization of urban and suburban intersections, 

and, even in rural areas, signalized intersections are becoming more common. However, 

experience shows that intersection crash rates frequently increase with signal installation, 

although the crashes may be less severe. 

Data

• Fifteen percent of fatal crashes were at unsignalized intersections in 2007.

Objective 1: Improve Access Management Near Unsignalized Intersections

Strategies

Access management near intersections reduces the number of potential confl ict points in the 

intersection area. Access management is often addressed through state or municipal codes, 

and also can be addressed at the time a new development is proposed. Strategies include:

• Close, consolidate, or relocate driveways within 250 feet of an unsignalized intersection 

from the major-road approach to the minor-road approach (T, $$); and

• Implement driveway turn restrictions, such as limiting turns in and/or out of a property 

to only right turns (T, $).

Objective 2: Reduce the Frequency and Severity of Intersection Confl icts through 

Geometric Design Improvements

Strategies

Improved channelization at intersections, clarifi ed paths through intersections, and 

restricted turning movements may help reduce rear-end collisions. Countermeasures 

include the following:

• Provide left-turn lanes at intersections, so that vehicles waiting to turn left are protected 

from confl ict with through-traffi c (P, $$);

• Provide longer left-turn lanes at intersections to allow for vehicle deceleration and 

waiting (T, $);

• Provide offset left-turn lanes at intersections, so that vehicles in opposing turn lanes on 

the major road do not block vision of oncoming traffi c (T, $$$); and

• Provide median acceleration lanes at divided highway intersections for vehicles making 

a left turn and entering the highway (T, $$).
III-49

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide right-turn lanes at intersections to remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to 

turn right from the through-traffi c stream (P, $$);

• Provide longer right-turn lanes at intersections to reduce confl ict when a queue of 

vehicles overfl ows the right-turn lane (T, $$); 

• Provide offset right-turn lanes at intersections to prevent collisions between turning 

vehicles and through traffi c, and to prevent right-turning vehicles from obstructing the 

view of the minor-road driver (T, $$$);

• Provide right-turn acceleration lanes at intersections to prevent collisions between 

through traffi c and vehicles turning right into the roadway (T, $);

• Provide full-width paved shoulders in intersection areas to provide space for motorists, 

pedestrians and bicyclists (T, $);

• Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers with signing, such as prohibiting turns during 

peak hours (T, $);

• Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers by providing channelization or closing median 

openings and using signing (T, $);

EXHIBIT III-22

Add Exclusive Left-Turn Lane

Total Intersection Crashes

(All Severity Levels, All Crash Types)

Crash Modifi cation Factor

One Approach Both Approaches

Rural stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.72 0.52

Rural stop-controlled intersection (3 legs) 0.56 –

Rural signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.82 0.67

Rural signalized intersection (3 legs) 0.85 –

Urban stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.73 0.53

Urban stop-controlled intersection (3 legs) 0.67 –

Urban signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.90 0.81

Urban signalized intersection (3 legs) 0.93 –

Fatal and Injury Intersection Crashes (All Crash Types)

Rural stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.65 0.42

Rural stop-controlled intersection (3 legs) 0.45 –

Urban stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.71 0.50

Urban stop-controlled intersection (3 legs) 0.65 –

Urban signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.91 0.83

Urban signalized intersection (3 legs) 0.94 –

Project-Related Crashes (All Severity Levels)a

Rural stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.63 0.40

Rural stop-controlled intersection (3 legs) 0.38 –

Urban stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.74 0.55

Urban signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.87 0.76

a Project-Related Crashes: All crashes involving one or more vehicles that had made, were making, or intended to make 

 the specifi c left-turn maneuver(s) for which the left-turn lane(s) being evaluated were installed.
III-50

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Close or relocate “high-risk” intersections when less-restrictive measures have been tried 

and failed (T, $$$$);

• Convert four-legged intersections to two T intersections that operate independently of 

each other (T, $$$$);

• Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew so the 

intersection area is not confusing, sight angles are good, and the paths through the 

intersection are not excessively long (P, $$$$); and

• Use indirect left-turn treatments to minimize confl icts at divided highway intersections 

such as the use of jug-handle roadways before the crossroad or loop roadways beyond 

the crossroad (T, $$).

Objective 3: Improve Sight Distance at Unsignalized Intersections

Strategies

Appropriate sight distance is acknowledged as a major contributor to safety at unsignalized 

intersections. Strategies include the following:

• Clear sight triangles on stop- or yield-controlled approaches to intersections by removing 

vegetation and other obstructions, so that drivers have full intersection sight distance (T, 

$);

• Clear sight triangles in the medians of divided highways near intersections to prevent 

sight obstruction of the intersection by vegetation or other obstacles (T, $);

• Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment of approaches to provide more sight 

distance if other strategies have been tried and are not effective (T, $$$$); and

• Eliminate parking that restricts sight distance, especially if it is located in the sight 

triangle of an intersection (T, $).

EXHIBIT III-23

Add Exclusive Right-Turn Lane

Total Intersection Crashes 

(All Severity Levels, All Crash Types)

Crash Modifi cation Factor

One Approach Both Approaches

Rural stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.86 0.74

Rural signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.96 0.92

Urban signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.96 0.92

Urban signalized intersection (3 legs) 0.96 –

Urban stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.86 0.74

Fatal and Injury Intersection Crashes (All Crash Types)

Rural stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.77 0.59

Rural signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.91 0.83

Urban signalized intersection (4 legs) 0.91 0.83

Urban signalized intersection (3 legs) 0.91 –

Urban stop-controlled intersection (4 legs) 0.77 0.59
III-51

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 4: Improve Availability of Gaps in Traffi c and Assist Drivers in Judging 

Gap Sizes at Unsignalized Intersections

Strategies

Drivers’ misjudgment of the distance to an oncoming vehicle results in intersection 

collisions. Techniques for assisting drivers in judging gaps or increasing the size of gaps 

include the following:

• Provide an automated real-time system to inform drivers of the suitability of available 

gaps for making turning and crossing maneuvers, such as a light that fl ashes when 

oncoming traffi c is present (E, $$);

• Provide roadside markers or pavement markings to assist drivers in judging the 

suitability of available gaps for making turning and crossing maneuvers, such as roadside 

markers or pavement markings at a fi xed distance from an intersection (E, $); and

• Retime signals adjacent to stop-controlled intersections to create longer gaps in opposing 

traffi c at stop-controlled intersections (T, $).

Objective 5: Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections as Viewed from the 

Intersection Approach

Strategies

Many unsignalized intersections are not readily visible to approaching drivers, particularly 

on major-road approaches that are not controlled by stop signs or yield signs. Strategies for 

improving the visibility of intersections include the following:

• Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing and delineation, such 

as advanced guide signs and breaks in pavement markings (T, $);

• Improve visibility of the intersection by providing lighting, such as streetlights at rural 

intersections (P, $$$);

• Install splitter islands (channelizing islands separating traffi c in opposing directions of 

travel) on the minor-road approach to an intersection to call attention to the presence of 

the intersection (T, $$);

• Provide a stop bar (or a wider stop bar) on minor-road approaches (T, $);

• Install larger regulatory and warning signs at intersections (T, $);

• Call attention to the intersection by installing rumble strips on intersection approaches 

(T, $);

• Provide dashed markings (extended left edgelines) for major-road continuity across the 

median opening at divided-highway intersections to distinguish the median roadway 

from the through roadway (T, $);

• Provide supplementary stop signs mounted over the roadway (T, $);

• Provide pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as STOP AHEAD (T, $);
III-52

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide improved maintenance of stop signs to ensure that they are clean, legible, and 

not obstructed from view by vegetation or construction materials (T, $); and

• Install fl ashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections (T, $).

Objective 6: Choose Appropriate Intersection Traffi c Control to Minimize Crash 

Frequency and Severity

Strategies

Signalization of intersections should be implemented only when warranted because new 

signals may introduce congestion and increase crashes. Strategies for managing intersection 

control include:

• Avoid signalizing through roads as new signals may increase the likelihood of certain 

types of crashes (T, $$$$);

• Provide all-way stop signs at appropriate intersections (where warranted) (P, $); and

• Provide roundabouts at appropriate locations to maintain traffi c fl ow (P, $$$$).

EXHIBIT III-24

Convert to All-Way Stop Control from Two-Way 

Stop Control

Type of Collision 

(All Severities)

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Crashes 0.53

Right-Angle Crashes 0.28

Rear-End Crashes 0.87

Left-Turn Crashes 0.80

Pedestrian Crashes 0.61

Crash Severity (All Collision Types)

All Crashes 0.53

Injury Crashes 0.29

EXHIBIT III-25

Install Roundabout

Lane Environment

Crash Modifi cation 

Factor

Single-Lane – Urban/Suburban 

(prior control – two-way stop controlled)

All Crashes 0.44

Injury Crashes 0.22

Single-Lane – Rural 

(prior control – two-way stop controlled)

All Crashes 0.29

Injury Crashes 0.13

Multilane – Urban/Suburban 

(prior control – stop sign)

All Crashes 0.82

Injury Crashes 0.28

Single/Multilane – Urban/Suburban 

(prior control – signal)

All Crashes 0.52

Injury Crashes 0.22

All Sites

All Crashes 0.65

Injury Crashes 0.24
III-53

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 7: Improve Driver Compliance with Traffi c Control Devices and Traffi c 

Laws at Intersections

Strategies

Employ enforcement and public education to reduce unsafe and illegal driver behavior at 

intersections. Strategies include:

• Provide targeted enforcement to reduce stop sign violations (T, $$); and

• Provide targeted public information and education on safety problems at specifi c 

intersections (T, $).

Objective 8: Reduce Operating Speeds on Specifi c Intersection Approaches

Strategies

Employ efforts to reduce speeds approaching intersections and the possibility of more severe 

collisions. Strategies include the following:

• Provide targeted speed enforcement (P, $$);

• Provide traffi c calming at intersection approaches through a combination of geometric 

and traffi c control devices (T, $$); and

• Post appropriate speed limits on intersection approaches (T, $).

Objective 9: Guide Motorists More Effectively through Complex Intersections

Strategies

At complex intersections, the correct path for the motorist may not be clearly defi ned, or 

motorists may become confused as to appropriate movements. Strategies to guide motorists 

through complex intersections include:

• Provide turn path markings, such as dashed lines, to indicate the path through the 

intersection (T, $);

• Provide a double yellow centerline on the median opening of a divided highway at 

intersections to prevent undesirable behaviors such as side-by-side queuing on the 

median roadway in the same direction and stopping at an angle on the median roadway 

(T, $); and

• Provide lane assignment signing or pavement markings at complex intersections (T, $) to 

minimize driver indecision about lane choice.

Best Practice

Minnesota DOT Access Management Guidelines: 

http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/guidelines.html.
III-54

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

FHWA Access Management Publications and Resources: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/access_mgmt/resources.htm.

AASHTO, 2001, Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets.

Pline, 1999, Traffi c Engineering Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Neuman, 1985, NCHRP Report 279, Intersection Channelization Design Guide, Transportation 

Research Board of the National Academies.

Harwood et al., 1995, NCHRP Report 375: Median Intersection Design, Transportation 

Research Board of the National Academies.

Harwood, Mason, Brydia, Pietrucha, and Gittings, 1996, NCHRP Report 383: Intersection 

Sight Distance, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Blackburn and Gilbert, 1995, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 219: Photographic 

Enforcement of Traffi c Laws, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Staplin, Lococo, and Byington, 1998, Older Driver Highway Design Handbook, FHWA RD 97 135.

Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffi c Control Devices (MUTCD), 

2003: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

Knapp, 2000, Traffi c-Calming Basics, Civil Engineering, Volume 70, Number 1.

Run-Off-Road Collisions

Problem Description

Run-Off-Road (ROR) collisions comprised 43 percent of all fatal collisions in 2007. The fi rst 

harmful event in a crash is the fi rst event or object hit, which may or may not result in injury 

or fatality. Information about the fi rst harmful event in ROR crashes, shown in Exhibit III-26, 

provides insight into roadside objects initially struck in crashes that may need to be removed 

or modifi ed. Analysis of the most harmful event, shown in Exhibit III-27, shows the most 

severe elements of crashes and can help in defi ning strategies that can minimize crash 

severity. For example, a crash may begin with a vehicle hitting a signpost (fi rst harmful 

event), followed by a rollover resulting in a fatality (most harmful event). This section 

provides information on the various countermeasures effective in addressing ROR collisions. 

Working with safety practitioners who are knowledgeable about multiple factors impacting 

roadway safety will be important in choosing the most effective approach.
III-55

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

EXHIBIT III-26

Distribution of Single-Vehicle ROR Fatalities for Two-Lane, Undivided, Noninterchange, Nonjunction Roads 

First Harmful Event

Source: 2007 FARS Data.

Note: “Other” includes events that each represent less than 0.5 percent of the total fi rst harmful events: bridge parapet 

 end, immersion, shrubbery, longitudinal barriers (concrete or other), pedal cycle, other noncollision, fi re hydrant, 

 snow bank, fell/jumped from vehicle, transport device used as equipment, animal, unknown, pavement surface 

 irregularity, fi re/explosion, other type of nonmotorist, vehicle occupant struck or run over by own vehicle, impact 

 attenuator/crash cushion, railroad train, or gas inhalation. 
III-56

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

EXHIBIT III-27

Distribution of Single-Vehicle ROR Fatalities for Two-Lane, Undivided, Noninterchange, Nonjunction Roads

Most Harmful Event

Source: 2007 FARS Data.

Note: “Other” includes events that each represent less than 0.5 percent of the total fi rst harmful events: bridge parapet 

 end, immersion, shrubbery, longitudinal barriers (concrete or other), pedal cycle, other noncollision, fi re hydrant, 

 snow bank, fell/jumped from vehicle, transport device used as equipment, animal, unknown, pavement surface 

 irregularity, fi re/explosion, other type of nonmotorist, vehicle occupant struck or run over by own vehicle, impact 

 attenuator/crash cushion, railroad train, or gas inhalation.

Data

Based on 2007 FARS data:

• Forty-one percent of fatal crashes were single-vehicle ROR collisions;

• Seventy-six percent of single-vehicle ROR fatalities on two-lane undivided, 

noninterchange, nonjunction roads occurred on rural roads;

• Twenty-three percent of single-vehicle ROR fatalities on two-lane undivided, 

noninterchange, nonjunction roads occurred on rural local roads and 25 percent were on 

rural major collectors; and

• On two-lane rural roads, 50 percent of single-vehicle ROR crashes occurred on curves 

and 50 percent on straight sections.
III-57

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 1: Keep Vehicles from Encroaching on the Roadside

Strategies

Methods can be employed to alert drivers who stray from their lanes, or provide enhanced 

warning of dangerous areas such as curves. Strategies include the following:

• Install shoulder rumble strips (T, $);

• Install rumble strips, such as milled-in “edgeline”

rumble strips on sections with narrow or 

unpaved shoulders (E, $);

• Install rumble strips in the center of the travel 

lane, so a vehicle leaving the travel lane is 

signaled by the inside tires’ contact with the 

rumble strip (E, $);

• Provide enhanced shoulder or in-lane 

delineation and marking for sharp curves, such 

as chevrons, large arrow signs, fl ashing beacons, 

or pavement markings that create a sense of 

danger (P, T, & E, $);

• Provide improved highway geometry for horizontal curves, such as fl attening, to 

increase the curve radius (P, $$$$);

• Provide enhanced pavement markings (e.g., high-contrast, wider, or raised markings) (T, 

$);

• Provide skid-resistant pavement surfaces by changing pavement aggregates, adding 

overlays, or adding texture (T, $$); and

• Apply shoulder treatments to allow vehicles to recover if they begin to leave the roadway 

(e.g., eliminate shoulder drop-offs (E, $) and widen and/or pave shoulders (P, $).

EXHIBIT III-28

Add Shoulder Rumble Strips

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Freeways (Rural and Urban)

All Single-Vehicle ROR Crashes 0.82

Injury Single-Vehicle ROR 

Crashes

0.87

Rural Freeways

All Single-Vehicle ROR Crashes 0.79

Injury Single-Vehicle ROR 

Crashes

0.93
III-58

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

EXHIBIT III-29

Change Shoulder Width and/or Type

CMF = (CMFWRACMFTRA-1.0)PRA+1.0

where:

CMF = Crash modifi cation factor for total crashes.

CMFWRA = Crash modifi cation factor for related crashes, based on shoulder width.

CMFWRA is calculated by dividing the CMF for the after improvement by the CMF for the before condition. Each can be 

selected from the following table.

Shoulder Width

Average Daily Traffi c (ADT) 

< 400 400 to 2,000 > 2,000

0 feet 1.10 1.1 + 2.5 x 10-4 (ADT-400) 1.50

2 feet 1.07 1.07 + 1.43 x 10-4 (ADT-400) 1.30

4 feet 1.02 1.02 + 8.125 x 10-5 (ADT-400) 1.15

6 feet 1.00 1.00 1.00

8 feet 0.98 0.98 + 6.875 x 10-5 (ADT-400) 0.87

CMFTRA = Crash modifi cation factor for related crashes, based on shoulder type.

CMFTRA is calculated by dividing the CMF for the after-improvement condition by the CMF for the before condition. Each can 

be selected from the following table.

Shoulder Type

Shoulder Width (Feet)

0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10

Paved 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Gravel 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03

Composite 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.07

Turf 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.14

PRA = Proportion of total crashes constituted by related crashes.

PRA = 0.35 (estimated from distribution of crash types).

Objective 2: Minimize the Likelihood of Crashing into an Object or Overturning for 

Vehicles Traveling Beyond the Shoulder Edge

Strategies

If a vehicle does leave the roadway, strategies can be employed to reduce the severity of 

a crash by removing dangerous elements or marking them, so drivers can avoid them, 

including the following:

• Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers, which comprise 42 percent of the 

most harmful events for fatal single-vehicle ROR crashes (P, $$$);

• Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locations such as trees, poles, and signposts or 

shield objects with breakaway devices or crash cushions (P, $ – assuming removal/

relocation of small appurtenances); and

• Delineate trees and utility poles with retrorefl ective tape to improve their visibility and 

provide “safer escape route” information if vehicles do leave the roadway (E, $).
III-59

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 3: Reduce Crash Severity 

Strategies

Roadside hardware should be evaluated to ensure 

the design chosen and the method of installation 

will infl ict the least damage in the event of a crash. 

Strategies include the following:

• Improve design of roadside hardware, such as 

bridge rails and guardrail ends (T, $$$); and

• Improve design and application of barrier and 

noise attenuation systems (T, $$$).

EXHIBIT III-31

Percentage Reduction in “Related Crashes” Due to Increasing the 

Roadside Clear Recovery Distance on 

Two-Lane Rural Roads

Sideslope

Before 

Condition

After Condition

1:4 1:5 1:6

1:7 or 

Flatter

SV Total SV Total SV Total SV Total

1:2 10 6 15 9 21 12 27 15

1:3 8 5 14 8 19 11 26 15

1:4 0 - 6 3 12 7 19 11

1:5 - - 0 - 6 3 14 8

1:6 - - - - 0 - 8 5

Source: Zegeer et al., 1987.

EXHIBIT III-30

Percentage Reduction of Single-Vehicle and Total 

Crashes Due to Sideslope Flattening on Two-Lane 

Rural Roads

Amount of Increased 

Roadside Recovery 

Distance, Meters (Feet)

Percent 

Reduction in 

Related 

Crasha

 Types

1.5 (5) 13%

2.4 (8) 21%

3.1 (10) 25%

3.7 (12) 29%

4.6 (15) 35%

6.2 (20) 44%

a “Related crashes” would be the total of ROR, 

 head-on, and sideswipe crashes.

EXHIBIT III-32

Install/Upgrade Guardrail along Embankment

ROR Crashes

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

Fatal Injury Crashes 0.56

All Injury Crashes 0.53

Best Practices

Summary of Survey Results of State DOTs on Tree Crash Reduction Programs: 

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/trees/app02.htm.

Iowa DOT Offi ce of Design, Design Manual: http://www.iowadot.gov/design/.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 6: A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2002): 

http://design.transportation.org/?siteid=59&pageid=848.

FHWA web site on safe roadside hardware: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/.
III-60

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Head-On Collisions

Problem Description

Head-on crashes result when motorists fall asleep, are distracted, or are traveling too fast 

in a curve. Affecting head-on fatalities is more complex than simply providing adequate 

passing zones. Indeed, most head-on crashes are similar to run-off-road crashes (e.g., in 

both cases, the vehicle strays from its travel lane). This section provides information on 

various effective countermeasures to address head-on collisions. Working with safety 

practitioners is important in choosing the most effective approach.

Data 

• Eleven percent of noninterchange, nonjunction 

fatal crashes involved two vehicles colliding 

head-on, according to 2007 FARS data.

• Nearly two-thirds of head-on crashes occur on 

rural roads.

• Seventy-two percent of head-on crashes occur 

on undivided two-lane roads.

• In nearly all cases, fatal head-on crashes occur 

in nonpassing situations.

• On two-lane divided roadways, 83 percent of 

head-on fatal crashes are “going straight,” and 

17 percent are “negotiating a curve.”

Objective 1: Keep Vehicles from Encroaching 

into the Opposite Lane

Strategies

Engineering strategies to alert drivers they are 

moving into an oncoming lane and provide better 

centerline lane marking visibility help drivers stay 

alert and aware of their positions on the roadway. 

Roadway designs that provide more space for 

drivers may offer a safety benefi t, but they are 

higher-speed designs, which present risks. Buffers 

between opposing fl ows of traffi c may provide 

protection from head-on collisions. Strategies 

include the following:

• Install centerline rumble strips for two-lane 

roads to alert drivers they are straying into an 

oncoming lane (T, $);

EXHIBIT III-33

Centerline Rumble Strips Implemented 

in Maryland

Source: NCHRP 500 Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing 

 Head-On Collisions.

EXHIBIT III-34

Add Centerline Rumble Strips (Rural two-lane roads)

Crash Type (All Severities)

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

All Crashes 0.86

Frontal/Opposing-Direction 

Sideswipe Crashes

0.79

Injury Crashes

All Crashes 0.85

Frontal/Opposing-Direction 

Sideswipe Crashes

0.75
III-61

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Install profi led thermoplastic strips for the centerline that provide an audible/tactile 

effect and longer sight distance at night (T, $);

• Provide wider cross sections on two-lane roads with wider lanes and full-strength 

shoulders and high-speed alignment offering 100 percent passing sight distance (E, $$$);

• Install center two-way left turn lanes on four- and two-lane roads to provide a buffer 

between opposing directions of travel (T, $$); and

• Reallocate total two-lane width (lane and shoulder) to include a narrow “buffer median,” 

to slow traffi c and place a buffer between opposing fl ows (T, $).

Objective 2: Minimize the Likelihood of Crashing into an Oncoming Vehicle

Strategies

Provide space for passing to prevent the need to 

travel into an oncoming lane or a physical barrier. 

Countermeasures include the following:

• Install alternate passing lanes or four-lane 

sections at key locations to reduce passingrelated, head-on crashes (T, $$$); and

• Install median barriers for narrow medians on 

multilane roads, especially in rural areas where 

speeds are higher and the need for median 

openings is less (T, $$).

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 4: A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Head-On Collisions on Freeways

Problem Description

This emphasis area addresses head-on crashes associated with freeways and expressways 

with full access control. A head-on crash typically occurs when a vehicle crosses the median 

and crashes into a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. A head-on crash also can 

occur when a vehicle inadvertently travels the wrong way in the traffi c lane. In either event, 

these crashes are inherently severe. Head-on cross median crashes may be the result of 

inadvertent actions by a driver, potentially combined with other adverse circumstances such 

as weather conditions. As shown in Exhibit III-36 showing fatal crash types, six percent of 

fatal interstate/freeway crashes are head-on crashes.

EXHIBIT III-35

Add Passing Lanes

Two-Lane Roads

Type of Passing Lane

Crash 

Modifi cation 

Factor

One-Way 

(Single Direction of Travel)

0.75

Two-Way 

(Short Four-Lane Sections)

0.65
III-62

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data

• In 2007, according to FARS, 334 fatal cross-median head-on crashes occurred on U.S. 

interstates and freeways. Although the number may seem small when compared to the 

overall crashes and to the percentage of all interstate/freeway-related crashes, head-on 

crashes are extremely severe.

• A study in Iowa showed that between 1990 and 1999, though only 2.4 percent of all 

interstate crashes were cross-median, they produced 32.7 percent of interstate fatalities 

during that period.

• Median crashes are three times more severe than other highway crashes (NCDOT).

• In 2007, almost two-thirds of fatal interstate/freeway crossover crashes involved male 

drivers.

• Thirty-eight percent of the fatal interstate crossover crashes occur during dark 

conditions.

• Twenty-two percent of fatal interstate crossover crashes occur during nondaylight but 

lighted conditions.

EXHIBIT III-36

Fatal Crashes by Manner of Collision on Interstates/Freeways

Source: 2007 FARS data.
III-63

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 1: Keep Vehicles from Departing the Travel Way

Strategies

Strategies to keep vehicles in their travel lanes include 

enhanced traffi c control devices to engage the driver’s 

attention or installation of improved pavement capability to 

reduce skidding. In addition, if a driver strays from the road, 

a strategy of providing left median shoulder rumble strips is 

suggested to give an audible alert to the driver. Strategies include:

• Install left shoulder rumble strips (T, $);

• Provide enhanced pavement markings and median delineation (T, $); and

• Provide improved pavement surfaces (T, $$).

Objective 2: Minimize the Likelihood of Head-On Crashes with an 

Oncoming Vehicle

Strategies

This objective considers the situation in which the vehicle has already left the lane and is in 

the median. The strategies are designed to prevent the vehicles from crossing over into the 

other direction of travel and help redirect the vehicle in the direction of fl ow. The objective 

is to minimize head-on crashes.

Utilization of the median is central to the objective. Medians separate opposing traffi c 

streams, provide a recovery area for out-of-control vehicles, and provide a place for vehicles 

to stop in the event of an emergency. In addition, some median and median barriers can 

reduce oncoming headlight glare from vehicles. Strategies include:

• Provide wider medians (P, $$$$);

• Improve median design for vehicle recovery such as fi xing pavement edge drop-offs, 

paving median shoulders, and designing safer slopes (T, $$$); 

• Install median barrier, such as cable barriers for narrow width medians (P,$$); and

• Implement channelization, lighting, signing, and striping improvements at interchanges 

susceptible to wrong-way movements (T, E, $$).

Objective 3: Reduce the Severity of Median Barrier Crashes

Strategy

The goal of this strategy is to reduce the severity of the crash. Some of the less costly 

strategies may include replacing nonbreakaway or outdated roadside hardware with newer 

technology at selected locations. In considering this key strategy, reference should be made 

to the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide: 

• Improve design and application of barrier and attenuation systems (T, $$$).

See Exhibit III-28 for CMFs for 

shoulder rumble strips.
III-64

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 4: Enhance Enforcement and Awareness of Traffi c Regulations

Strategies

For any number of reasons, some stretches of roadway appear more challenging to drive. 

The reasons may relate to the location, climate, the local driving population, or other factors 

not directly related to roadway design. As a consequence, these roadways may experience 

a high rate of severe motor vehicle collisions, injuries, and fatalities. One strategy that may 

be considered to address these roadways is to designate the facility as a “Highway Safety 

Corridor,” and apply more frequent enforcement, low-cost engineering improvements, and 

education efforts to enhance safety along the corridor. Strategies include:

• Designate “Highway Safety Corridors” (T, $); 

• Enforce traffi c laws (T,9

 $$); and

• Conduct Public Information and Education campaigns (T, $$).

Best Practices

The Georgia Department of Transportation working with FHWA demonstrated the ability 

to construct the “Safety Edge” with no impact on production and at less than one percent 

additional material cost. Based on successful performance, GDOT incorporates the “Safety 

Edge” design into all resurfacing projects. Local city and county governments in Georgia, 

such as Gwinnett County, also are making the safety edge part of their routine overlay 

design. Other state DOTs (e.g., Indiana and New York) implemented the safety edge on 

several pilot projects in 2005. (See http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/index.htm.)

SCDOT installed 315.5 miles of three-strand cable on interstate segments with median 

widths less than 60 feet wide. In a three-year period, 1,913 vehicles were stopped by the 

barrier, and only 15 vehicles (one percent) penetrated the cable barrier. According to the 

study, cable median barriers were 99 percent effective in saving lives. Before installation 

of the barrier in 1999-2000, data showed that more than 70 people lost lives in 57 separate 

interstate median crashes. 

NCDOT in Public Roads 2005 reported that the installation of median barriers resulted in:

• An estimated 90 percent reduction in freeway cross-median crashes;

• Approximately 25 to 30 lives saved each year; and

• Hundreds of injuries prevented or reduced each year.

A number of states, including California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia, and Washington, established highway safety corridors. Oregon and California 

doubled moving violation fi nes within safety corridors, and Virginia implemented a 

maximum fi ne of $500 for speeding and $2,500 for reckless driving and driving under 

the infl uence. North Carolina and Washington provided enhanced enforcement but not 

increased fi nes. 

9

 Proven for DWI and restraint use, Countermeasures that Work, 2008.
III-65

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing Head-On Collisions on Freeways

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Federal Highway Administration “Rumble Strip Community of Practice” web page: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/.

Federal Highway Administration “Roadside Hardware” web site: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/.

Horizontal Curves

Problem Description

Collisions on horizontal curves represent a signifi cant proportion of fatal crashes. These 

crashes occur predominantly on two-lane rural highways that are often not part of the 

state DOT system. Management of safety on horizontal curves is a major challenge for 

highway agencies. It has been estimated that more than 10 million horizontal curves exist 

in the United States on two-lane highways alone. State highway agencies generally operate 

crash records systems to track crash locations. However, very few highway agencies have 

inventory fi les that identify the locations or geometrics of horizontal curves in a form 

that can be linked to crash data. Thus, safety concerns on horizontal curves can only be 

identifi ed indirectly, and typically, no formal means exists to review horizontal curves and 

identify those with adverse safety performance. Agencies that cannot identify potential 

problems on horizontal curves by automated means should consider other methods, 

including noting public complaints, skid marks, and damage to roadside hardware, trees, 

and utility poles.

Crashes on horizontal curves result in signifi cant amounts of injury because of the nature of 

the collisions. Slightly less than two percent of all crashes on curved roadway segments are 

fatal, but approximately 40 percent involve some type of injury.

The safety of curves is both a refl ection of the roadway itself and the roadside environment. 

The fi rst harmful event on a curved highway segment is just as likely to occur on the 

traveled way as off the traveled way. This section provides information on various 

effective countermeasures for addressing horizontal curve collisions. Working with safety 

practitioners is important in choosing the most effective approach.
III-66

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data

• In 2007, 28 percent of fatal crashes occurred 

along horizontal curves.

• Approximately 74 percent of curve-related 

fatal crashes were single-vehicle crashes, in 

which the vehicle left the roadway and struck 

a fi xed object or overturned.

• Eleven percent of curve-related crashes 

were head-on.

• Fifty-three percent of fatal crashes at 

horizontal curves occurred in nondaylight 

conditions.

Objective 1: Reduce the Likelihood of a 

Vehicle Leaving Its Lane and Crossing the 

Roadway Centerline or Leaving the Roadway on Horizontal Curves

Strategies

To reduce the likelihood of leaving the roadway on a curve, strategies should alert drivers 

to the presence of a curve and clearly delineate the roadway boundaries in the curve. In 

addition, engineering treatments may be implemented to make the roadway alignment and 

surface safer. Countermeasures for addressing curve-related crashes include the following:

• Provide advance warning of unexpected changes in horizontal alignment using “Curve”

signs, pavement markings, or advisory speed signs (T, $);

• Enhance delineation along the curve with 

markers, such as chevrons, post-mounted 

delineators, lane lines, or edgelines (T, $);

• Provide adequate sight distance that is not 

less than the stopping sight distance (T, $ – 

assuming no redesign of vertical curvature);

• Install shoulder rumble strips to alert the 

driver that the vehicle is straying from the 

roadway (P, $);

• Install centerline rumble strips to alert the driver when a vehicle strays from its travel 

lane into oncoming traffi c (T, $);

• Prevent edge drop-offs by retaining the shoulder at the same elevation as the travel lane 

or smoothing the transition between the traveled way and the shoulder (T, $ – assumed 

to be done at low cost as part of regular paving program);

• Provide skid-resistant pavement surfaces by adding overlays or microsurfacing (T, $$);

• Provide grooved pavement with longitudinal or transverse cuts to improve drainage and 

reduce wet-weather crashes (T, $$);

See Exhibit III-28 for Crash Modifi cation Factors 

for shoulder rumble strips. 

See Exhibit III-29 for Crash Modifi cation Factors 

for shoulder improvements.

See Exhibit III-34 for CrashModifi cation Factors for 

centerline rumble strips.

EXHIBIT III-37

Location of Fatal Crashes on Horizontal Curves by Roadway 

Classifi cation

Source: FARS 2007.
III-67

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide curve lighting (T, $$);

• Provide dynamic curve warning system, such 

as a radar device with a variable message sign 

listing the driver’s speed and a message to 

drivers traveling at excessive speeds to slow 

down (T, $$);

• Widen travel lanes and shoulders or add 

shoulders or a buffer zone in the middle of the 

roadway (P, $$$);

• Improve or restore superelevation, which 

works with friction between the tires and the 

pavement to counteract cornering forces on the 

vehicle (P, $$$);

• Modify horizontal alignment by increasing the radius of the curve, providing spiral 

transition curves that smooth the transition into and out of the curve, or eliminating 

compound curves (P, $$$$);

• Install automated anti-icing systems that pretreat the roadway surface with chemicals 

before precipitation occurs (T, $$$); and

• Prohibit/restrict trucks with very long semitrailers on roads with horizontal curves that 

cannot accommodate off-tracking, where the truck’s rear wheels follow a track to the 

inside of the front axle path (T, $$$).

Objective 2: Minimize the Adverse Consequences of Leaving the Roadway at a 

Horizontal Curve

Strategies

If a vehicle leaves the roadway, strategies can be implemented to reduce the severity of a 

crash, which also are discussed under the ROR crash section, including:

• Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers (P, $$$), which comprise 42 percent 

of the most harmful events for fatal single-vehicle ROR crashes;

• Remove/relocate objects in hazardous locations, such as trees, poles, and signposts; or 

shield objects with breakaway devices or crash cushions (P, $);

• Delineate trees or utility poles with retrorefl ective tape to improve their visibility, so 

drivers stay on the road and “safer escape route” information is available to vehicles that 

leave the roadway (E, $);

• Add or improve the design of roadside hardware, such as bridge rails and guardrail 

ends (T, $$$); and

• Improve design and application of barrier and noise attenuation systems (T, $$$).

EXHIBIT III-38

Improve Curve Superelevation

Superelevation 

Defi ciency (SD)

Crash 

Modifi cation Factor

< 0.01 1.00

0.01 < SD < 0.02 1.00+6 (SD-0.01)

> 0.02 1.06+3 (SD-0.02)

Note: Crash Modifi cation Factor applies to total 

 crashes occurring on curved roadway 

 segments. Crash Modifi cation Factor 

 applies to rural two-lane roads only.
III-68

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Resources

FHWA Roadway Departure Research and Resources web site: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/research/.

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 7: A Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Tree Collisions

Problem Description

One of the most common causes of fatal and severe injury crashes on rural roads is vehicles 

leaving the road and striking a fi xed object. Trees are the objects most commonly struck 

in ROR collisions, and tree impacts are generally quite severe. Tree crashes are strongly 

correlated with traffi c volume, roadway geometry, and overall roadside condition. Planners 

play an important role because they can weigh transportation safety against landscaping 

and environmental considerations. They can determine the most effective strategies with 

the least negative impact on community appearance.

Data

• In 2007, over two-thirds of fatal tree crashes occurred on rural roads.

• Of all fatal tree crashes, 90 percent occur on two-lane roads and fi ve percent on four-lane 

roads.

• For average daily traffi c (ADT) categories of 1,000 vehicles per day or below, 22 to 

24 percent of fi xed-object crashes involve striking trees. This compares to 16 percent 

involving tree crashes for roads with ADTs of 1,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day, and 11 

percent above 7,500 vehicles per day. Conversely, the percent of crashes involving 

utility poles, signs, and guardrails increases 

as ADT increases, which refl ects the increased 

number of these roadside features on higher 

volume, generally higher-class roads (Zegeer et 

al., 1990).

• In 2007, 58 percent of fatal tree crashes occur 

under nondaylight conditions, which is 

signifi cant given that much more traffi c occurs 

in daylight hours.

• Forty-seven percent of fatal tree crashes occur 

on curved roads.

Strategies for keeping vehicles on the road are 

important for reducing head-on collisions. These 

are included in the section on Addressing RunOff-Road Collisions. This section focuses on 

preventing trees from growing in hazardous 

EXHIBIT III-39

Fatal Tree Crashes by Number of Travel Lanes

2007

Source: 2007 FARS.
III-69

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

locations, eliminating hazardous conditions, and reducing the severity of crashes.

According to the literature and a survey of DOTs in 14 states, the issue of tree management 

must be addressed by several transportation disciplines working together, including the 

following:

• Construction and maintenance engineers need to provide guidance on roadside 

fl attening and tree removal as part of highway rehabilitation or reconstruction projects;

• Safety engineers need to identify cost-effective locations for tree removal safety 

enhancement projects; and

• Design engineers need to develop guidelines for construction of relatively fl at sideslopes, 

clear roadside recovery areas, and landscaping plans.

Objective 1: Prevent Trees from Growing in Hazardous Locations

Strategies

To prevent placing trees in hazardous locations, the DOT, communities, and conservation 

groups can be encouraged to plant and grow trees only in areas that are considered 

reasonably safe. Strategies include:

• Develop, revise, and implement planting guidelines to prevent placing trees in 

hazardous locations along new and existing facilities (T, $); and

• Develop, revise, and implement mowing and vegetation control guidelines to control 

trees that grow naturally in hazardous locations (P, $).

Objective 2: Eliminate the Hazardous Condition and/or Reduce the Severity of the 

Crash

Strategies

Tree removal can be approached reactively to address trees that have a history of crashes or 

proactively to address trees with a high likelihood of being struck. Good data are critical to 

identify hazardous locations. A tree removal program needs to target a substantial sample 

of road sections each year to have any effect on the problem. Limiting the program to too 

few locations will not have a noticeable impact for a long time and may erode confi dence 

in the program. Providing engineering treatments to shield drivers from striking trees is 

another approach to minimizing the impacts, although these treatments also may be struck 

by vehicles, resulting in less severe crashes. Strategies include the following:

• Remove trees in hazardous locations and ensure the roadside is free of stumps or deep 

depressions (P, $$);

• Provide guardrails to reduce crash severity by shielding motorists from striking trees 

(P, $$);
III-70

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Modify roadside clear zones in the vicinity of trees by implementing strategies, such 

as fl attening sideslopes and adding shoulder improvements, so vehicles leaving the 

roadway can recover before striking a tree (P, $$$); and

• Delineate trees in hazardous locations using refl ective stripes and other methods to make 

them more visible to drivers, if other strategies are not possible (E, $).

Best Practices

Caltrans Maintenance Manual, Vegetation Control Plan, Chapter C2: 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/manual/chc2(fi nal).pdf.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 3, A Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous 

Locations: http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Zeigler, 1986, Guide to Management of Roadside Trees: 

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/trees/assets/GuideMgmtRoadSideTrees.pdf.

Utility Pole Collisions 

Problem Description

Utility pole crashes involve vehicles leaving the travel 

lane and striking a utility pole. Utility poles represent 

one of the more substantial objects intentionally placed 

on roadsides, both in sheer number and in structural 

strength. Because of the structural strength and small 

vehicle contact area of utility poles, these crashes tend 

to be severe.

Utility pole crashes also can contribute to the severity 

of other crash types. Many crashes are not classifi ed 

as ROR or fi xed-object crashes, where one or more 

vehicles strike a utility pole. Crashes are often 

classifi ed by “fi rst harmful event.” In some cases, 

striking the utility pole is a secondary event that may 

be as severe as the fi rst event. Crashes involving 

utility poles as secondary events often go unnoticed. 

This section provides information on the various 

countermeasures that have been effective in 

addressing utility pole collisions. Working with safety 

practitioners is important in choosing the most 

effective approach.

EXHIBIT III-40

High-Speed Rural Road with Utility Poles Less 

Than 15 Feet from the Edge of the Outside of a 

Horizontal Curve

Source: NCHRP 500 Volume 8: A Guide to 

 Reduce Collisions Involving Utility 

 Poles.

Note: This site has experienced several 

 utility pole crashes due to vehicles 

 running off the road.
III-71

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data

• Forty percent of pole crashes involve some type of injury.

• One percent of pole crashes are fatal, and seven percent of injuries are incapacitating, 

according to 1999 GES data.

• Twelve percent of fatal pole crashes occurred in adverse weather conditions in 2007.

• One-third (34 percent) of fatal pole crashes occurred in full daylight in 2007.

Objective 1: Treat Specifi c Utility Poles in High-Crash and High-Risk Spot 

Locations

The fi rst step for this set of strategies is to identify poles located in high-crash locations or 

locations where the risk of future pole crashes is high. Removal or relocation of utility poles 

must be done in cooperation with the utility companies, and those companies should be 

involved in program planning as early as possible. Ideally through a partnership with the 

utility company a policy can be developed to proactively guide the location of new poles to 

maximize safety. Strategies that address the location of utility poles, shielding drivers from 

utility poles, and reducing the severity of these crashes include:

• Remove poles in high-crash locations 

identifi ed either reactively based on 

high numbers of crashes or proactively 

via safety audits (P, $ – assumes that 

individual poles are targeted as high 

risk);

• Relocate poles in high-crash locations 

farther from the roadway and/or to 

less vulnerable locations (P, $);

• Use breakaway devices, so vehicles 

pass through the pole, which does not 

require the vehicle to absorb as much 

energy and reduces crash severity (T, 

$$$);

• Shield drivers from poles in highcrash locations with guardrails, other 

roadside barriers, or crash cushions on 

the poles (P, $);

• Improve drivers’ ability to see poles 

in high-crash locations with refl ective 

taping if other strategies have been 

tried and failed (E, $); and

• Apply traffi c calming measures to 

reduce speeds on high-risk sections, such as those listed under “Objective 3: 

Reduce the Speed of Motor Vehicles” in the section on “Pedestrian Collisions” (T, $$).

EXHIBIT III-41

Percent Reduction in Crashes for Moving Poles Farther from 

the Roadway

Expected Percent Reduction in Pole Crashes

Pole Line 

Before 

Removal 

(feet)

Pole Line After Removal (Feet)

6 8 10 12 15 17 20 25 30

2 50 58 64 68 72 74 77 80 82

3 35 46 53 58 64 67 70 74 77

4 22 35 44 50 57 60 65 69 73

5 11 26 36 43 51 55 59 65 69

6 - 17 28 36 45 49 54 61 65

7 - 8 20 29 39 44 50 57 62

8 - - 13 23 33 39 45 53 58

10 - - - 11 23 29 37 45 52

11 - - - 5 18 25 33 42 49

12 - - - - 14 20 29 39 46

13 - - - - 9 16 25 35 43

14 - - - - 4 12 21 32 40

15 - - - - - 8 17 29 37

Source: Zegeer and Cynecki (1984).
III-72

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 2: Prevent Placing Utility Poles in High-Risk Locations

Strategy

• Develop, revise, and implement policies to prevent placing or replacing poles within the 

recovery area, which ensures each pole within the boundaries of a specifi c transportation 

project is reviewed to determine the level of risk to drivers and treated, if necessary (T, 

$).

Objective 3: Treat Several Utility Poles along a Corridor to Minimize the Likelihood 

of Crashing into a Utility Pole If a Vehicle Runs Off the Road

Strategies

Strategies designed to create a clear zone or improved recovery area along a corridor include 

the following:

• Place utilities underground if possible since urban utility poles also may have streetlights 

attached to them (P, $$$$);

• Relocate poles along the corridor farther from the roadway (10 feet or more from the 

curb) and/or to less vulnerable locations (P, $); and

• Decrease the number of poles along the corridor by increasing pole spacing, placing 

poles on one side of the street only, or by using poles for multiple purposes (P, $$$).

Best Practice

Washington State DOT policy on utility placement: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

publications/manuals/fulltext/m22-86/UtilitiesAccommodationPolicy.pdf.

Resource

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 8: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Utility Poles: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

TRB State of the Art Report 9: Utilities and Roadside Safety: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sar/sar_9.pdf.

Occupant Protection

Problem Description

This section addresses increasing the proper use of safety belts; child safety seats, including 

infant carriers and booster seats; and motorcycle helmets. When mandatory safety belt 

use laws were enacted in most states in the 1980s, they usually differed from most other 

traffi c laws in one specifi c aspect: a police offi cer could not stop a vehicle if the only visible 
III-73

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

violation was failure to use a safety belt. The offi cer could take enforcement action only if 

unrestrained passengers were identifi ed following a traffi c stop for some other purpose. 

This type of law is generally referred to as “secondary enforcement.” While secondary 

enforcement has been successful in raising restraint use, permitting standard, or primary, 

enforcement has produced generally higher use rates.

“It would be impossible to overstate the 

lifesaving and dollar-saving impact of 

increases in safety belt use.”10 The single 

most effective strategy for improving 

occupant restraint use rates is enactment 

of standard enforcement laws in all states, 

and all secondary law states with support 

from NHTSA are working toward this 

goal. The focus here, however, is on what 

can be accomplished by single agencies 

or local coalitions. While use rates have 

steadily increased, the rate of increase has 

slowed. The “easy” converts to restraint 

use have buckled up. The challenge now 

is to increase restraint use among those 

who have not yet been convinced by 

educational or enforcement messages.

While laws prove helpful in increasing 

occupant restraint use, the laws alone are 

not suffi cient. The public must be made 

aware of the law and have a reasonable 

expectation that the laws will be enforced.

Raising national use rates to higher 

levels will save lives, reduce injuries, and 

produce signifi cant economic benefi ts. 

Other studies have shown that those with 

the highest crash risk (generally young 

male drivers from less educated and lower 

socioeconomic levels) also are those with 

the lowest restraint use rates. Therefore, 

even though the increases in percent use will be smaller, the potential savings in both lives 

and economic loss can be proportionately higher.

Child restraints have been found effective in reducing the risk of death and injury to infants 

and children. However, crashes continue to occur in which apparently restrained children 

are being injured and killed, largely due to improper use of restraint systems. The issue to 

be addressed then is ensuring their proper use.

Planners understand the limits on resources for transportation infrastructure improvements. 

Given that not every roadway will be able to undergo all the safety improvements that 

may be desired, the most effective strategy to reduce death and serious injury on the 

roadways is to ensure that all persons in a vehicle are wearing safety belts. Planners can 

help communicate the messages that work to change the culture of safety and people’s 

10 Former NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. in a November 17, 2003 news release.

EXHIBIT III-42

Safety Belt Use Rates by State 

2006 and 2007

State 2006 2007 State 2006 2007

Alabama 82.9% 82.3% Montana 79.0% 79.6%

Alaska 83.2% 82.4% Nebraska 76.0% 78.7%

Arizona 78.9% 80.9% Nevada 91.2% 92.2%

Arkansas 69.3% 69.9% New Hampshire 63.5% 63.8%

California 93.4% 94.6% New Jersey 90.0% 91.4%

Colorado 80.3% 81.1% New Mexico 89.6% 91.5%

Connecticut 83.5% 85.8% New York 83.0% 83.5%

Delaware 86.1% 86.6% North Carolina 88.5% 88.8%

Dist. of Columbia 85.4% 87.1% North Dakota 79.0% 82.2%

Florida 80.7% 79.1% Ohio 81.7% 81.6%

Georgia 90.0% 89.0% Oklahoma 83.7% 83.1%

Hawaii 92.5% 97.6% Oregon 94.1% 95.3%

Idaho 79.8% 78.5% Pennsylvania 86.3% 86.7%

Illinois 87.8% 90.1% Rhode Island 74.0% 79.1%

Indiana 84.3% 87.9% South Carolina 72.5% 74.5%

Iowa 89.6% 91.3% South Dakota 71.3% 73.1%

Kansas 73.5% 75.0% Tennessee 78.6% 80.2%

Kentucky 67.2% 71.8% Texas 90.4% 91.8%

Louisiana 74.8% 75.2% Utah 88.6% 86.8%

Maine 77.2% 79.8% Vermont 82.4% 87.1%

Maryland 91.1% 93.1% Virginia 78.7% 79.9%

Massachusetts 66.9% 68.7% Washington 96.3% 96.4%

Michigan 94.3% 93.7% West Virginia 88.5% 89.6%

Minnesota 83.3% 87.8% Wisconsin 75.4% 75.3%

Mississippi 73.6% 71.8% Wyoming 63.5% 72.2%

Missouri 75.2% 77.2% Puerto Rico 92.7% 92.1%

Source: NHTSA. Rates in states and territories are from surveys

 conducted in accordance with Section 157, Title 23, U.S. Code.
III-74

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

behavior must be done in tandem with roadway safety improvements. Improving safety 

belt compliance by just a few percent would save many lives.

Data

• Of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, 54 

percent were unrestrained in 2007. 

• Two-thirds of pickup truck drivers killed in 

crashes were unrestrained in 2007. 

• In 2007, on a national level, safety belt use was 

82 percent, with 32 states and the District of 

Columbia exceeding 80 percent.

• As of July 2008, 26 states and the District of 

Columbia had primary safety belt laws in 

place, and only one state (New Hampshire) 

lacked a mandatory use law for those over age 

18.

• In 2007, restraint use varied by state from 

64 percent (New Hampshire) to 95 percent 

or higher (California, Hawaii, Oregon, and 

Washington).

• Research has found that when lap/shoulder 

seat belts are used, the risk of fatal injury to 

front-seat passenger car occupants is reduced 

by 45 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 50 percent (NHTSA).

• Seventy-three percent of child seats were misused according to a 2004 study by NHTSA.

Objective 1: Initiate Programs to Maximize the Use of Occupant Restraints by All 

Vehicle Occupants

Strategies

Large-scale enforcement of safety belt laws is critical to demonstrate to the public that failure 

to wear a safety belt is breaking the law. Past work in this area has shown enforcement 

must be complemented with public information and education campaigns to be effective. 

Strategies include:

• Conduct highly publicized enforcement campaigns to maximize restraint use, such as 

the national model “Click it or Ticket” campaign that uses checkpoints and a massive 

media campaign (P, $$);

• Provide enhanced public education to population groups with lower than average 

restraint use rates, and gain support by group leaders prior to implementation of 

education programs (P, $); and

• Encourage the enactment of local laws that permit local primary enforcement of restraint 

laws in states without primary safety belt laws (T, $).

Source: NHTSA.

EXHIBIT III-43

Safety Belt Use Rates 

1983-2007
III-75

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 2: Ensure Restraints, Especially Child and Infant Restraints, Are 

Properly Used

Strategies

In most cases, child and infant seats are used improperly out of ignorance. To ensure 

parents and caregivers use child and infant restraints properly, education and inspections 

can be conducted through several forums. Strategies include the following:

• Provide community locations for instruction in proper child restraint use that are almost 

always available (e.g., public safety agencies and health care providers) (T, $);

• Conduct high-profi le child-restraint inspection events at multiple community locations 

with an emphasis on education versus enforcement (P, $); and

• Train law enforcement personnel to check for proper child restraint use in all motorist 

encounters (T, $$).

Objective 3: Provide Access to Appropriate Information, Materials, and Guidelines 

for those Implementing Programs to Increase Occupant Restraint Use

Strategy

Create a state-level clearinghouse for materials on programs to increase restraint use that 

organizes and catalogues the range of materials available (E, $$).

Best Practices

Summary of the State of California’s highly regarded car seat law: 

http://www.carseat.org/Legal/6_sum_CA_Law.pdf.

Hoffman Estates, Illinois ordinance permitting local primary enforcement of safety belt use: 

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/site_map/default.htm.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 11: A Guide for Increasing Seatbelt Use: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety 

Offi ces, Governors Highway Safety Association (2009): http://www.ghsa.org/html/

publications/index.html#countermeasures.

AAA: http://www.aaafoundation.org/products/index.cfm.

NHTSA Occupant Protection Program: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/

menuitem.cda13865569778598fcb6010dba046a0/.
III-76

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Heavy Truck Collisions

Problem Description

In 2006, large trucks accounted for four percent of all registered vehicles and seven percent 

of total VMT. Combination-unit trucks were found to have a markedly different crash 

involvement profi le than vehicles in general (Wang et al., 1999), given their high-mileage 

exposure and the severity of their crashes. Overall, the quantitative crash experience for 

single-unit large trucks (straight trucks) on an individual vehicle level is more similar to 

light vehicles than to combination-unit trucks.

The GES system data for 1999 provides data on the “critical event” that made a crash 

imminent, as shown in Exhibit III-44. There are two kinds of critical events: 1) those 

associated with the truck; and 2) those associated with the other vehicle, person, or object. 

A preliminary report from the FMCSA/NHTSA Large-Truck Crash Causation Study shows 

the critical event preceding a crash between a heavy truck and light vehicle was a truck 

driver action in 29 percent of crashes and an action of the other driver in 60 percent of 

crashes. The remaining 11 percent were associated with the roadway, weather, truck vehicle 

failure, other vehicle failure, or other/unknown events.

When other vehicles dart in front of and around heavy trucks, truck drivers may be forced 

to take avoidance measures that, in turn, may cause problems with controlling the truck. Of 

particular concern is the area around the truck that has been referred to as the “No-Zone.” 

This space is especially dangerous for passenger vehicles, because it includes driver blind 

spots, as well as space required for the truck to decelerate. The “No-Zone” area includes the 

areas:

• Immediately behind the large truck and within its same lane;

• Immediately in front of the large truck and within its same lane;

• To the left of the large truck, adjacent to the cab and in the adjoining lane; and

• To the right of the large truck, behind the cab and in the adjoining lane.

An analysis of two-vehicle crashes involving a large truck and a passenger vehicle found 35 

percent of the crashes involved the passenger vehicle moving into the No Zone. A driver of 

a passenger car will know they are in the “No Zone” if the driver cannot see the head of the 

truck driver through a window or mirror.

According to analysis of a Michigan program called Fatal Accident Complaint Team (FACT) 

that investigated trucks involved in fatal crashes, 66 percent of trucks had at least one outof-service (OOS) violation by either the truck driver or the truck. Although high rates of 

vehicle defects, including OOS problems, are found in heavy trucks in general, large trucks 

in crashes have higher rates of vehicle defects related to the types of crashes involved.

The split of crashes between minor and principal facilities is about equal, which indicates 

the likelihood that at least one-half of crashes are occurring on nonstate highways. The 

majority of heavy-truck crashes occur on two-lane roads. This section provides information 

on effective countermeasures for addressing heavy truck collisions. Working with safety 

practitioners is important in choosing the most effective approach.
III-77

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

EXHIBIT III-44

Critical Event for Crashes Involving Single-Unit and Tractor Trucks

Source: GES 1999.

Note: For medium and heavy weight >4,536 kg GVWR.
III-78

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data

• In 2007, large trucks accounted 

for eight percent of vehicles 

involved in fatal motor vehicle 

crashes.

• One out of nine traffi c fatalities 

in 2007 resulted from a 

collision involving a large 

truck.

• Of the fatalities resulting from 

crashes involving large trucks, 

75 percent were occupants 

of another vehicle, 8 percent 

were nonoccupants, and 17 

percent were occupants of a 

large truck.

• In crashes between large 

trucks and passenger vehicles, 

passenger vehicle driver errors 

or other factors are twice as likely to be cited as truck driver errors or other factors 

(FHWA, 1999; Blower, 1999).

• Sixty-three percent of fatal heavy-truck crashes occurred on rural roads and 37 percent 

occurred on urban facilities in 2007.

• Seventy-two percent of fatal crashes involving trucks occurred on two-lane roads in 

2007.

Objective 1: Reduce Fatigue-Related Crashes

Strategies

A major problem for many truck drivers is fi nding a place to stop and rest at night, as well 

as during the day. The inadequate number and quality of public rest stops contributes to 

fatigue for the nation’s truck drivers. Strategies include:

• Increase effi ciency of existing truck parking spaces at rest areas by providing improved 

information on space availability to truckers, such as variable message signs before an 

exit (E, $);

• Create additional parking spaces at rest areas, including allowing trucks to use spaces for 

private vehicles during nighttime hours when they are often underutilized (T, $$); and

• Incorporate rumble strips into new and existing roadways to help maintain driver 

alertness (N/A, $$).

Source: 2007 FARS data.

Note: Crashes on one-lane roads, blank, or other represented 

 one percent.

EXHIBIT III-45

Number of Travel Lanes for Fatal Crashes Involving Trucks
III-79

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 2: Strengthen the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) Program

Strategies

The need to strengthen the CDL program has been recognized. In particular, it is critical 

that all states achieve parity in their adherence to Federal requirements because a CDL from 

one state allows a driver to operate in any other state, and heavy trucks typically operate 

across state lines. Strategies include:

• Improve test administration for the CDL, such as offering computerized tests (T, $); and

• Increase fraud detection of state and third-party testers to ensure interstate reporting of 

infractions and reduce fraudulent license issuing (T, $).

Objective 3: Increase Knowledge about Sharing the Road

Strategies

Drivers of private vehicles are twice as likely to be cited for driver error in crashes involving 

heavy trucks and private vehicles than truck drivers. In one study analyzing critical 

incidents involving the interaction of large trucks and light vehicles, the most common 

errors were lane changes without suffi cient gaps, entrance onto the roadway without 

adequate clearance to the trailing truck, left turns without adequate clearance to the trailing 

truck, and late braking for stopped or stopping traffi c. More than three-quarters of such 

incidents were attributed to drivers of light vehicles in the vicinity of trucks. Clearly, 

the driving public needs to improve its driving practices in the vicinity of large trucks. 

Strategies include:

• Incorporate information from the “Share the Road 

Safely” campaign developed by FMCSA and its 

partners into driver education materials, such as those 

developed by the American Driver and Traffi c Safety 

Education Association (T, $); and

• Disseminate “Share the Road Safely” information 

developed by FMCSA and its partners via the media, 

including public service announcements (T, $).

Objective 4: Improve Maintenance of Heavy Trucks

Strategies

The extent to which vehicle mechanical defects constitute a direct causal or severityincreasing factor is diffi cult to assess. Nevertheless, one study11 showed that truck brake, 

tire, and other mechanical defects contribute “substantially” to truck crashes. Strategies 

include:

11 Blower, 2002.
III-80

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Increase and strengthen truck maintenance programs and inspections, which are largely 

supported by the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding to states 

(N/A, $$$); and

• Conduct post-crash inspections to identify major problems and conditions that will 

contribute to a body of state-specifi c data to enhance overall truck safety efforts (E, $$$).

Objective 5: Identify and Correct Unsafe Roadway Infrastructure and Operational 

Characteristics

Strategies

Trucks have higher centers of gravity and are vulnerable to rollovers in certain locations. 

Additionally, the greater heights of the vehicles are associated with lower perceived vehicle 

speeds12 by drivers. Therefore, warning signs of high-risk areas can be useful to truck 

drivers. Strategies include:

• Identify and treat high truck crash roadway segments with methods such as signing to 

alert drivers and modify their driving (E, $);

• Install interactive truck rollover signing that uses weight and speed detectors and fl ashes 

a warning sign for trucks assessed to be at rollover risk, located at high-risk locations 

such as highway ramps or curves (P, $$); and

• Modify speed limits and increase enforcement to reduce truck and other vehicle speeds 

at dangerous locations, such as curves and steep downgrades (T, $$).

Objective 6: Improve and Enhance Truck Safety Data

Strategy

Trucks cross state lines much more often than other vehicle traffi c. Averaging almost 65,000 

miles annually, combination trucks travel through many jurisdictions and consequently may 

incur violations in multiple districts. A primary purpose of the CDL is to limit a driver to a 

single license and to establish a reporting system that compiles a single record incorporating 

data from all jurisdictions where infractions or crashes occur. Because of truck speed and 

distance covered, for data to be useful, they must be complete, accurate, and available 

rapidly.

• Increase the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of truck safety data through models, 

such as the Vehicle Safety Inspection System (VSIS) within the Traffi c and Criminal 

Software (TraCS) program or the U.S. DOT-developed ASPEN program (N/A, $$$).

12 Rudin-Brown.
III-81

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 7: Promote Industry Safety Initiatives

Strategies

Enforcement strategies are intended to ensure that all motor carriers and drivers comply 

with certain fundamental safety requirements. However, punishment is not the only way 

to stimulate safety-related changes in the motor carrier industry. Educational approaches 

complement enforcement and can address safety practices not related to compliance. 

Strategies include:

• Perform safety consultations with carrier safety management (P, $$$); and

• Promote development and deployment of truck safety technologies (E, $$$).

Best Practices

Maryland has a preventive maintenance program for trucks that is among the most 

stringent in the nation. Maryland commercial vehicle operators are required to regularly 

inspect their vehicles, maintain paperwork, and prove compliance in a manner far more 

detailed than Federal law. Information on the preventive maintenance program is located 

at: http://www.mdot.state.md.us/MMCP/PMProgram.html.

Iowa TraCS: Traffi c and Criminal Software is a national model for using new technologies 

for improving data collection and analysis (http://www.iowatracs.us/).

Tennessee Department of Safety Alternative Commercial Enforcement Strategies uses 

specially trained offi cers to visit fl eets in an advisory rather than enforcement approach 

(http://www.state.tn.us/safety/CVE/ACES.html).

Michigan Center for Truck Safety offers free and low-cost training and consultation to truck 

drivers and carrier safety managers (http://www.truckingsafety.org/).

FMCSA offers their Safety is Good Business Program 

(http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/good-business/index.htm).

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 13: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Heavy Trucks: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Share the Road Safely: http://www.sharetheroadsafely.org.

American Driver and Traffi c Safety Education Association (ADTSEA): 

http://adtsea.iup.edu/adtsea/.

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program: 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/safety-initiatives/mcsap/mcsap.htm.
III-82

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Motorcycles

Problem Description 

Motorcycling provides a gas saving alternative to driving and the joy of operating a 

powered two wheeled vehicle. However, operating a motorcycle requires a much greater 

level of fi nesse and skill than operating an automobile, or even a bicycle. 

Motorcyclists are about 35 times more likely to die in a crash than someone riding in a 

passenger car, and eight times more likely to be injured (NHTSA). Motorcycle fatalities 

have more than doubled since 1997, accounting for 13 percent of all traffi c fatalities in 2007 

(FARS). 

Creating a motorcycle-friendly environment 

includes:

• Keeping the roadway free of foreign debris;

• Providing a safe roadside free of obstacles to 

motorcyclists;

• Maintaining safe roadway surfaces and proper 

signage during maintenance projects; and

• Providing suffi cient warning devices to 

motorcyclists prior to encountering potentially 

dangerous zones. 

Behavioral issues are major factors in motorcycle 

safety. Alcohol-related fatalities among 

motorcyclists are proportionally higher than in 

any other motor vehicle group. Speeding is more 

common among motorcyclists than drivers of passenger vehicles. Helmets are the single 

most important piece of equipment for motorcyclists’ safety, but helmets are not required 

in all states and their use has been declining. Furthermore, safe (FMVSS 218- compliant) 

helmets often are not used in those states with helmet laws; as a result, the users of “fake”

helmets experience increased injury. Operation of a motorcycle requires specialized training 

and licensing in all 50 states, yet a signifi cant proportion of riders involved in motorcycle 

crashes are unlicensed.

Data

• Motorcycle fatalities rose seven percent from 4,837 in 2006 to 5,154 in 2007. 103,000 

motorcyclists were injured in 2007.

• Forty-one percent of motorcyclists killed in a crash were not wearing a helmet, according 

to 2007 FARS data.

• The National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) has shown that usage of FMVSS 

21813 compliant helmets declined from 71 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2007.

13 The National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed and enforces 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 (FMVSS 218), which provides minimum performance 

requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists.

EXHIBIT III-46

Motorcycle Fatalities

1997-2007

Source: FARS.
III-83

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to 

motorcyclists. This means that for every 100 motorcyclists killed in crashes while not 

wearing a helmet, 37 of them could have been saved had all 100 worn a helmet.

• One-half of all fatal motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle crashes versus 44 percent of all 

motor vehicle crashes, according to 2007 FARS data. 

• Speed is a contributing factor in 36 percent of fatal crashes involving motorcycles, 

compared to 24 percent for drivers of passenger cars and 19 percent for drivers of light 

trucks (FARS 2007).

• One-fourth (26 percent) of motorcycle operators involved in a fatal collision did not 

have a valid license at the time of collision in 2007. Typically, riders who are operating 

a motorcycle with an invalid license are actually operating a vehicle “out of class,”

meaning that the rider has an automobile license but the license is not lawfully endorsed 

for motorcycle operation.

• Nearly one-half (49 percent) of motorcyclist fatalities involved riders age 40 or older in 

2007, compared to 33 percent of fatalities involving this age group in 1997.

Objective 1: Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by Incorporating 

Motorcycle-Friendly Roadway Design, Traffi c Control, Construction, and 

Maintenance Policies and Practices

Strategies

Shoulders to accommodate roadside recovery and breakdown are desirable for all vehicle 

types including motorcyclists. Selection of roadside hardware and pavement marking 

material should also consider motorcycle safety as well as other vehicle types. Pavement 

that is not maintained, grooved, or uneven, particularly in work zones, presents a signifi cant 

risk to motorcyclists. Signage alerting motorcycles to uneven pavement and low-traction 

pavement markings is helpful. Additionally, roadway debris poses a greater problem for 

motorcycles than for larger vehicles. Strategies include: 

• Provide fully paved shoulders to accommodate roadside 

motorcycle recovery and breakdowns (T, $$$$);

• When considering roadside barriers ensure that the type 

selected improves safety for motorcycles as well as other 

vehicle types (E, $$$);

• Replace low-traction pavement markings, surface materials, and other treatments with 

high-traction material (T, $$$);

• Maintain the roadway to minimize surface irregularities and discontinuities (T, $);

• Maintain roadway surfaces in work zones to facilitate safe passage of motorcycles (T, $);

• Reduce debris from the roadway and roadside such as gravel, shorn treads, snow and ice 

control treatments (sand/salt), and debris resulting from uncovered loads (T, $$$);

See Exhibit III- 29 for Crash 

Modifi cation Factors for 

shoulder width and type.
III-84

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Provide warning signs to alert motorcyclists of low-traction and irregular roadway 

surfaces (T, $$$); 

• Incorporate motorcycle safety considerations into routine roadway inspections (E, $); 

and

• Provide a mechanism for road users to notify highway agencies of roadway conditions 

that present a potential problem for motorcyclists (E, $$).

Objective 2: Reduce the Incidence of Rider Impairment on the Highway

Strategies

Motorcycles require a greater level of fi nesse and skill to operate than automobiles, small 

trucks, and bicycles in traffi c. Anything that impairs that concentration, coordination, and 

judgment can potentially be fatal. Strategies include:

• Increase motorcyclist awareness of the risks of impaired motorcycle operation (T, $);

• Expand existing impairment prevention programs to include motorcycle riders and 

specifi c motorcycle events (T, $); and

• Target law enforcement to specifi c motorcycle rider impairment behaviors that have 

been shown to contribute to crashes (T, $).

Objective 3: Reduce the Number of Unlicensed and Untrained Motorcycle Riders 

on the Highway

Strategies

Motorcycle licensing programs and requirements for testing are in place in all states and 

the District of Columbia. Licensing components include a special motorcycle operator’s 

manual, knowledge test, skills test, learner’s permit, and license endorsement.14 In many 

states, licensing programs are waived for completion of a state-approved motorcycle rider 

training course. Strategies include:

• Increase awareness of the causes of crashes due to unlicensed or untrained motorcycle 

riders (E, $);

• Ensure licensing and rider training programs adequately measure skills and behaviors 

required for crash avoidance (T, $); and

• Identify and remove barriers to obtaining the training or testing required for a 

motorcycle endorsement.(T, $).

14 An endorsement is a notation on a driver’s license indicating a person has met the requirements for 

operating a motorcycle.
III-85

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 4: Increase the Visibility of Motorcyclists

Strategies

A common complaint of motorcyclists is that passenger car drivers often do not see them 

and, as a result, violate the motorcyclists’ right-of-way. It is incumbent upon motorcyclists 

to recognize how visibility issues affect their safety and to prepare accordingly. Strategies 

include:

• Increase the awareness of the benefi t of high-visibility clothing in bright colors with 

retrorefl ective material (E, $); and

• Identify and promote visibility-enhancement methods and technology such as improved 

headlights and brake lights (T, $).

Objective 5: Reduce the Severity of Motorcycle Crashes

Strategies 

If a motorcycle crash occurs, protective gear can make the difference between life and death. 

When worn, FMVSS 218-compliant helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in 

preventing fatalities in crashes. Strategies include:

• Increase the use of FMVSS 218-compliant helmets (P, $$); and

• Increase awareness of the benefi t of protective clothing such as garments of leather or 

ballistic nylon with body padding or armor (T, $$).

Objective 6: Increase Motorcycle Rider Safety Awareness

Strategies 

Motorcycle riding/driving is signifi cantly more risky than driving or riding in a car. Rider 

education should include not only skills training, but also a discussion of the potential 

consequences of unsafe and aggressive riding. Safety behavior and awareness are major 

factors in many motorcycle crashes. Motorcycle rider safety awareness strategies include:

• Increase awareness of the consequences of aggressive riding, riding while fatigued or 

impaired, and unsafe riding of large, powerful motorcycles (T, $$); 

• Educate operators of other vehicles to be more conscious of the presence of motorcyclists 

(T, $).

Objective 7: Increase Safety Enhancements for Motorcycles

Strategy

Many advances are being made with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), but often the 

technology is developed without considering motorcycles in the design. For example, traffi c 

management strategies frequently employ the use of sensors embedded in the pavement; 

however, these sensors often cannot detect the presence of a motorcycle. The key strategy is:

• Include motorcycles in the research, development, and deployment of ITS (E, $$$).
III-86

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 8: Improve Motorcycle Safety Research, Data, and Analysis

Strategies

Motorcycles are often overlooked during crash data gathering efforts. The frequency 

of motorcycle crashes is considerably lower than the frequency of automobile crashes; 

therefore, motorcycle crash data analysis is often limited to the evaluation of rider 

compliance with legislated safety measures (e.g., helmets, licensing). To improve the ability 

to develop effective motorcycle strategies improved data collection is needed. Strategies 

include:

• Develop and implement standardized data gathering and reporting for motorcycle 

crashes in cooperation with law enforcement agencies (N/A, $$);

• Include motorcycle attributes in vehicle exposure data collection programs (N/A, $$$); 

and

• Develop a set of analysis tools for motorcycle crashes (N/A, $$$).

Other Strategies

While not included in the 500 series guides, the following strategies from the FHWA Offi ce of 

Safety are accepted safety practices: (For more information see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

mac/)

• Fix or remove surface irregularies, such as railroad crossings, utility covers, potholes, 

and road/shoulder resurfacing locations where pavement edges make for unsafe 

motorcycle travel (Objective 1);

• Install motorcycle-friendly rumble strips (Objective 1);

• Remove roadside hazards (Objective 1; see section on Run-off-Road Collisions);

• Raise awareness and provide training for law enforcement on cues that a motorcyclist 

may be impaired; (Objective 2);

• Improve enforcement of motorcycle-related laws, such as helmet and licensing laws 

(Objective 3); and

• Increase motorcycle safety education at state licensing facilities, motorcycle dealers, and 

other venues (Objective 3).

Best Practices

Examples of cities that have implemented pothole hotlines and Internet-based notifi cation 

systems include:

• St. Louis, Missouri: http://stlcin.missouri.org/csb/csb2.cfm?CategoryId=48; and

• Seattle, Washington: http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/potholereport.htm.

Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program materials, including Motorcycle Safety Action Plan 

2004: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/motorcycle/.
III-87

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

A Motorcycle Safety Advisory Board has served Washington State since 1982. Information is 

available at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.520. 

Massachusetts tips for sharing the road with motorcyclists: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/

motorcycle/tips.htm.

Wisconsin has linked motorcycle crash information with hospital information to determine 

the impact of helmet use and alcohol consumption on motorcycle crashes:

http://www.chsra.wisc.edu/codes/motorcycle_crash_information.htm.

The Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program provides training and education, rider testing 

and licensing, free safety materials, and public safety announcements:

http://www.motorcyclesafety.state.mn.us.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, NHTSA and Motorcycle Safety Foundation:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/

00-NHT-212-motorcycle/toc.html.

NHTSA Motorcycle Safety Program, January 2003:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.d7975d55e8abbe089ca8e410dba046a0/.

NCHRP Report 486: Systemwide Impact of Safety and Traffi c Operations Design Decisions for 

Resurfacing, Restoration, or Rehabilitation (RRR) Projects:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_486_full.pdf.

The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) samples of 

campaigns, advertisements, billboards, posters, brochures and bumper stickers to reduce 

impaired riding: http://www.smsa.org/motorcycle_awareness/promotional_materials/.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) free PSA materials: http://msf-usa.org.

Current status of motorcycle helmet legislation is summarized by the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety: http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx.

Costs of Injuries Resulting from Motorcycle Crashes: A Literature Review, 2003, National 

Highway Traffi c Safety Administration: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/

appa.html.

Governors Highway Safety Administration, Survey of the States: Motorcycle Safety Programs (2008): 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/survey/survey_ofthe_states.html.
III-88

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Work Zone Collisions

Problem Description

The safe and effi cient fl ow of traffi c through work zones is a high priority for transportation 

offi cials and the motoring public. Work zones are estimated to contribute 10 percent of all 

congestion in the United States. According to the FHWA, as congestion builds within and 

approaching work zones, crash rates increase. Additionally, the safety of workers in work 

zones is of primary importance. Roadway workers are killed at a rate nearly three times as 

high as other construction workers and eight times higher than general industry workers.

The need for continued focus on work zone safety becomes more apparent because of the 

current emphasis on system preservation rather than construction of new facilities. In 2000, 

the share of capital funds used for system preservation was 52 percent and this percentage 

is expected to continue to rise. Thirteen percent of the National Highway system is under 

construction each year, during the peak summer work season (Wunderlich and Hardesty, 

2003). This section provides information on effective countermeasures for addressing 

work zone collisions. Working with safety practitioners is important in choosing the most 

effective approach.

Data

• In 2007, half of all fatal work zone crashes occurred during daylight.

• Thirty percent of work zone fatal crashes occurred on either urban or rural Interstates.

• Overall, slightly more fatal crashes occurred in urban work zones than in rural work 

zones.

• Sixty-one percent of work zone fatal crashes occurred on roads with a posted speed limit 

of 55 mph or greater.

• Single-vehicle crashes accounted for one-half of all work zone fatal crashes in 2007.

• Heavy trucks were involved in nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of fatal work zone crashes.

• Alcohol was involved in 36 percent of work zone fatalities in 2007 (National Work Zone 

Safety Information Clearinghouse).

Objective 1: Reduce the Number, Duration, and Impact of Work Zones

Strategies

Reducing the number of work zones and the length of time work zones are set up will 

reduce the exposure of drivers and workers to crashes. Strategies include:

• Improve maintenance and construction practices to accelerate construction and manage 

assets better (P, $$$);
III-89

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Utilize full-time roadway closure for construction operations to complete work faster, 

more cost-effectively, and more safely (T, $);

• Utilize time-related contract provisions to ensure construction schedules are as effi cient 

as possible (P, $$);

• Use nighttime road work so work is conducted during less heavily traffi cked periods 

and exposure is reduced (P, $);

• Use demand management programs, such as carpooling, vanpooling, and transit, to 

reduce volume through work zones (P, $$$); and

• Design future work zone capacity into new or reconstructed highways and make work 

zone considerations an explicit tradeoff on decision-making for new construction and 

reconstruction (T, $$$$).

Objective 2: Improve Work Zone Traffi c Control Devices

Strategies

Traffi c control devices are used to communicate 

with drivers in advance of and within work zones. 

It is important to inform the driver of the desired 

actions and the correct path through the work zone. 

ITS also can be used to inform drivers of delays and 

alternative routes. Strategies include:

• Implement ITS strategies to improve safety 

(E, $$);

• Improve visibility of work zone traffi c control 

devices (T, $$); and

• Improve visibility of work zone personnel and 

vehicles (varies, $$).

Objective 3: Improve Work Zone Design 

Practices

Strategies 

Changes in the basic approach to designing work zones may offer opportunities for 

improved safety:

• Establish work zone design guidance on topics, such as lane transitions, lane widths, and 

edge drop-offs (T,$);

• Implement measures to reduce work space intrusions and limit the consequences of 

intrusions (T, $$$); and

• Improve work zone safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and heavy-truck 

drivers (T, $$$).

EXHIBIT III-47

Type III Barricade Spaced at Intervals in Closed 

Lane to Reduce Intrusion Risk

Source: NCHRP 500 Volume 17: A Guide for 

 Reducing Work Zone Collisions.
III-90

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 4: Improve Driver Compliance with Work Zone Traffi c Controls

Strategies

Frequent and visible enforcement is generally accepted as highly effective in gaining 

compliance with traffi c laws and regulations in work zones. The physical presence of a law 

enforcement offi cer in the work zone is the most effective way to maximize compliance. 

Strategies include:

• Enhance enforcement of traffi c laws in work zones (T, $$), including automated 

enforcement;

• Improve credibility of signs (E, $) by ensuring they are updated to refl ect actual 

conditions and are informative; and

• Improve application of increased driver penalties in work zones (T, $).

Objective 5: Increase Knowledge and Awareness of Work Zones

Strategies

Public information and education campaigns can be used to educate drivers on work zone 

safety issues at both a high level and a project level. Training programs for staff who design 

work zones are important. Strategies include:

• Disseminate work zone safety information to road users through DOT web site postings 

and other venues (T, $$); and

• Provide work zone training programs and manuals for designers and fi eld staff (T, $).

Objective 6: Develop Procedures to Effectively Manage Work Zones

Strategies

• Develop or enhance agency-level work zone crash data systems, which include data 

beyond that in a crash database on a range of aspects of each work zone (T, $$).

• Improve coordination, planning, and scheduling of work activities, such as coordinating 

a series of work zones along a corridor (T, $$).

• Use incentives to create and operate safer work zones, such as award programs to 

recognize the best outreach and training programs on work zone safety (T, $$).

• Implement work zone quality assurance procedures, such as safety inspections or audits 

(T, $$).
III-91

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Best Practices

Virginia DOT’s Work Area Protection Manual: 

http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/1-WEBwapmCOVER.pdf.

Work Area Protection Guide, Illinois DOT, Bureau of Operations, 1997 order form: 

http://www.dot.state.il.us/blr/publication.html.

Illinois Bureau of Design and Environment Manual, 2002 Edition: 

http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/bdemanual.html.

Washington State DOT’s Design Manual: 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 17: A Guide for Reducing Work Zone Collisions: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

NCHRP Report 627: Traffi c Safety Evaluation of Nighttime and Daytime Work Zones: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_627.pdf.

National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse: http://wzsafety.tamu.edu/.

NCHRP Synthesis 215: Determination of Contract Time for Highway Construction Projects: 

http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=3342.

FHWA Safety resources on work zone safety: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/.

Drowsy or Distracted Driving

Problem Description

Crash investigations are retrospective reconstructions of crashes based primarily on crash 

scenarios, driver and witness statements, and physical evidence at the scene. Police and 

other investigators are reluctant to allege driver factors, such as drowsiness and distraction, 

without explicit statements from drivers or witnesses or a crash scenario that clearly 

indicates these factors. Unlike the case of alcohol, no objective way exists to identify 

whether someone is too drowsy or distracted to drive. In general, crash data are thought to 

signifi cantly underestimate the contribution of distracted and drowsy driving to crashes.

Another challenge is reducing distracted and drowsy driving crashes and fatalities, which 

necessitates a change in driver behavior. Some success can be achieved by improving 

roadways and vehicles to make them more forgiving and by incorporating new technologies 

to alert an inattentive driver. Ultimately, however, we must change drivers themselves so 

they are less likely to operate vehicles when drowsy or distracted. This section provides 

information on effective countermeasures for addressing collisions involving drowsy or 

distracted driving. 
III-92

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Data

The primary source of national 

data on the role of driver 

inattention in traffi c crashes is the 

Crashworthiness Data System 

(CDS), which is based on a national 

sample of police-reported traffi c

crashes involving at least one 

passenger vehicle that was towed 

from the crash scene. An analysis 

of 2000 to 2003 CDS crash data 

shows overall the percentage of 

crashes with one or more drivers 

identifi ed as inattentive (e.g., 

distracted, fatigued, or “looking 

but not seeing”) was 25.5 percent, 

and the actual percentage is likely 

higher.

The CDS data provide information 

on the specifi c sources of driver 

distraction. Exhibit III-48 shows 

the sources of distraction for the 

6.6 percent of drivers identifi ed as 

distracted at the time of their crash. 

The most frequently cited 

distraction was an object, person, 

or event outside the vehicle. 

Examples include other cars and 

drivers on the roadway, pedestrians, 

work zones, crash scenes, and general 

“rubbernecking” (i.e., gawking at a 

crash scene). “Other occupant in 

vehicle” was cited nearly as often, 

with frequent reference to infants 

and young children.

While younger drivers under 

the age of 20 are especially likely to be 

distracted at the time of a crash, all age 

groups are affected, as shown in Exhibit 

III-49. Drivers in the 20 to 29 age group 

have the highest percentage of “sleepy/

asleep” crashes, while the oldest age groups (60 to 69 and 70+) are overrepresented in 

“looked but didn’t see” crashes.

EXHIBIT III-49

Distribution of Driver Attention Status with Categories of Driver Age

Source: Crashworthiness Data System.

Note: Based on weighted 2000 to 2003 data.

EXHIBIT III-48

Specifi c Sources by Percentage of Driver Distraction

Source: Crashworthiness Data System.

Note: Based on weighted 2000 to 2003 data.
III-93

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Third Edition (2008) recommends 

state crash report forms collect information on driver distraction at the time of a crash 

(in addition to the data element for driver physical condition, which includes codes for 

fatigue and loss of consciousness or fell asleep). Although many states have added this 

data element to their crash report forms, there is as yet no documented evidence that such 

information can be reliably collected and reported by offi cers who investigate crashes. 

Indeed, the high level of “missing” and “unknown” data for the driver attention status 

variable in the CDS data suggests that reliable data collection may be a problem. New 

approaches for improving data quality may be needed.

Objective 1: Make Roadways Safer for Drowsy and Distracted Drivers

Strategies

Drowsy driving crashes typically involve a single vehicle traveling on a higher-speed 

roadway departing the roadway or travel way (NHTSA/NCSDR, 1998). While there is less 

data on distracted driving, these crashes also appear more likely to be single-vehicle lane 

departures. Therefore, strategies to reduce lane departures may be effective, including the 

following:

• Install shoulder and/or centerline rumble strips to 

alert the driver if they are leaving the roadway 

(P, $$); and

• Implement other roadway improvements to 

reduce the likelihood and severity of run-off-road 

and/or head-on collisions as outlined in the sections 

on Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions and Addressing Head-On Collisions (P, $$$).

Objective 2: Provide Safe Stopping and Resting Areas

Strategies

Rest areas are important for safe motor vehicle operation. The FHWA recommends facilities 

be provided every 50 miles or one hour of driving time on major roadways. However, since 

most distracted and drowsy crashes occur on two-lane rural roadways, the construction 

of full-scale rest areas generally located on Interstates may not address the problem. To 

address the need for safe stopping and resting areas on less-traveled roadways, it is 

recommended that states provide a continuum of options for safe stopping, ranging from 

smaller rest areas with most of the usual amenities to simple roadside parks with minimal or 

no amenities. Strategies include:

• Improve access to safe stopping and resting areas (T, $$$); and

• Improve rest area security and services, such as establishing state police substations or 

satellite offi ces at key locations, installing security lighting, providing direct telephone 

access to the police, and employing uniformed DOT maintenance personnel with 24-

hour staffi ng at select rest areas (T, $$).

See Exhibit III-28 for shoulder rumble 

strip CMFs and Exhibit III-34 for 

centerline rumble strip CMFs.
III-94

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Objective 3: Increase Driver Awareness of the Risks of Drowsy and Distracted 

Driving and Promote Driver Focus

Strategies

Education via a multifaceted and sustained intervention over time can succeed in changing 

behavior if it alters the public mindset about what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. 

The intention of such a campaign would be to communicate it is unacceptable to choose to 

drive while drowsy or engage in potentially distracting activities, such as talking on a cell 

phone.

Enactment of legislation prohibiting or restricting drivers from using cell phones or engaging 

in other potentially distracting activities while driving is a controversial topic. The National 

Conference of State Legislatures reports since 1999 every state has considered legislation 

related to the use of wireless phones.15 However, no state currently bans talking on all types 

of cell phones while driving. As of March 2009, six states have banned talking on handheld 

telephones (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Utah, and Washington), and 

several local jurisdictions have also enacted such bans.16 Strategies include:

• Conduct education and awareness campaigns targeting the general driving public (T, 

$$); and

• Visibly enforce existing statues to deter distracted and drowsy driving (E, $).

Objective 4: Implement Programs that Target Populations at Increased Risk of 

Drowsy or Distracted Driving Crashes

Strategies

Groups that may suffer increased risk of drowsy or distracted driving include teens and 

employees who drive a large number of hours. Programs that specifi cally target these 

groups may be effective at reducing drowsy or distracted driving, including:

• Strengthen graduated driver licensing requirements for young novice drivers (P&T, $) 

with provisions such as restricted nighttime driving for teens and restrictions on cell 

phone use;

• Incorporate information on distracted/fatigued driving into education programs and 

materials for young drivers (T, $);

• Encourage employers to offer fatigue management programs to employees working 

nighttime or rotating shifts, who are estimated to comprise 20 percent of the U.S. 

population and on average get fi ve hours of sleep per night (P, $$);

• Enhance enforcement of commercial motor vehicle hours of service regulations with 

mobile inspection units (P, $$);

15 Sundeen, 2003.

16 http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx.
III-95

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Encourage trucking companies and other fl eet operators to offer fatigue management 

programs (T, $$); and

• Implement targeted interventions for other high-risk populations (T, $$).

Best Practices

Utah’s “Sleep Smart Drive Smart” program: http://www.sleepsmartdrivesmart.com.

New Jersey’s “Maggie’s Law” allows criminal prosecution of fatigued drivers who cause 

injury to someone in a crash: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL03/143_.PDF.

AT&T program for novice drivers about the importance of managing distractions while 

driving, including cell phone use: http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/

be-sensible.jsp.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 14: Reducing Crashes Involving Drowsy and Distracted Drivers: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety 

Offi ces, Governors Highway Safety Association (2009): 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/index.html#countermeasures.

National Sleep Foundation release of Sleep in America Poll and the dangers of drowsy 

driving: http://www.drowsydriving.org.

AAA Foundation for Traffi c Safety “How to Avoid Drowsy Driving” and “Distractions in 

Everyday Driving” brochures: 

http://www.aaafoundation.org/products/index.cfm?button=free.

Network of Employers for Traffi c Safety information about distracted driving and driver 

fatigue: http://traffi csafety.org/safety.

NHTSA Drowsy and Distracted Driving Safety Materials: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.54757ba83ef160af9a7ccf10dba046a0/.

Commercial Transportation Operator Fatigue Management Reference, U.S. DOT (2003): 

http://scitech.dot.gov/research/human/docs/fatigue/fmr07-03.doc.

National Institutes of Health science-based high school curriculum, including information on 

the risks of drowsy driving: http://science.education.nih.gov/Customers.nsf/HSSleep.htm.

National Safety Council resources on distracted driving: 

http://www.nsc.org/resources/issues/distracted_driving.aspx.
III-96

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

Rural Emergency Medical Services

Problem Description

Because not all crashes can be prevented, it is important to understand how to best care for 

crash victims. Victims of motor vehicle crashes suffer disproportionately higher fatality 

rates in rural areas than in urban areas.

Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of fatal crashes on roadways with high-speed limits (55 

mph or higher) occur in rural areas. Thus, EMS providers in rural areas must respond to a 

disproportionately high number of calls where the crash victims are likely to be severely or 

fatally injured as a result of high-speed travel. 

Emergency medical care experience has shown for many serious injuries, time is critical. In 

trauma care, the goal is to get seriously injured patients into the operating room of a trauma 

center with an experienced team of surgeons within the “golden hour” after an injury occurs. 

Meeting this goal requires a highly effi cient and effective EMS system. A key aspect of this 

system is ensuring good routes to emergency medical care are available and trauma centers 

are located in accessible areas. Additionally, fi rst responders need to know alternative 

routes if a primary route is blocked.

Planners can gather data on response times and raise this issue with elected offi cials so it can 

be proactively addressed. Additionally, transportation planners should be involved when 

land use decisions are made to site medical facilities. The accessibility of the trauma center 

to major roadways will play a major role in how quickly patients are treated and whether 

lives are saved.

Data

According to Traffi c Safety Facts 2006:

• For 36 percent of rural fatal crashes, the time from the crash to hospital arrival is between 

one and two hours; and

• For 11 percent of urban fatal crashes, the time between the crash and hospital arrival is 

one to two hours.

Objective 1: Integrate Services to Enhance Emergency Medical Capabilities

Strategies

Integration of the work of EMS personnel into highway safety efforts may take the form 

of EMS personnel contributing to crash data or their involvement in multidisciplinary 

community-based safety efforts, including the following:

• Integrate information systems and highway safety activities so data about the crash 

scene and victim(s) collected by EMS personnel can be integrated with the traffi c records 

system (T, $$$); and
III-97

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Integrate EMS systems into the Safe Communities effort, which seeks to give 

communities ownership over transportation-related safety problems and injury 

prevention (T, $).

Objective 2: Provide/Improve Management and Decision Tools

Strategy

• Provide rural EMS program evaluation results to elected and administrative offi cials at 

the county and local levels so they understand response issues (T, $).

Objective 3: Provide Better Education Opportunities for Rural EMS Providers

Strategies

Improved education can take the form of EMS personnel learning about traffi c safety or 

emergency response personnel and “bystanders” gaining basic EMS training. Strategies 

include the following:

• Include principles of Traffi c Safety and Injury Prevention as part of EMS continuing 

education, so EMS personnel in the fi eld can use their expertise to educate the 

community and reduce the number of traffi c incidents (E, $$);

• Require fi rst care training for all public safety emergency response personnel, including 

law enforcement offi cers (T, $$); and

• Provide “bystander care” training programs targeting new drivers, rural residents, truck 

drivers, interstate commercial bus drivers, and motorcyclists (T, $$).

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 15: A Guide for Enhancing Rural Emergency Medical Services, 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Bystander Care National Standard Curriculum, (NHTSA, Perez et al. 2003) and other related 

materials – order form: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/new_item.htm.

Emergency Medical Services in Rural America, National Conference of State Legislatures, 

http://www.ruralsafety.umn.edu/clearinghouse/topics/documents/

EMS_in_rural_america_NCSL_Jun07.pdf.
III-98

Alcohol-Involved Collisions

Problem Description

Alcohol-impaired driving is among the most common contributors to motor vehicle fatal 

crashes in the United States. In 2007, 32 percent of fatalities involved alcohol-impaired 

driving (NHTSA). The two fundamental methods to reduce alcohol-related crashes are: 1) 

to reduce excessive drinking through policies and programs to control alcohol sales and 

inform drinkers of the dangers of excessive drinking; and 2) to deter driving while impaired 

by alcohol.

Every state has passed a law making it illegal to drive with blood-alcohol concentration 

(BAC) of .08 percent or higher. The DWI criminal justice system of laws, enforcement, 

prosecution, adjudication, sanctions, and offender monitoring is complex. All elements 

of this system must function well to ensure that DWI offenders are frequently detected, 

routinely charged, effectively prosecuted, suitably punished when convicted, and 

appropriately treated for alcohol abuse or dependency.

Data

• In single-vehicle crashes, the relative risk of a driver with BAC between .08 and .10 is at 

least 11 times greater than for drivers with a BAC of zero (NHTSA).

• Twenty-two percent of drivers in fatal crashes had a BAC of .08 or higher in 2007.

• In fatal crashes in 2007, the highest percentage of drivers with a BAC level of .08 or 

higher was ages 21 to 24 (35 percent), followed by ages 25 to 34 (29 percent), and 35 to 44 

(25 percent).

• About one-quarter of all persons convicted for a fi rst DWI offense are estimated to be 

alcohol dependent (Simpson et al., 1996).

• About 30 percent of persons involved in an alcohol-related fatal crash have been 

previously convicted of DWI or a comparable alcohol-related offense (Tashima and 

Helander, 2000).

• Recent estimates suggest that, on average, individuals may make anywhere from 50 to 

200 impaired trips before being arrested (Hedlund and McCartt, 2002).

• Males, motorcyclists, and persons between the age of 21 and 34 are more likely than 

others to drive while impaired by alcohol.

Objective 1: Reduce Excessive and Underage Drinking

Strategies

Prevention of underage drinking reduces impaired driving by this population. Responsible 

service, increased taxes on alcoholic beverages, and health screenings can reduce excessive 

alcohol consumption. Strategies include: 

Notes
III-99

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Increase the state excise tax on beer, which is the alcoholic beverage consumed most 

commonly by those arrested for drunk driving (T, $);

• Require responsible beverage service policies for alcohol servers and retailers (P, $$);

• Conduct well-publicized compliance checks of alcohol retailers to reduce sales to 

underage persons (T, $$$); and

• Employ screening and brief interventions in health care settings to identify and treat 

people with alcohol problems (T, $). 

Objective 2: Enforce DWI Laws

Strategies

Drivers need to have a reasonable expectation of being caught when driving impaired. 

Therefore, enforcement must be ongoing and well publicized, including strategies such as:

• Conduct regular, well-publicized DWI checkpoints (P, $);

• Enhance DWI detection through special DWI patrols and related traffi c enforcement (T, 

$); and

• Publicize and enforce zero tolerance laws for drivers under age 21 having any alcohol in 

their system when driving (P, $$).

Objective 3: Prosecute, Impose Sanctions on, and Treat DWI Offenders

Strategies

Sanctions that are swift and certain provide a strong deterrent against impaired driving, 

such as the following:

• Suspend driver licenses administratively upon arrest (P, $); 

• Establish stronger penalties for BAC test refusal than for test failure (T, $);

• Eliminate diversion programs and plea bargains to nonalcohol offenses (T, $$); and

• Screen all convicted DWI offenders for alcohol problems and require treatment when 

appropriate (P, $$$).

Objective 4: Control High-BAC and Repeat Offenders

Strategies

Repeat offenders often have serious alcohol problems, and these drivers present a signifi cant 

danger on the road. Strategies to prevent recidivism require considerable intervention, 

including:

• Seize vehicles or license plates administratively upon arrest (P, $$); 
III-100

SECTION III – SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

• Require ignition interlock devices to test the driver’s breath for the presence of alcohol in 

the vehicle as a condition of license reinstatement (P, $$);

• Closely monitor DWI offenders through DWI Court, probation, home confi nement, or 

other methods (P, $$$); and

• Incarcerate offenders as a last resort if other sanctions are ineffective, ideally in dedicated 

detention facilities (P, $$$).

Best Practices

In 2001, Alaska established a dedicated therapeutic court system to handle DUI cases and 

provide offender rehabilitation. These courts offer a systematic and coordinated approach 

for prosecuting, sentencing, treating, and monitoring DUI offenders. Information is 

available at: 

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/hwysafety/impaired_program_acs.shtml.

New Mexico requires an ignition interlock license and installation of the device for anyone 

convicted of a DWI, including fi rst time offenders: 

http://www.dps.nm.org/lawEnforcement/dwi/dwiIgnitionInterlock.php.

The San Juan County, NM Detention and Treatment Program provides a 28-day treatment 

program for offenders housed in a 72-bed minimum security detention facility. During their 

28-day stay, offenders participate in daily treatment/educational sessions:

http://www.sjcounty.net/Dpt/DwiFacility/Index.aspx.

The Illinois State Police developed a web site where teenagers can anonymously report 

underage drinking parties: http://www.drunkstopper.com.

Resources

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 16: A Guide for Reducing Crashes Involving Alcohol: 

http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx.

Countermeasures that Work :A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety 

Offi ces, Governors Highway Safety Association (2009): 

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/index.html#countermeasures.

Partners in Prevention, State Alcohol Agencies’ Approach to Underage Drinking Prevention, 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and NHTSA, 2002: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/dotpartners/index.htm.

A Guide to Sentencing DWI Offenders, 2nd edition, 2005, NHTSA, DOT HS 810 555: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/DWIOffenders/index.htm.

Screening and Brief Intervention Tool Kit for University and College Campuses, 2007: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/StopImpaired/3672Toolkit/index.htm.

Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs – Guideline No. 8 Impaired Driving: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/

ImpairedDriving.htm.
III-101

Notes

Blower, D. “The Relative Contribution of Truck Drivers and Passenger Vehicle Drivers to 

Truck/Passenger-Vehicle Traffi c Crashes.” UMTRI Research Review, Michigan University 

Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Volume 30, Number 2, pages 1-15, AprilJune 1999.

Blower, D. “Vehicle Condition and Heavy Truck Accident Involvement.” Proceedings of the 

International Truck & Bus Safety Symposium, Center for Transportation Research, University 

of Tennessee, and National Safety Council, Knoxville, Tennessee, pages 311-322, April 3-5, 

2002.

Cerrelli, E.C. “Crash Data and Rates for Age-Sex Groups of Drivers, 1996.” Research Note. 

National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration, January 1998.

Clarke, A., and L. Tracy. Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis. Report No. FHWA-94-062. 

FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.

Cooper D, Atkins F, Gillen D. “Measuring the impact of passenger restrictions on new 

teenage drivers.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37;19-23, 2005.

DeYoung, D.J., Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Pilot Project to Better Control 

Disqualifi ed Drivers. Report No. 129. Sacramento, California: California Department of 

Motor Vehicles, 1990.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway Statistics 1998. FHWA-PL-99-017, 

November 1999.

Foss R.D., Masten S.V., Goodwin A.G. Long-Term Effects of Graduated Driver Licensing in 

North Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Highway Safety 

Research Center, 2006.

Griffi n, L.I., and S. DeLa Zerda. Unlicensed to Kill. Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for 

Traffi c Safety. 2000.

Harwood, D.W., F.M. Council, E. Hauer, W.E. Hughes, and A. Vogt. Prediction of the 

Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highway. Report No. FHWA-99-207, December 

2000.

Hedlund, J.H., and McCartt, A.T. Drunk Driving: Seeking Additional Solutions. AAA 

Foundation for Traffi c Safety, 2002. http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/

DrunkDriving-SeekingAdditionalSolutions.pdf.

Hunter, W.W., J.C. Stutts, W.E. Pein, and C.L. Cox. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the 

Early 1990s. Federal Highway Administration, Offi ce of Safety and Traffi c Operations R&D: 

McLean, Virginia, June 1996. [FHWA-RD-95-163]

Kuciemba, S.R., and J.A. Cirillo. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume V: 

Intersections. Report No. FHWA-RD-91-048. Federal Highway Administration. November 

1992.
III-102

Masten, S.V. & Hagge, R. “Evaluation of California’s graduated driver licensing program.” 

Journal of Safety Research, 35; 523-535, 2004.

Raborn, C. National Bicycling and Walking Study: Ten Year Status Report, Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., October 

2004, Retrieved from: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pp/nbws1.htm. 

Rudin-Brown, C.M. “Vehicle Height Affects Drivers’ Speed Perception: Implications for 

Rollover Risk.” Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting. 

Paper No. 04-2305, Washington, D.C., January 2004.

Shope, J.T., Molnar, L.J., Elliott, M.R., & Waller, P.F. “Graduated driver licensing in 

Michigan.” JAMA, 286(13), 1593-1598, 2001.

Simpson, H.M., Mayhew, D.R., and Beirness, D.J. Dealing with the Hard Core Drinking 

Driver. Traffi c Injury Research Foundation, 1996. http://www.traffi cinjuryresearch.com/

publications/PDF_publications/Dealing_with_HC_Report_1996.pdf.

Stutz D. “Graduated driver licensing in Iowa.” Presentation at the National Safety Council 

Symposium on Novice Teen Driving: GDL and Beyond, Tucson Arizona, February 2007.

Tashima, H.N., and Helander, C.J., Annual Report of the California DUI Management 

Information System. CAL-DMV-RSs-00-185. California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2000.

Ulmer, R.G., Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.F., & Preusser, D.F., “Teenage crash reduction 

associated with delayed licensure in Connecticut.” Journal of Safety Research, 32, 31-41, 2001.

Wang, J.S., Knipling, R.R., and Blincoe, L.J. “The Dimensions of Motor Vehicle Crash Risk.” 

Journal of Transportation and Statistics. Volume 2, Number 1, pages 19-43, May 1999.

Williams, A.F., & Preusser, D.F. “Night driving restrictions for youthful drivers: a literature 

review and commentary.” Journal of Public Health Policy, 18, 334-345, 2007.

Wunderlich, K., and Dawn Hardesty, A Snapshot of 2001 Work Zone Activity, Federal 

Highway Administration, February 2003.

Zegeer, C.V., and M.J. Cynecki. Selection of Cost-Effective Countermeasures for Utility Pole 

Accidents: Users Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA IP 84 13, July 

1984.

Zegeer, C.V., J. Hummer, D. Reinfurt, L. Herf, W. Hunter. Safety Effects of Cross-Section 

Design for Two-Lane Roads – Volumes I and II. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

D.C. FHWA-RD-87-008. 1987.

Zegeer, C.V., R. Stewart, D. Reinfurt, F. Council, T. Neuman, E. Hamilton, T. Miller, and 

W. Hunter. “Cost-Effective Geometric Improvements for Safety Upgrading of Horizontal 

Curves.” Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C., October 1990.

Notes