[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55303-55317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28163]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[NHTSA Docket No. 97-062-N01]


Traffic Safety Programs--Office of Research and Traffic Records; 
Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research in Traffic Safety

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); 
Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments on strategic issues and research 
requirements to support research planning.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA's Office of Research and Traffic Records, Research and 
Evaluation Division (ORTR/RED) is engaged in the process of planning 
its research programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. In 
conformance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(P.L. 103-62), ORTR/RED is seeking public comment on the draft 
strategic plan presented in this notice. These comments will be used to 
help form a strategic implementation plan to direct the division's 
research program during the next five years.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted through November 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please direct all written comments to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Docket Section, Room 5111, Docket # 97-
062-N01, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours 
are from 9:30 am to 4:00 pm.) Comments submitted to the docket will 
become a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Blatt, Office of Research and 
Traffic Records (NTS-30), Room 6240, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20590. (Telephone 202-366-5588 or Email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bad0d8d6dbcecefad4d2cec9db94ded5ce94ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98f2faf4f9ececd8f6f0ecebf9b6fcf7ecb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: More than 3 million persons were reported 
injured and over 40 thousand persons died in motor vehicle crashes in 
1996 (Traffic Safety Facts: 1996, National Center for Statistics and 
Analysis). While a small proportion of the crashes causing these 
injuries and fatalities were attributed to vehicle and roadway 
problems, the vast majority were caused by human

[[Page 55304]]

performance problems. Within the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), the Office of Research and Traffic Records, 
Research Evaluation Division (ORTR/RED) conducts research on human 
behaviors that can bring about improvements in traffic safety. The 
research is conducted in support of traffic safety programs directed at 
reducing the incidence and consequences of motor-vehicle crashes.
    ORTR/RED is responsible for research in the following program 
areas: Impaired Driving; Occupant Protection; Speeding and Unsafe 
Driving Actions; Older Drivers; and Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and 
Motorcyclists. In addition, ORTR/RED efforts address Novice Driver 
Education, Emergency Medical Services, evaluation of the Safe 
Communities program, and the use of emerging safety and enforcement 
technologies.
    ORTR/RED is reexamining its research strategies in accordance with 
the Government Performance and Results Act, or GPRA, of 1993 (P.L. 103-
62). The Act requires the establishment of a program mission, 
assessment of external needs, development of specific strategic 
objectives and accompanying performance measures, and the use of actual 
performance results to redirect subsequent planning efforts. In 
response to these requirements, ORTR/RED is requesting public comment 
on its Draft Strategic Plan.
    The Draft Strategic Plan is intended to guide behavioral traffic 
safety research efforts from FY 1998 through FY 2002. It is heavily 
influenced by the needs and outcomes identified as part of ongoing 
budget planning processes. Input received as a result of this notice 
will be used to reassess currently identified needs and projects for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and to further define the needs and outcomes 
for fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

Electronic Access

    This document is posted on NHTSA's site on the world-wide web 
(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov). To access it from NHTSA's home page , 
select ``People,'' then ``Injury Prevention,'' then ``Research and 
Evaluation.'' To go directly to the appropriate page, enter: <a href="http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/">http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/</a>. Then select ``Draft 
Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research.''

Comments Requested

    The purpose of this notice is to provide an opportunity for the 
public and other interested parties to review and comment on ORTR/RED's 
assessment of each program area, the strategic objectives which are 
identified, and the activities or outcomes that ORTR/RED intends to 
pursue. Reviewers are invited to comment on program areas or issues 
that are not addressed, recommend priorities, or provide rationales for 
alternative approaches. Comments must be submitted in writing. 
Respondents are requested to identify the program or program area 
towards which their comments are directed.
    The Office of Research and Traffic Records, Research and Evaluation 
Division (ORTR/RED) will review comments received in response to this 
notice and the draft plan described herein. These comments will be 
considered as part of the development of a five-year strategic 
implementation plan for the period between 1998 and 2002. The final 
plan will include a section summarizing the comments received in 
response to this notice and in response to other inputs.

Organization of the Draft Plan

    The Draft Strategic Plan consists of two parts. Appendix A provides 
a brief discussion of the most significant human performance problem 
areas identified by the agency, followed by the mission and strategic 
objectives of the Office of Research and Traffic Records, Research 
Evaluation Division (ORTR/RED). Within each objective, the anticipated 
outcomes from the research effort during the period from 1998 to 2002 
are summarized by program area. Appendix B presents a more detailed 
discussion of the agency's understanding of the problems, its current 
research and evaluation efforts, and strategic issues for research in 
each program area. The following Table of Contents provides an overview 
of the plan and supporting documentation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Draft Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research in Traffic 
Safety

Background
Traffic Safety Programs at NHTSA
Summary of the 1998 ORTR/RED Strategic Plan
    ORTR/RED Vision and Mission
    Strategic Objectives
    Key Considerations in the Development of Strategic Objectives
    Approach to Meeting Strategic Objectives
Strategic Objective: Problem Analysis
Strategic Objective: Countermeasure Development
Strategic Objective: Program Evaluation

Appendix B: Program Area Summaries

Impaired Driving
Occupant Protection
Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions
Older Drivers
Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists
Novice Drivers Education
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Safe Communities
Technology Applications

    Issued on: October 17, 1997.
James L. Nichols,
Director, Office of Research & Traffic Records, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.

Appendix A--Draft Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research in Traffic 
Safety

Background

    More than 3,000,000 persons were reported injured and over 
40,000 persons died in motor vehicle crashes in 1996 (Traffic Safety 
Facts: 1996, National Center for Statistics and Analysis). While a 
small proportion of the crashes causing these injuries and 
fatalities can be attributed to vehicle and roadway problems, the 
vast majority are caused by human performance problems. Despite 
impressive reductions over the past two decades, the annual traffic-
related fatalities and injuries are increasing slightly since 
reaching a low in 1992. An increase in travel has contributed to the 
fatality rates, expressed as number of fatalities per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled, remaining at approximately 1.7 during this 
period.
    In developing a response to this challenge of improving human 
performance, NHTSA focuses its traffic safety efforts on the most 
significant causes or problems contributing to fatality-and injury-
causing crashes. ORTR/RED conducts behavioral research in the 
following areas: Impaired Driving, Occupant Protection; Speeding and 
Unsafe Driving Actions; Older Drivers; and Pedestrian, Bicyclists, 
and Motorcyclists; Novice Driver Education, Emergency Medical 
Services, Safe Communities, and Technology Applications. A brief 
description of the extent of these problems is provided here. A more 
detailed discussion can be found in Appendix B
    Impaired Driving. In 1996, alcohol was cited as a contributing 
factor in crashes leading to approximately 17,000 traffic 
fatalities, and over 1,000,000 injuries. In addition, there has been 
an increase in alcohol-related fatalities by approximately 4 percent 
between 1994 and 1996. Driving while impaired by drugs other than 
alcohol may also constitute a significant highway safety problem, 
although it appears to be much smaller than the alcohol-related 
problem.
    Occupant Protection. The national average safety-belt usage rate 
has hovered at about 68 percent for several years, despite 
widespread educational efforts. However, belt use by people involved 
in potentially fatal crashes is much lower, at about 50 percent. The 
need to use child safety seats appears to be more widely accepted, 
with usage rates currently ranging between 60 and 90 percent, 
depending on the age of the child. Investigations of recent air bag 
related injuries and fatalities to young children and short-statured 
adults has reemphasized the need to increase proper safety belt and 
child safety seat use, particularly for all children under 12.
    Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions. Many crashes are 
attributable to unsafe driving behaviors such as following too

[[Page 55305]]

closely, inattention, speeding, and aggressive driving. In 1996, 
speed was a factor in over 13,000 fatalities. Many states repealed 
speed limit laws based on the national maximum speed limit, and now 
average speed limits are higher. Aggressive driving actions--such as 
excess speed, running red lights, and disregard of traffic signs and 
signals--have a high likelihood of causing crashes.
    Older Drivers. People over 70 years of age represented 13 
percent of all fatalities and are slightly over-represented in 
crashes, when compared to the general population of drivers. As the 
proportion of older drivers increases over the next few years, over-
involvement of this population group in fatalities and injuries 
could become a more significant problem.
    Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists. About 30,000 
pedestrian crashes involving young people occur annually. Older 
persons are significantly over involved in pedestrian fatalities. 
Alcohol and environmental factors are also significant components of 
the pedestrian crash problem. In large urban areas, nearly half of 
all those killed in motor vehicle crashes are pedestrians. There has 
been little or no change in bicyclist fatalities, which are reported 
as 830 in 1995, and injuries during the past few years. Currently, 
bicyclist helmet use laws include requirements for children only, 
even though one-half of the annual fatalities occur to people of age 
21 years or older. Motorcyclists are about 16 times as likely as 
vehicle occupants to die in a crash, and about 4 times as likely to 
be injured. In 1996, 43 percent of the approximately 2,200 fatally 
injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets at the time of the 
crash. These motorcyclists tended to have high intoxication rates as 
well.
    Novice Driver Education. Young drivers between the ages of 16 
and 20 experience the highest fatality and injury rates per capita. 
At the request of Congress, NHTSA submitted a program in 1994 to 
improve novice driver education that has two-stages of education 
that would parallel stages of a graduated licensing system.
    Emergency Medical Services. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 
differs from the other program areas receiving research attention in 
that it is entirely focused on post-crash rather than pre-crash 
events. Gaps in our knowledge of effective out-of-hospital care, due 
to the absence of well-defined, uniform, and complete data, impeded 
efforts to define the extent to which the post-crash environment 
contributes to injuries and fatalities.
    Safe Communities. Safe Communities is a recent initiative 
intended to bring together citizens and a wide range of community 
institutions--such as law enforcement, hospitals, managed care 
facilities, emergency medical services, schools, insurance 
companies, other public and private businesses and local 
governments--to work on solving local traffic safety problems within 
the broader context of meeting the injury control challenge. 
Knowledge gained from successes and setbacks will provide guidance 
to expansion of this effort.
    Technology Applications. Future increases in vehicle travel and 
risks of crashes are anticipated, even as fewer resources are being 
allocated to traffic-law enforcement. Emerging technologies--such as 
``smart card'' drivers licenses that prevent fraudulent ID, ignition 
interlock devices, electronic monitoring wristbands, and electronic 
vehicle and driver identification systems--offer the promise to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of safety and enforcement 
programs. Adaptations of emerging electronics and communications 
technologies, as part of the Intelligent Transportation Systems 
(ITS) program, could have significant potential to aid emergency 
rescue services, crash investigations, traffic law enforcement, and 
other traffic safety efforts.

Traffic Safety Programs at NHTSA

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 
one of seven operating administrations of the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. Oversight of highway travel is split between the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA. NHTSA's 
responsibilities focus on safety issues of motor vehicles and non-
commercial roadway users.
    NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce 
traffic-related health care and other economic costs. The agency 
develops, promotes and implements effective educational, 
engineering, and enforcement programs toward ending preventable 
tragedies and reducing economic costs associated with vehicle use 
and highway travel. This is accomplished through research, 
demonstration, and evaluation; setting and enforcing safety 
performance standards for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle 
equipment; consumer outreach activities, and awarding grants to 
state and local governments for implementation of safety programs. 
The complex relationship between a motor vehicle and its driver is 
of major interest. Factors influencing this relationship include the 
driver's physical and mental abilities and driving experience, the 
nature of driving, the responsiveness of the motor vehicle to the 
driver's demands, and environmental conditions.
    NHTSA employs two major approaches to improving highway safety. 
One approach focuses on motor vehicles and investigates methods to 
make them safer, in terms of improving vehicles' characteristics 
that both reduce their likelihood to be involved in crashes and 
increase their capabilities to protect occupants from crash forces. 
The other addresses the behavior of roadway users--drivers, 
bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians. Approaches may be direct, by 
influencing the users themselves, or indirect, by influencing 
intermediary change agents--friends and family members, educators, 
police, judges, legislators, licensing officials, emergency medical 
service and health care practitioners--who may exert influence over 
certain groups of roadway users.
    The responsibility within NHTSA for improving safety-related 
behaviors lies within the Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety 
Programs (TSP). TSP's Mission is to: (1) Lead the national traffic 
safety effort, including emergency medical services; (2) save lives 
and reduce injury through behavioral research, demonstration, and 
evaluation; and (3) develop safety programs and strategies for use 
by public and private organizations. Program areas include impaired 
driving, occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, speed and 
other unsafe driving actions, motorcyclists, bicyclists, 
pedestrians, older drivers, driver education and licensing, and 
emergency medical services. Traffic Safety Programs (TSP) comprises 
three offices: the Office of Traffic Injury Control Programs 
(OTICP), the Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), and the 
Office of Research and Traffic Records (ORTR).
    Within the Office of Research and Traffic Records, the Research 
and Evaluation Division (ORTR/RED) conducts research in each of the 
program areas listed above to specify traffic-safety problems that 
can be addressed through behavioral approaches; identify populations 
in need of intervention; and determine appropriate legislative, 
enforcement, adjudicative, and educational countermeasure approaches 
for those problems. In addition to developing and testing the 
effectiveness of new countermeasures, ORTR/RED also evaluates the 
implementation of existing traffic safety programs in actual 
practice, thus establishing a foundation for broader adoption of 
effective programs. Information developed by ORTR/RED is integrated 
into traffic safety programs administered by other offices of TSP 
and the Office of State and Community Services for use by community, 
state, and national organizations and distributed through other 
NHTSA offices.
    1ORTR/RED must strike a balance between these activities in 
order to meet the shorter term needs of other offices and still 
conduct problem identification and countermeasure development 
activities which have a longer time horizon associated with 
achieving an outcome. Programs in the field now are based on past 
research efforts; current research establishes a foundation for 
programs in the future. A major challenge to Traffic Safety Programs 
is to align the activities in all three offices to be most effective 
in meeting overall agency objectives, which are to reduce traffic-
related fatalities and injuries. ORTR/RED sets priorities and 
apportions its work among the competing interests through the budget 
process and internal decision making. The Strategic Plan exercise is 
an effort to further improve the alignment and outcomes of ORTR/RED 
programs and resources.

Summary of the 1998 ORTR/RED Strategic Plan

ORTR/RED Vision and Mission

    Vision Statement: Lead the nation, department, and agency with 
high quality research and evaluation in traffic safety issues, 
conducted in a professional environment, and responsive to the input 
and needs of the public and the traffic safety community.
    Mission Statement: Plan and conduct a national research program 
to identify and analyze road user problems; develop and test 
scientifically sound programs; and evaluate traffic safety programs 
of significant potential.

[[Page 55306]]

Strategic Objectives

    Problem Analysis: anticipate and understand the nature and 
magnitude of various aspects of the highway crash problem and 
monitor trends and public perceptions in the various program areas.
    Countermeasure Development: develop program actions (e.g., 
legislation, enforcement, sanctions, incentives, technology 
applications, public information and education, emergency medical 
care) to reduce the number of crashes and severity and crash 
consequences; and determine the effectiveness of these 
countermeasures in improving behaviors that lead to reducing 
crashes, deaths, or injuries.
    Program Evaluation: determine whether existing countermeasure 
programs should be continued, expanded, modified, or discontinued.

Key Considerations in the Development of Strategic Objectives

    This Draft Strategic Plan is consistent with the 1997 Department 
of Transportation Draft Strategic Plan entitled ``A Visionary and 
Vigilant Department of Transportation Leading the Way to 
Transportation Excellence in the 21st Century.'' The Department's 
plan outlined five strategic goals:
    <bullet> Safety: Promote the public health and safety by working 
toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries, 
and property damage;
    <bullet> Mobility: Shape America's future by ensuring a 
transportation system that is accessible, seamless and efficient, 
and offers flexibility of choices;
    <bullet> Economic Growth and Trade: Advance America's economic 
growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through 
efficient and flexible transportation;
    <bullet> Human and Natural Environment: Protect and enhance 
communities and the natural environment affected by transportation; 
and
    <bullet> National Security: Advance the nation's vital security 
interests in support of national strategies such as the National 
Security Strategy and National Drug Control Strategy by ensuring 
that the transportation system is secure and available for defense 
mobility, that our borders are safe from illegal intrusion, and by 
promoting worldwide economic growth and stability.
    The ORTR/RED Draft Strategic Plan directly supports the first 
two of these departmental goals--safety and mobility--through 
research, development, and evaluation and indirectly supports the 
remaining goals through anticipated reductions in the number and 
severity of crashes and their attendant personal, economic, societal 
and environmental effects.
    Prior to the development of the Departmental Strategic Plan, 
NHTSA published a long term strategic plan and a five year (1995-99) 
Strategic Execution Plan (SEP). The NHTSA Strategic Plan presents 11 
goals is support of three strategies: Provide Leadership and Set an 
Agenda; Support Research and Apply the Results to Education, 
Engineering, and Enforcement to Reduce Road Casualties and Costs; 
and Transform NHTSA Through Continuous Improvement. The ORTR/RED 
Behavioral Research Strategic Plan is consistent with the objectives 
outlined in goals 5 and 6 of the SEP, which focus on research and 
the application of the results to crash avoidance challenges.
    NHTSA was a pilot agency under GPRA from 1994 to 1996. The Act 
requires federal agencies to plan around outcomes, rather than 
outputs, and measure performance. The agency has stratified its 
performance measures into three levels: overall outcomes; 
intermediate outcomes; and program outputs. NHTSA's overall outcome 
goals are to reduce fatalities and injuries per 100 million vehicle 
miles traveled; and to reduce fatalities and injuries per 100,000 
resident population. The agency has stated intermediate outcome 
goals for key behavioral patterns, such as seat belt use and 
impaired driving. For example, the goal for seat belt usage is to 
increase use rates to 85 percent by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. The 
agency has committed to reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic 
fatalities to 11,000 in 2005 from 17,126 in 1996. These and other 
traffic safety goals are restated in NHTSA planning documents that 
have been published since the Strategic Execution Plan, such as the 
Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide, EMS 
Agenda for the Future, GPRA Performance Plans; and annual Budget 
submissions to Congress. Achieving these goals helps the agency to 
achieve its overall outcome goals. The agency measures program 
outputs to ensure that products help to achieve the intermediate 
outcome goals, that will, in turn, achieve the overall outcome 
goals. The ORTR/RED plan describes how behavioral research will help 
the agency achieve its stated goals and anticipate future needs of 
the agency and the Department of Transportation.

Approach to Meeting the Strategic Objectives

    Before undertaking any problem analysis or countermeasure 
development effort, ORTR/RED considers, at least implicitly, several 
general issues. Although these issues are described as ``either-or'' 
alternatives, they overlap to a certain extent, depending on the 
problem and the countermeasures under consideration.
    <bullet> Involved Population versus Change Agents. Historically, 
countermeasure research efforts have focused on the individuals 
engaged in problem behaviors (e.g., drinking drivers, safety belt 
non-users, motorcyclists who do not wear helmets). An alternative 
approach is to target research on intermediary change agents (e.g., 
police officers, legislators, community traffic safety officials) to 
obtain their support and action (e.g., to support legislation, 
provide political permission for enforcement of traffic safety 
laws).
    <bullet> Gradual Improvement versus Major Advancement. For the 
most part, agency research and development has fashioned continuous 
and gradual improvements to existing programs and activities. 
However, experience has shown that some of the most profound and 
dramatic advances in traffic safety have resulted from innovative 
(and often controversial) programs that have resulted in significant 
media attention and public awareness (e.g., enactment of Minimum 
Drinking Age (21) Laws, passage of child passenger safety laws).
    <bullet> People versus Equipment and Technology. Except for 
supporting technological innovation in the early years of alcohol-
impaired driving research, ORTR/RED's attention to technology has 
been limited. There is currently increased interest in developing 
technological solutions to behavioral problems that have resisted 
change (e.g., automated speed enforcement, detection and ticketing 
of red-light runners, impaired driver detection and interlocks, 
repeated warnings of safety-belt non-use in vehicles) or that would 
improve the efficiencies or lower the costs of current programs.
    The interaction of these strategic countermeasure-development 
issues and the needs of problem analysis resulted in the following 
questions that ORTR/RED staff used to assess the status of each 
traffic safety program area during the development of this plan:
    1. What is the current status of problem assessment in this 
area? Do we have a good understanding of the magnitude and 
characteristics of the problem? Where are the gaps in our knowledge?
    2. Is there a need for continuous tracking or monitoring to 
support internal and external decision making about this program 
area? What kind of monitoring is needed?
    3. Do we know enough about the people whose behavior we wish to 
modify? How much do we need to know to effect the desired changes?
    4. Are our research products and information designed for and 
reaching appropriate decision makers or intermediaries? What kinds 
of research are needed to improve the effectiveness or distribution 
of such products and information?
    5. Are there operational countermeasures that need to be 
evaluated to support decision making regarding continued or wider 
implementation?
    6. Are there operational countermeasure approaches where 
incremental improvements in effectiveness or efficiency could be 
made? What kind of research and development activity is needed?
    7. Are there innovative or controversial approaches that have 
the potential for major gains? Are there new technologies that could 
be applied to make significant gains? What kind of research and 
development activity is needed?
    8. Are there countermeasures that now appear impractical because 
of a lack (or shift) of change agent interest or support? What kind 
of research and development activity is implied?
    9. In general, is public interest and support for this area 
sufficient to effect change? If not, what kind of research and 
development activity is needed?
    The answers to these questions provided the raw materials from 
which the plan was developed, and emphasized the division of 
behavioral research efforts into three distinct categories: Problem 
Analysis, Countermeasure Development and Test, and Program 
Evaluation.

[[Page 55307]]

Strategic Objective: Problem Analysis

    Identify opportunities to intervene in unsafe behaviors by 
analyzing traffic safety problems and monitoring changes in public 
knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding highway safety issues. 
These efforts may identify individuals whose behavior threatens 
their own or the public's safety, or situations that predispose or 
precipitate unsafe actions.
    The outcome objectives listed under each program area represent 
the critical problem assessment factors for that area. Such factors 
include: (1) Specifying quantitative relationships; (2) identifying 
particular groups that are over-represented in crashes or 
fatalities, or that have a direct influence on those groups; (3) 
establishing the predisposing or precipitating situations or events 
leading to crashes; (4) defining factors that impede or facilitate 
implementation of traffic-safety programs; (5) determining the 
feasibility of implementing potential changes in programs or 
establishing new ones; and (6) identifying critical trends or 
deficiencies in public knowledge, attitudes, and practices.
    Success in achieving this strategic objective will be measured 
by progress in accomplishing the following outcome objectives:

Impaired Driving

    <bullet> Verify the relationship between blood alcohol 
concentration (BAC) and crash risk for low BACs.
    <bullet> Establish the degree of public support for different 
types and levels of legislative and enforcement efforts to reduce 
alcohol-impaired driving.
    <bullet> Further define the degree to which drugs other than 
alcohol contribute to traffic crashes.
    <bullet> Acquire more detailed information regarding the driver 
characteristics and situations that lead to drinking and driving.
    <bullet> Monitor levels of public disapproval of drinking and 
driving and their acceptance of legislation, enforcement, 
sanctioning, and other actions to prevent drinking and driving.

Occupant Protection

    <bullet> Identify factors that impede communities from adopting 
highly visible traffic law enforcement efforts (e.g., Selective 
Traffic Enforcement Programs) to increase the use of safety belts.
    <bullet> Determine the potential impact of incentive and reward 
programs for different target audiences (e.g., belt users, police 
groups or community groups) for increasing belt use.
    <bullet> Monitor public knowledge, attitudes, and practices 
regarding the use of safety belts, child safety seats, and air bags, 
as well as support for stronger laws, enforcement, and sanctions.
    <bullet> Determine characteristics of safety belt users, part-
time users, and non-users, especially among drivers who are most at 
risk of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash.
    <bullet> Acquire information from users of child safety seats 
regarding the reasons for misuse of safety seats and premature 
graduation of toddlers from safety seats to vehicle safety belts.

Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions

    <bullet> Define the relationships among speed, driver 
characteristics, roadway conditions, situational factors, and crash 
rates.
    <bullet> Identify unsafe behaviors and drivers most likely to be 
involved in crashes.
    <bullet> Define ``aggressive'' driving and determine its 
incidence and relation to crash causation.
    <bullet> Determine the extent to which drivers who speed are 
over involved in crashes.
    <bullet> Determine situations and conditions under which the 
public and the enforcement community would accept automated 
enforcement efforts and describe the legislative and administrative 
actions necessary to implement automated enforcement procedures.

Older Drivers

    <bullet> Identify factors responsible for increased crash rates 
(per mile) of older drivers and determine the extent to which these 
factors account for the higher fatality rates of older drivers.
    <bullet> Determine the likelihood that older drivers would 
purchase vehicles that offer vehicle modifications for improved 
crash protection for older occupants.
    <bullet> Explore the acceptability of various in-vehicle 
technologies designed to extend mobility by providing assistance in 
compensating for disabling conditions.

Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists

    <bullet> Develop measures of pedestrian and bicyclist crash 
exposure and determine trends in exposure.
    <bullet> Assess the attitudes of pedestrians, cyclists, and 
drivers toward each other; their awareness of high crash-risk 
situations and ways to avoid them; their knowledge or the laws, 
signals, and signage; and their walking, riding, and driving 
experiences.
    <bullet> Identify and assess materials and procedures for 
increasing conspicuity of pedestrians and cyclists.
    <bullet> Review federal, state, and local ordinances pertaining 
to the interactions of drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists; examine 
the practices of these road users that lead to crashes; and assess 
the need for model legislation and traffic enforcement efforts.
    <bullet> Monitor helmet usage rates in states with laws, 
including age specific laws, and those without laws.
    <bullet> Analyze motorcycle crash data to classify crash types.

Novice Driver Education

    <bullet> Determine the consequences, including costs and 
hardships, on novice drivers and their families of requiring a two-
staged driver education as part of a graduated licensing system.
    <bullet> Determine the impact of various options for paying for 
driver education and licensing, including the option of requiring 
license applicants to pay some or all of the cost.
    <bullet> Identify and assess alternative systems for 
implementing two-staged driver education and determine the costs and 
benefits of each alternative.
    <bullet> Determine the extent to which novice drivers over the 
age of 25 would benefit from graduated licensing and determine any 
special training needs they present.
    <bullet> Examine and determine the appropriate role of the 
Federal government in developing a model driver education program 
for use by others in training novice drivers.
    <bullet> Obtain input from partners regarding the education of 
novice drivers to develop consensus regarding the basic training 
content required for novice drivers.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

    <bullet> Determine the factors contributing to higher mortality 
rates for persons who die in motor vehicle crashes in rural areas.
    <bullet> Identify the barriers to collection of reliable and 
relevant data in the current EMS data collection system, and 
identify the barriers to linking EMS data with other databases.
    <bullet> Examine the potential for and public acceptability of 
using EMS personnel as injury-prevention trainers or spokespersons 
at the community level.
    <bullet> Examine the potential consequences of increased 
enrollment in managed-care health plans, and their requirements 
(e.g., for approvals prior to the delivery of services) on the 
provision of emergency medical services to the public.
    <bullet> Develop a well defined, long term research plan for 
EMS, based on participation of relevant partners.

Safe Communities

    <bullet> Determine the feasibility and utility of including 
rehabilitation records on drug- or alcohol-impaired drivers in 
linkages with other Safe Communities data.

Technology Applications

    <bullet> Conduct an inventory of existing and planned 
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) products, determine which 
products have potential for traffic-safety applications, assess the 
degree to which candidate products would require modification, and 
describe the adaptations necessary.
    <bullet> Identify relevant factors that affect costs of 
production, deployment, operations, training, and maintenance of 
various technological safety applications; determine how best to 
foster the integration of technologies and the sharing of common 
hardware or systems.
    <bullet> Identify institutional partners and barriers to full 
acceptance and implementation of traffic safety-related 
technologies; define the nature and extent of public concerns and 
resistance to using technology to improve traffic safety; and 
identify effective strategies for allaying public fears and for 
gaining support for technological solutions to traffic-safety 
problems.

Strategic Objective: Countermeasure Development

    Develop and test methods to intervene with problem individuals 
or to aid those in a position to modify problem situations. These 
efforts may address individuals or situations needing attention 
either directly, through information and education, or indirectly, 
through legislation, enforcement, and adjudication.
    The outcome objectives listed under each program area specify 
one or more critical products that are needed to address an

[[Page 55308]]

identified safety problem. These products involve activities (e.g., 
research, development, and testing) that result in materials or 
procedures to accomplish one or more of the following: assessment, 
education, information, motivation, training, and instruction. In 
addition, some outcome objectives produce materials documenting 
strategies, technology applications, and model programs or 
legislation.
    Success in achieving this strategic objective will be measured 
by progress in accomplishing the following outcome objectives:

Impaired Driving

    <bullet> Develop and test better methods for detecting impaired 
drivers on the roadways.
    <bullet> Develop and test improvements to enforcement procedures 
that make alcohol impaired driving arrests less cumbersome and that 
improve the efficiency of conducting sobriety checkpoints.
    <bullet> Develop and test countermeasures for reducing the 
recidivism of repeat DWI offenders and those who drive with a 
suspended license.
    <bullet> Validate a problem-driver screening instrument for use 
in field sobriety testing situations.
    <bullet> Develop model specifications for alcohol test devices.
    <bullet> Develop and test procedures to detect problem drinkers 
at their first alcohol-related offense.
    <bullet> Develop and test countermeasures for various target 
groups (e.g., youthful drinkers, servers, companions, police 
officers, etc.), based on more detailed information regarding the 
interaction of driver characteristics and the situations that lead 
to drinking and driving.
    <bullet> Develop and test strategies to counter decreasing 
interest and support among legislators, police, and other public 
officials for efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving.
    <bullet> Develop and test methods for extending the 
effectiveness of ignition interlocks for convicted DWI offenders 
beyond the period during which such devices are installed on the 
offenders vehicle.

Occupant Protection

    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures specifically 
designed for part-time users to increase their perceptions of risk 
in those situations in which they currently do not buckle up.
    <bullet> Develop and test improved methods for disseminating the 
results of occupant-protection research to program developers to 
ensure effective targeting and up-to-date materials.
    <bullet> Develop and test more effective materials for 
convincing police officials and lawmakers that good laws and well-
publicized enforcement have great potential to increase safety belt 
and child seat usage and thus to prevent deaths and injuries.
    <bullet> Develop and test various technological approaches to 
increase belt use.

Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions

    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures to reduce the 
tendency (or ability) of drivers to endanger themselves and others 
by driving aggressively.
    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures to increase 
the acceptance of automated law enforcement by the public and the 
law enforcement community.
    <bullet> Develop and test materials to educate drivers and the 
general public about the impact of speed on crashes and resulting 
deaths and injuries.

Older Drivers

    <bullet> Develop and test guidelines and procedures for training 
driver licensing personnel how to evaluate the safe driving 
abilities of older persons applying for licensing or license 
renewal.
    <bullet> Develop and test guidelines and procedures for 
assisting older drivers to make a smooth transition from driving to 
other ways to meet their transportation needs.
    <bullet> Develop and test guidelines for medical personnel and 
social service personnel to help older drivers regulate their 
driving.
    <bullet> Establish the potential for licensing personnel to 
judge older drivers' ability to drive, based on an assessment of 
their skills, capabilities and training needs.
    <bullet> Identify and evaluate alternative federal, state, and 
local roles and actions to assist older drivers in meeting both 
safety and mobility needs; assess the costs and benefits of these 
alternatives.

Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists

    <bullet> Develop and test procedures for reducing the occurrence 
of pedestrian crashes among major identified target groups (e.g., 
young children, alcohol-impaired adults, elderly) in large cities.
    <bullet> Field test software that permits communities to 
identify the extent of their pedestrian and bicyclist crash problems 
and suggests appropriate countermeasures to address them.
    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures to educate 
drivers and the general public about the seriousness of the 
pedestrian and bicyclist crash problem and how they can prevent 
becoming involved in such crashes.
    <bullet> Develop refined countermeasures for reducing the 
ocurrences of crashes involving bicyclists.
    <bullet> Develop and test elementary school curriculum materials 
that provide information and resources to improve pedestrian and 
bicyclist safety for school-aged children.
    <bullet> Develop and test countermeasures for reducing the 
incidence of operating a motorcycle while impaired by alcohol or 
other drugs.

Novice Driver Education

    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures to increase 
the involvement of parents and other adults in the process of 
providing effective and safe driving practice for novice drivers.

Emergency Medical Services

    <bullet> Develop and test materials and procedures for training 
rural EMS personnel in providing appropriate care and clinical 
interventions to victims of motor vehicle crashes.
    <bullet> Develop and test countermeasures to prevent mortality 
in rural motor-vehicle crashes.

Technology Applications

    <bullet> Develop and test strategies to incorporate emerging 
technologies in behavioral aspects of traffic safety.
    <bullet> Develop and test strategies for allaying public and 
institutional fears of technological solutions to traffic-safety 
problems and for gaining support for prudent applications of 
technology.

Strategic Objective: Program Evaluation

    Ensure that programs implemented by states and communities to 
combat traffic safety problems are effective in achieving their 
intended purpose. Evaluation may address program implementation 
procedures, outcomes, or both.
    The outcome objectives listed under each program area focus on 
determining the effectiveness of a program in terms of specified 
dependent variables. Some are designed to identify the operational 
characteristics of effective programs. Final reports on completed 
evaluations provide information to aid the expansion of effective 
countermeasure programs by states and communities and other 
organizational entities. They also help to establish useful 
boundaries for adaptations of programs to local needs.
    Success in achieving this strategic objective will be measured 
by progress in accomplishing the following outcome objectives:

Impaired Driving

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of the Section 410 Alcohol 
Incentive Grant Program in reducing alcohol-related fatalities in 
the states.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of programs with major 
potential to reduce alcohol impaired driving, such as frequent and 
widespread sobriety checkpoints, administrative and judicial license 
and vehicle sanctions (including ignition interlocks), zero BAC 
tolerance laws for youth, and .08 BAC laws for adult drivers.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of various alternative 
transportation programs in reducing the incidence of impaired 
driving.

Occupant Protection

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of state legislative changes 
that provide for standard (primary) enforcement of safety belt usage 
laws, penalty points for violators, or higher fines.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of materials, incentive 
programs, and strategies on increasing safety-belt usage of part-
time users.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of the President's 
Initiative to Increase Safety Belt Usage.

Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of automated enforcement 
programs such as photo radar for speeding and red-light running.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement (and other) 
programs that target situations where speeding is most likely to 
lead to crash involvement.

Older Drivers

    <bullet> Evaluate model driver licensing programs that restrict 
or deny licensing for

[[Page 55309]]

those older drivers who do not appropriately restrict their driving.
    <bullet> Evaluate model medical and social-service programs that 
are designed to help older people make appropriate decisions about 
driving and maintaining their mobility.

Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of NHTSA-developed school-
bus safety training program that has been adopted and distributed by 
the National Safety Council.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive 
pedestrian countermeasures program, adapted for use in large urban 
settings.
    <bullet> Determine the costs of motorcycle helmet law repeal, 
relative to changes in injuries, fatalities and medical care 
expenditures.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of programs designed to 
reduce the incidence of impaired motorcycle operation.

Novice Driver Education  

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of a two-stage driver 
education relative to citations and crashes, controlling for the 
influence of graduated licensing on these outcomes.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

    <bullet> Evaluate locally implemented procedures to reduce rural 
preventable mortality.
    <bullet> Using outcome measures determined by current research, 
evaluate the effectiveness of EMS pre-hospital interventions on 
health outcomes.
    <bullet> Determine the efficacy of training methods, retention 
periods, and the need to provide training in new clinical practices 
for EMS personnel.

Safe Communities

    <bullet> Determine the characteristics of Safe Communities that 
are thriving and those that have faltered, where they are similar, 
and where they are different.
    <bullet> Study Safe Communities programs to determine the 
processes involved in establishing strong coalitions among partners, 
and the mechanisms that enable, facilitate, and strengthen the 
formation of such inter-organizational ties.
    <bullet> Determine how each partner organization's objectives 
contribute toward the perpetuation of the Safe Communities 
coalition, how organizations' objectives interact, and what steps 
are necessary to counter the forces that contribute to a program's 
demise; identify the short- and long-term successes of the Safe 
Communities program for each of the constituent groups in the 
coalition.

Technology Applications

    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies to 
detect drivers with suspended licenses.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies that 
may help increase safety-belt usage.
    <bullet> Evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies with 
potential for reducing unsafe driving acts.

Appendix B--Program Area Summaries

    Following are summaries of each program area, including a 
description of the program area, past and current research in the 
area, and some of the highest priority issues needing attention. 
Comments are invited on strategic issues, objectives, or outcomes, 
as well as on any other aspect of these summaries.

Impaired Driving

Background

    In 1996, alcohol was involved in approximately 17,000 traffic 
fatalities, and over 1,000,000 injuries. Arrests for Driving Under 
the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Impaired (DWI) have reached a 
plateau at about 1.4 million arrests annually, after reaching a high 
of 1.8 million in the late 1980s. Substantial progress has been made 
in reducing alcohol related crashes over the past decade. From 1986 
to 1996, alcohol related fatalities fell from about 52 percent to 41 
percent of total traffic fatalities. The actual number of alcohol-
related fatalities dropped from 24,000 to 17,000 over that period. 
Countermeasures found to contribute to these reductions include 
legislation increasing the drinking age and decreasing legal blood 
alcohol concentration (BAC) limits, highly visible enforcement, and 
swift and certain license sanctions. Increased awareness of the 
drinking and driving problem and its gradual social unacceptability 
have also helped reduce the problem.
    Driving while impaired by drugs other than alcohol may also 
constitute a significant highway safety problem, although it appears 
to be much smaller than the alcohol-related problem. One of the most 
representative studies in this area, a study of 2,000 fatally 
injured drivers in 1990, showed that 18 percent involved other 
drugs, either alone or in combination with alcohol.

What We Have Learned

    Research has shown that driving performance can be impaired at 
low alcohol levels and that the risk of crashing increases 
significantly after just one or two drinks. It has also been shown 
that many drugs other than alcohol can also impair driving. 
Marijuana poses significant potential for driving related problems.
    Two high risk drinking and driving target groups have been 
identified: young drivers and repeat offenders. Drivers between 15 
and 24 years of age comprise less than 14 percent of the population 
but they are involved in 27 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. 
Repeat offenders account for about a third of all drivers arrested 
for DWI. Safe-ride and designated driver programs provide 
alternatives to drinking and driving, but they are not widely used. 
Some studies have shown that they can be used inappropriately.
    Research has shown that highly visible law enforcement efforts, 
such as sobriety checkpoints, can have a general deterrent effect on 
drinking and driving. Jail time for DWI has been shown to have 
limited effectiveness, usually reducing drinking and driving only 
during the time the violator spends in jail. Research on both 
electronic monitoring and intensive-supervision probation has 
demonstrated reduced DWI recidivism among program participants. 
Countermeasure research also led to the development of validated DWI 
detection cues and a standardized field sobriety test (SFST) for use 
in determining whether drivers are above .10 percent BAC. These 
tools have contributed significantly to DWI enforcement.
    ORTR/RED evaluations have documented the effectiveness of 
various legislative actions such as: Minimum Drinking Age 21 laws, 
Zero Tolerance laws for youth, .08 BAC laws for adults, and 
Administrative License Revocation. In addition, Oregon and 
Washington enacted laws allowing police to seize the registration of 
motorists driving on a suspended licenses and to affix an 
identifying (``zebra'') tag over the vehicle sticker. The law was 
shown to be effective in Oregon but not in Washington.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Currently ORTR/RED is analyzing results of a survey of close 
relatives of alcohol-related fatal crash victims to refine target 
group descriptions. Projects are underway to examine how alcohol 
affects the driving behavior of various age, gender, and drinker-
type groups, and to re-examine the relative crash risk among drivers 
at various levels of alcohol concentration. Additionally, ORTR/RED 
administers a biennial national survey to track the nature and 
severity of alcohol-related issues.
    Other research efforts include: development of new enforcement 
and adjudication programs to deter alcohol impaired driving; 
examination of new technologies for identifying driving-while-
suspended (DWS) offenders and improving DWI enforcement; assessment 
of enforcement system loopholes; examination of DWI detection cues 
and the SFST at lower BACs; and development of improved techniques 
for conducting sobriety checkpoints.
    Evaluation efforts focus on vehicle-impoundment, -
immobilization, and -forfeiture laws for repeat DWI and DWS 
offenders and other key legislative changes in various states, such 
as lowering the BAC limit to .08 for adults.
    Current drug-focused research includes a survey to determine the 
nature and severity of the effects of drugs on driving, a study 
examining drug involvement in serious non-fatal crashes; and an on-
the-road study of the combined effects of alcohol and marijuana.

Strategic Issues for Research on Impaired Driving

    <bullet> The relationship between blood alcohol concentration 
(BAC) and crash risk was established nearly 40 years ago. More 
sophisticated research design and alcohol measurement procedures are 
available today. In addition, the trend toward lower BAC limits 
necessitates refined data on the relationship of BAC and crash risk 
at these lower levels.
    <bullet> Persistent drinking drivers are often not identified 
until after they have been involved in multiple crashes. 
Intervention programs would be more effective in reducing crash 
involvement if these drinkers could be identified at their first 
alcohol-related offense.
    <bullet> More than 30 states have enacted laws permitting the 
use of ignition-interlock devices for drivers convicted on DWI 
offenses. Research suggests that offenders

[[Page 55310]]

who have interlocks installed recidivate less often than those who 
do not, but the effects do not appear to continue after the devices 
have been removed. For this approach to be more widely implemented, 
judges need a better measure of its effectiveness and information 
about how to make the effects more durable.
    <bullet> Many legislators are reluctant to pass stronger laws, 
and police are often reluctant to enforce strong laws. Clear and 
strong evidence of the types and levels of interventions that the 
public is willing to support, would aid legislative and enforcement 
efforts.
    <bullet> Identification of population subgroups that are over-
involved in impaired driving helps to make countermeasures more 
efficient, when deployed. However, developing countermeasures 
tailored for specific target populations requires detailed 
information about the groups and the interaction of driver 
characteristics and the situations that lead to drinking and 
driving. The availability of such information would help determine 
the nature of effective countermeasures and procedures for various 
groups including drinkers, servers, companions, legislators, police 
officers, and judges.
    <bullet> Communities typically demand evidence that 
countermeasure programs are effective and can be implemented with 
available resources before they will adopt them. Current candidates 
for evaluation include highly visible roadside sobriety checkpoints, 
administrative and judicial license and vehicle sanctions, zero BAC 
tolerance laws for youth, and .08 BAC laws for adult drivers.
    <bullet> Over the past 20 years, volumes of laws have been 
enacted, arrests of alcohol-impaired drivers have increased in 
numbers, sanctions have been imposed with greater consistency, and 
the public norm has been increasingly one of non-acceptance of 
driving while impaired by alcohol. However, the current level of 
public support may not be adequate for implementation of new and 
potentially more effective countermeasures. In addition, support for 
intensified efforts to reduce alcohol-impaired driving may be lower 
among legislators and other public officials. The pressures of crime 
prevention have eroded support for traffic enforcement, and there 
are indications that, after nearly 20 years of focus, many 
legislators and police officials are ``burned out.''
    <bullet> Different studies have produced widely varying 
estimates of the degree to which drugs other than alcohol contribute 
to traffic crashes and fatalities. Studies of traffic-law offenders 
and those non-fatally injured in crashes have generally produced 
higher estimates than have studies of fatally injured crash victims. 
More accurate and timely data would be helpful in making decisions 
about resource allocations in this area.

Occupant Protection

Background

    The installation of safety belts has been required on passenger 
cars since the 1960s. Despite reasonably widespread educational 
efforts, however, the use of these safety devices remained quite low 
(i.e., less than 15 percent) until 1984, when states began to pass 
laws requiring vehicle occupants to use safety belts. Following the 
passage of such laws, most states experienced dramatic increases in 
safety belt use (e.g., 20-40 percentage points). Belt use is now 
mandated in 49 states and the District of Columbia, but only 13 
states and the District of Columbia allow police to stop a vehicle 
solely on the basis of observing a safety belt violation (i.e., 
standard enforcement). Most states require that another law 
violation must first be observed (i.e., secondary enforcement) 
before safety belt law violators can be stopped and issued a 
citation. Under these conditions, national safety belt use has 
reached a plateau of about 68 percent. President Clinton has 
established a Presidential Initiative to Increase Safety Belt Usage, 
setting a goal of 90 percent belt use by the year 2005.
    The need to use child safety seats appears to be more widely 
accepted than the need to use safety belts. The first law requiring 
children to be in safety seats was passed in 1978 in Tennessee. By 
1985, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had passed child 
passenger laws. Statewide reported usage rates currently range 
between 60 and 90 percent, depending on the age of the child. Most 
safety seats, however, are used improperly to some degree or 
another. Much remains to be done to determine the consequences of 
the various kinds of misuse and to develop programs to decrease such 
misuse. Investigations of air bags causing injuries and fatalities 
to young children and adults of short stature has reemphasized the 
need to get young children into safety seats, to get parents to 
install child seats in the back seat, and to put all children under 
12 in the back seat.

What We Have Learned

    Belt use remains low among various groups, such as young males 
and rural road users, and the overall rate of increase in belt use 
is flattening out. Much non-use of safety belts can be attributed to 
part-time belt users: people who use belts only on some trips or 
only on certain portions of trips. The main reasons part-time belt 
users offer for non-use are that, in their view, some trips entail 
an extremely low crash risk and some, usually because of relatively 
low speeds, entail a very low risk of serious injury. An estimated 
5-10 percent of the population totally resists using safety belts 
under any condition. They often claim that safety belts are too 
uncomfortable, possibly dangerous, and that they don't like being 
told what to do.
    Standard (primary) enforcement can have a major impact on belt 
use. Belt use increases of about 15 percentage points have been 
observed in states following a switch from a secondary enforcement 
law to a standard enforcement law. It also appears possible, 
however, to realize substantial gains in states with secondary 
enforcement laws. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington, for 
example, are secondary law states and each reports safety belt use 
rates greater than 70 percent.
    Child safety seat use is currently estimated to be 88 percent 
for infants and 61 percent for toddlers. Use declines sharply with 
age of child, although it is not clear if children are prematurely 
moved out of a child seat to make room for a younger sibling, if 
parents think their children no longer need the protection, or for 
some other reason. In a recent study, misuse of child safety seats 
included the following errors (and frequency of observation): no 
locking clip used on belts with sliding latch plate (72 percent); no 
chest clip (59 percent); inappropriate use of harness strap use (46 
percent) or vehicle safety belt (17 percent); seat placed in wrong 
direction (10 percent); and inappropriate harness connection (3 
percent).

Current Research and Evaluation

Current research in the area of occupant protection is focused on 
efforts to increase belt use by part-time users, and to gather data on 
teenagers and other high-risk, low-usage groups to aid in developing 
programs to increase their belt use. Projects are also underway to 
develop guidelines for matching safety education strategies to youth 
characteristics, to develop strategies for encouraging states to 
upgrade from secondary to standard enforcement of belt use laws, and to 
increase belt law enforcement levels. Some useful data regarding these 
matters will come from analyses of findings from the second biennial 
national survey of occupant protection issues to be completed in 1997.

Strategic Issues for Research on Occupant Protection

    <bullet> Highly publicized waves of intense belt-law enforcement 
(Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs or STEPs) have been 
successful in raising belt use levels but several factors appear to 
impede communities from effectively adopting these procedures. 
Minimum enforcement levels, characteristics of public information 
messages, need for police training, and use of overtime or regular 
time are among issues needing further attention.
    <bullet> Incentive programs have not been seriously investigated 
since before occupant protection laws became commonplace. While 
these programs historically provided rewards for belt use, they 
could be applied to intermediary groups to reward efforts to get 
others to buckle up. The potential of incentives in conjunction with 
sanctions appears to be significant but not well documented.
    <bullet> Most observed non-use of safety belts is due to part-
time users who have judged their driving situation to have a low 
risk of resulting in a crash, an injury or a citation for non-use of 
a safety belt. Getting part-time users to buckle up will require an 
increase in their perception of risk in the situations they now 
believe to be low risk. However, beliefs concerning risk of injury 
appear to be highly resistant to change.
    <bullet> There are several ongoing efforts to monitor changes in 
safety belt use (e.g., state surveys, NHTSA's National Occupant 
Protection Use Survey [NOPUS], and the Fatality Analysis Reporting 
System [FARS]) and changes in public knowledge, attitudes, and 
opinions (e.g., biennial National Occupant Protection Survey). These 
efforts will be useful in evaluating the President's Initiative to 
Increase Safety Belt Usage and the Air Bag Safety Campaign.
    <bullet> Knowledge of the characteristics of safety belt users, 
part-time users, and non-users is modest. Youth have very low usage

[[Page 55311]]

rates, as do impaired drivers and violators of other laws. Usage is 
lower in rural areas (other than interstate highways) and among 
drivers of pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles, and full-sized 
vans. Public education programs require more detailed knowledge to 
direct appropriate messages to specific groups using the most 
efficient communications medium.
    <bullet> Correcting misuse of safety seats, including premature 
graduation from safety seats to safety belts, requires a different 
approach than does promoting safety seat use among non-users. 
Accordingly, child safety seat programs require more knowledge of 
the characteristics of users, part-time users, and non-users of 
safety seats and their respective motivations for use, misuse, or 
non-use.
    <bullet> Results of current research tend not to diffuse into 
new occupant protection programs quickly or completely. 
Consequently, programs do not target materials to appropriate groups 
and messages may be ineffective for groups that are targeted.
    <bullet> In spite of the interest in and support for stronger 
actions to increase safety belt and child seat usage expressed in 
most public opinion surveys, the public fails to perceive the risks 
and costs of not buckling up. State legislators and local police 
officials fail to be convinced of the potential of safety restraints 
to prevent death and injury and of the potential for good laws and 
highly visible enforcement to increase belt usage.
    <bullet> It has been about 20 years since safety-belt/ignition 
interlocks were ruled out as a technique for ensuring belt use. 
Improvements in technology, on-board computers, and wide acceptance 
of belt-use requirements provide a new environment in which to 
reexamine technological approaches to increasing belt use levels. 
``Smart'' belt-use reminders and interlocks with other automobile 
features are now possible, but have not been tested with drivers.

Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions

Background

    Research has indicated that most crashes are attributable to 
human performance (e.g., following too closely, inattention, 
speeding, ``aggressive'' driving). However, progress in developing 
countermeasures to reduce the incidence of unsafe driving behaviors 
has been limited. Two reasons for this limited progress are the 
difficulty of measuring the incidence of unsafe driving acts (UDAs), 
and a poor understanding of the circumstances under which various 
UDAs are most likely to lead to crashes.
    One of the most frequently cited UDAs involves speeding. This 
specific behavior and its effect on crash frequency remains highly 
controversial. Speeding can be defined in at least two ways: (1) 
exceeding the posted speed limit; and (2) driving too fast for 
conditions. Speed affects both crash worthiness and crash avoidance. 
It is clear that speeding increases the severity of crashes, since 
the energy released in a crash increases by the square of vehicle 
velocity. It has also been demonstrated that increasing speed 
reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around curves or objects 
in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, 
and thus increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver 
reacts to a dangerous situation. According to police crash reports, 
approximately one third of all fatal crashes involve speeding as a 
primary cause. While this kind of information may provide a rough 
estimate of the incidence of speeding in fatal crashes, it does not 
provide sufficient insight into the causal relationship between 
travel speed and crash involvement. All things considered, we still 
have inadequate information relating to the extent to which speed 
contributes to crash causation and the conditions under which 
speeding most often results in a crash.
    There are a variety of other UDAs that have a high likelihood of 
causing crashes. They include: running red lights and stop signs, 
following too closely, passing improperly, weaving through traffic, 
etc. Recently, the term ``aggressive driving'' has been used to 
refer to a number of unsafe driving actions that are accompanied by 
an apparent aggression exhibited by one driver toward another.

What We Have Learned

    Crash study work has shown unequivocally that most crashes are 
attributable to human performance problems including improper 
lookout, speeding, inattention, improper evasive actions, and 
distractions. In terms of speed, we know that slower speeds are 
accompanied by fewer and less severe crashes, but the exact nature 
of this relationship needs further documentation. We also know that 
higher levels of speed variance on roadways has been shown to be 
associated with increased crash risk.
    We do know that, among drivers involved in fatal crashes, 
younger drivers of either sex are more likely to have been speeding 
than older drivers. Males, at any age, are more likely than females 
to have been speeding. There also appears to be a strong positive 
correlation between speed and alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. 
Drivers at high BACs are more likely to have been speeding than 
those at lower BACs. With regard to roadway type, 43 percent of 
crashes reported to have involved speeding occur on non-interstate 
roads with a speed limit of 55 mph. Forty-five percent occur on 
roads with speed limits of 50 mph and below. Only 12 percent of 
fatalities involving speeding occur on interstate highways.
    Research suggests that the perceived probability of getting 
caught is more important than perceived severity of fine in 
controlling speeding behavior. As in other areas of traffic law 
enforcement, it appears that enforcement of speed limits must be 
accompanied by publicity if general deterrence of speeding is to 
occur. The importance of perceived risk of getting caught, along 
with decreased resources for traffic law enforcement, have led some 
officials to view the use of automated speed enforcement as a 
desirable alternative. Currently, however, public support for 
automated speed enforcement appears to be limited.

Current Research and Evaluation

    The agency is currently conducting three separate research 
projects dealing with speeding and unsafe driving: (1) A survey of 
public attitudes and behaviors toward speeding and other unsafe 
driving actions; (2) a crash investigation study to examine the role 
of unsafe actions in crashes; and (3) a review and analysis of 
existing data to suggest guidelines for setting speed limits. The 
survey of public attitudes regarding speeding and other UDAs will 
assess views toward enforcement, motivations for speeding, 
anticipated consequences, and the acceptability of various measures 
to reduce unsafe driving behaviors. The crash investigation effort 
involves a clinical case study approach in which a sample of crashes 
will be reconstructed with a focus on identifying the specific 
behaviors that lead to the crash. The objective of the speed limits 
study is to develop data-based guidelines for setting speed limits. 
This study is co-sponsored by NHTSA, the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, and is being 
performed by the Transportation Research Board.
    One problem that current studies do not address is the absence 
of research that estimates the level of crash risk associated with 
speed levels, under differing traffic and environmental conditions. 
To address this issue, an epidemiological study is being developed 
in which the travel speeds of crash-involved vehicles will be 
compared with travel speeds of matched non-crash involved vehicles. 
An additional study is being initiated in October of 1997 to test 
the feasibility of equipping a fleet of vehicles with speed and 
position recorders to determine the crash-involvement rates of 
drivers with differing speeding habits.

Strategic Issues for Research on Speeding and Unsafe Driving Actions

    <bullet> The nature of the relationships among speed, driver 
characteristics, roadway conditions, situational factors, and crash 
rates is currently unknown. Without such knowledge, speed limits are 
set using somewhat arbitrary standards, and are often viewed 
negatively by the driving public. In order to develop effective 
countermeasures, the complex relationship between speed and crashes 
must be much better understood and documented.
    <bullet> After the relationship between speed and crashes is 
more clearly defined, drivers and members of the general public need 
to be made aware of the conditions under which speed leads to 
crashes.
    <bullet> When large numbers of drivers ignore posted speed 
limits, it is difficult to identify drivers who are most likely to 
be involved in crashes. Appropriate target-group identifiers might 
be more related to overall driving habits than to events identified 
in single episodes. Searching for characteristics of at-risk drivers 
will require in-depth studies of driver behavior.
    <bullet> ``Aggressive driving'' implies a social-interactive 
component to the commission of unsafe driving actions. However, 
there is no common definition of aggressive driving. Without a 
definition, it is difficult to determine the incidence of such a 
phenomenon and how it is related to crash causation.
    <bullet> Automated enforcement of speed and other UDAs are not 
widely accepted by law

[[Page 55312]]

enforcement agencies or the general public. Acceptance may be 
facilitated by implementation and evaluation of such technology 
where compliance with speed limits is critical or where offenses are 
least tolerable to the public (e.g., red-light running or speeding 
near schools or hospitals).

Older Drivers

Background

    NHTSA first developed a plan to address the combined safety and 
mobility needs of older drivers in 1988. This plan was developed in 
response to the Transportation Research Board's publication, 
Transportation in an Aging Society. The plan was last revised in 
1993, at the request of Congress. People over 70 currently comprise 
9 percent of the population and 13 percent of fatalities. Although 
older drivers are highly over-represented in crashes per miles 
traveled, they are only slightly over-represented in fatal crashes 
per licensed driver. However, demographic trends project that the 
proportion of older drivers on the road will increase from the 
current 9 percent to over 14 percent within the next 25 years. 
Primarily because of increased frailty, the ratio of fatalities to 
injuries for drivers over age 80 is 4 to 6 times that of crash-
involved drivers between 20 and 60. Thus, as the numbers of older 
drivers on the road increase, it is inevitable that more will be 
killed in crashes, unless special efforts are made to improve their 
safety.

What We Have Learned

    The majority of older drivers do not constitute a major safety 
problem. Research has indicated that most older drivers adjust their 
driving practices to compensate for declining capabilities. They 
reduce or stop driving after dark or in bad weather and avoid rush 
hours, high speed roads and unfamiliar routes. Men appear to be 
somewhat more reluctant than women to stop driving and consequently 
are at a higher risk of crashing than women of comparable age. 
Conditions such as memory loss, glaucoma, and antidepressant use 
appear to be related to increased crash risk.
    Some older persons are not aware of their changing conditions; 
most notably, those with cognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer's 
disease, and certain visual problems. These drivers may not self 
regulate and, as a result, pose an increased risk of crash 
involvement. Such individuals may require outside intervention to 
remove them from traffic. Unfortunately, research suggests that most 
family members, social service agencies, and health care 
professionals are either not sufficiently aware or choose not to 
provide assistance in making driving-related decisions to those who 
need it. For a variety of reasons, many appear hesitant to get 
involved with this issue.
    Those elderly drivers who remain a problem are not easily 
detected with standard licensing procedures. Further, there is some 
doubt as to whether most licensing staff have the skills necessary 
to detect these problem drivers, even with training and state-of-the 
art testing techniques. Diagnostic tests currently in use have not 
been shown to be effective in identifying those older drivers who 
are at increased crash risk, but some recently developed tests of 
``speed of attention'' and ``visual perception'' may have such 
potential.
    One factor that must be considered with regard to interventions 
is the fact that elderly people who give up driving often lose 
mobility. For many, the automobile is their primary mode of 
transportation and acceptable alternatives are simply not available. 
Decreased mobility is frequently followed by decreased quality of 
life as elderly people are cut off from the social events, family 
visits, medical attention, and opportunities for worship that are 
critical in maintaining their sense of well being.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Several long-term efforts are now approaching conclusion. These 
developmental projects include: (1) Procedures to help elderly 
drivers make better decisions about adapting their driving to 
accommodate their changing abilities; (2) procedures for family 
members, friends, social service agencies, physicians, and other 
health-care providers to recognize when an older person needs to 
adjust his or her driving to adapt to functional limitations; (3) 
procedures for driver licensing agencies to restrict or deny 
licensing for those who do not appropriately restrict their driving; 
and (4) model programs for medical and social-service agencies to 
help older people to make appropriate decisions about driving while 
maintaining their mobility. Current efforts also include a survey to 
determine societal perceptions and willingness to assist older 
drivers to better regulate their driving, and a field test of 
special licensing requirements for older drivers.

Strategic Issues for Research on Older Drivers

    <bullet> Older drivers have higher fatality rates, per-mile 
driven, than do average-age drivers. Two factors that contribute to 
this measure of increased risk include: (1) the fact that elderly 
drivers travel fewer miles on interstate highways and other major 
roadways; and (2) the fact that elderly drivers are more fragile 
than younger drivers. Roadways most often used by elderly drivers, 
while involving lower speeds, often have more opportunities for 
vehicle-to-vehicle conflict. Thus, elderly drivers are exposed to 
more potential crash situations per mile than is the average driver. 
Because of their fragility, an elderly person involved in a crash is 
more likely to be seriously injured or killed than is a younger 
person. Other factors, such as the types of crashes older drivers 
are involved in, are also likely to be important and the development 
of effective countermeasures will require a better understanding of 
these factors.
    <bullet> Some state licensing officials have suggested 
establishing a ``graduated'' licensing system for older drivers, 
whereby driving would be systematically restricted to certain 
driving situations based on reduced abilities. Such a system would 
entail some expense and it would depend upon accurate and validated 
testing procedures that are not yet available. Also, it must be 
remembered that most older drivers appear to impose restrictions on 
themselves. Development and evaluation of such a model graduated 
licensing programs could provide important information with regard 
to the potential for widespread adoption of such programs.
    <bullet> There is some disagreement as to whether licensing 
personnel can accurately assess an older driver's ability to drive. 
It may be that individuals with more specialized training and 
experience will be required. Research is needed to determine if 
licensing personnel are able to take on this role and, if so, what 
kinds of selection procedures and training will be required.
    <bullet> It is likely that more older persons will drive longer 
in the future than they do now, further increasing their exposure to 
crashes, injuries, and fatalities. While NHTSA's responsibilities 
for increasing safety are clearly defined, its role in extending 
mobility is not. Additional information (e.g., determining the 
extent to which loss of driving contributes to risk of death or 
injury as a pedestrian) is needed to clarify the level of effort the 
agency should place on developing programs to foster safe mobility 
for older people by helping them continue to drive or by helping 
them make the transition to other modes of transportation.
    <bullet> One of the most significant reasons for elderly 
drivers' over-involvement in fatal crashes is the inability of their 
bodies to absorb crash forces. What would be a survivable crash for 
a younger person is often a fatal crash for an older person. Current 
occupant-protection standards do not specifically address the 
frailty of older occupants. More information is needed to establish 
the feasibility of improving the protection of older people when 
they are in a crash.
    <bullet> Some of the causes of older-driver crashes could 
conceivably be corrected using new vehicle technology. Although 
adaptive devices have a long history of permitting people to 
overcome various handicaps, older persons are among the last to 
adapt to new technology. Additional research in this area could 
provide useful information regarding the acceptability of 
technology-based innovations designed to help older, functionally 
less able people continue to drive.

Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Motorcyclists

Background

    Over the past 25 years, NHTSA has made substantial progress in 
improving the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly in 
understanding factors leading to pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. 
Pedestrian crashes involving young people aged 5-12 have declined by 
about 25 percent since this training and public education work 
began. However, pedestrian crashes involving young people remains a 
severe problem with about 30,000 such crashes occurring annually. 
Older persons also pose a significant over involvement in pedestrian 
crashes. While they constitute only 13 percent of the total 
population, they are involved in about 23 percent of pedestrian 
crash fatalities.
    Another significant component of the pedestrian crash problem 
involves alcohol. Research has shown that about half of all fatal 
adult pedestrian crashes involve either an intoxicated pedestrian 
(31 percent of cases), or an intoxicated driver (14 percent of

[[Page 55313]]

cases). Finally, the pedestrian crash problem is especially severe 
in several large urban areas where nearly half of all those killed 
in motor vehicle crashes are pedestrians.
    While the pedestrian (and bicyclist) crash problems remain 
serious, the public's attention is not as strongly focused on these 
issues as it is on other areas, such as impaired driving, aggressive 
driving, etc. In addition, shifts in traffic safety priorities in 
the early 1980s resulted in a reduced emphasis of pedestrian and 
bicyclist issues. In spite of these obstacles, a number of prototype 
public information and education products have been developed, 
tested and found to be effective.

What We Have Learned

    Crash investigation studies have shown that most crashes 
involving pedestrians or bicyclists and motor vehicles can be 
categorized into a few major types based on a combination of 
behavioral errors and environmental conditions. Research has shown 
that training and public education programs focused on these main 
crash types can reduce the incidence of young pedestrian crashes 
(age 5-12) by as much as 25 percent. Past research indicates that 
there is more than a 500 percent increase in crash risk for 
pedestrians at BACs of .15 percent or above. Other studies have 
determined that Native Americans, male Hispanics, and African-
Americans over the age of 25 are over-represented in alcohol-related 
pedestrian crashes. Alcohol is also a major factor in both bicyclist 
and motorcyclist crashes, with 25 and 30 percent of such fatalities, 
respectively, involving BACs over .10 percent.
    In 1996, 2160 motorcyclists were killed and an additional 56,000 
were injured in traffic crashes. Since 1986 the fatality rate per 
hundred million vehicle miles traveled decreased dramatically: from 
48.6 in 1986 to 22.7 in 1995. Per vehicle mile traveled in 1995, 
motorcyclists were about 16 times as likely as passenger car 
occupants to die in a motor vehicle crash and about 4 times as 
likely to be injured. In 1996, there were 1,048 two-vehicle crashes 
involving a motorcycle and another vehicle. In 35% of these crashes 
the other vehicle was turning left while the motorcycle was going 
straight, passing or overtaking the vehicle. Crash statistics show 
that helmets are about 29 percent effective in preventing crash 
fatalities and 67 percent effective in preventing serious injury. 
Also, we know that states which have enacted mandatory helmet laws 
for all riders experience almost 100 percent helmet use; however, in 
states without such laws, helmet use ranges from 34 percent to 50 
percent. Motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes in 1996 had 
higher intoxication rates than any other type of motor-vehicle 
driver. In 1996, 31 percent of all fatally injured motorcycle 
operators were intoxicated and another 11.5 percent had positive 
BACs between .01-.09. As one way of countering this problem, NHTSA 
research developed a set of DWI motorcyclist cues (e.g., drifting 
during turn or curve, trouble with dismount, weaving) that have been 
found to be predictive of impaired motorcyclist operation. 
Information about these cues have been widely distributed to police 
agencies throughout the country.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Current research is focused on development and testing 
countermeasures to reduce pedestrian crashes involving children, 
alcohol-impaired adults, and elderly persons; investigating the 
effect of vehicle speed on pedestrian crashes; and developing a 
catalogue of available measures to reduce bicyclist crashes. 
Periodic surveys are also being conducted to determine the nature 
and extent of the public's view of the pedestrian and bicyclist 
crash problem. In the motorcycle area, efforts are being focused on 
evaluating the impact of repealing motorcycle helmet laws in various 
states, on the effectiveness of various means for increasing the 
visibility of motorcyclists; and on developing and evaluating 
effective training and licensing programs for novice motorcyclists.

Strategic Issues for Research on Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and 
Motorcyclists

    <bullet> Over the past 10 years, fatal crashes have declined 
substantially for both pedestrians and bicyclists. In order to 
determine the causes for this decline, we must find a way to measure 
the magnitude and trends in the exposure of pedestrians and 
bicyclists to crash situations.
    <bullet> Most pedestrian crashes occur in urban settings. In 
some cities, half or more of those killed in motor-vehicle related 
crashes are pedestrians. Thus, to be effective, existing 
countermeasures must be adapted to meet the unique demands of the 
large-city environment. Although existing countermeasures have been 
tested individually, they have not been tested in combination, in a 
big-city environment.
    <bullet> Nearly all of NHTSA's research on pedestrian and 
cyclist crashes with motor vehicles has emphasized the role of the 
pedestrian or the bicyclist, rather than the driver of the car or 
truck. In order to develop more effective comprehensive programs for 
pedestrians and cyclists, more information is needed regarding 
driver awareness of these road users and of how they interact.
    <bullet> In many cities, especially in the eastern portion of 
the United States, drivers do not yield to pedestrians, as required 
by law. Past research has found that drivers making a right-turn-on-
red maneuver often do not fully stop their vehicles nor adequately 
search for pedestrians. An assessment of driver compliance with 
existing laws and ordinances is necessary before a review of current 
laws governing pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can determine 
whether existing laws should be modified or new model legislation 
should be drafted.
    <bullet> NHTSA has developed training materials for a number of 
professional groups to alert them to the safety problems of 
pedestrians and bicyclists and how to address them. These groups 
include police, traffic engineers, city planners, and highway safety 
specialists. Another important group for which materials need to be 
produced are elementary school teachers.
    <bullet> The lack of visibility, including nighttime 
conspicuity, remains a substantial problem contributing to motor 
vehicle crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists. More information is 
needed on the requisite materials and devices that should be worn or 
used by pedestrians and bicyclists in order to make these road users 
more visible to traffic.
    <bullet> Research is underway to catalogue current 
countermeasures available to address bicyclist safety This effort is 
intended to identify those areas in need of additional development.
    <bullet> The Federal Highway Administration is developing a 
prototype software package to permit communities to assess their 
unique pedestrian and bicyclist safety problems. Before this 
software can be widely distributed, it must be tested under real-
world conditions.
    <bullet> A joint effort with the Federal Highway Administration 
resulted in a pedestrian and bicyclist safety training program for 
traffic safety professionals. Research to improve awareness levels 
of public and highway safety professionals has evolved into 
coalition called the ``Partnership for a Walkable America.'' One of 
the objectives of this group is to stimulate research to help the 
general public understand the seriousness of the pedestrian and 
bicyclist crash problems.
    <bullet> NHTSA recently developed an extensive program to 
address school-bus safety issues. This program was adopted by the 
National Safety Council and has been widely distributed. While the 
program was tested during its development, it has not yet been 
evaluated as implemented by local communities.
    <bullet> In nearly every state with a law requiring 
motorcyclists to wear helmets, there are efforts to repeal that law. 
Most of the states that repealed their motorcycle helmet laws in the 
1970s and 1980s reinstated them a few years later. However, new 
efforts are currently underway in most states to repeal these laws. 
State legislatures change with time, and many current lawmakers, who 
may not be aware of past history and demonstrated effectiveness of 
these laws, may be convinced to vote for repeal. Supporters of 
helmet laws need up-to-date factual information about the increased 
injury severity, increased fatalities, and increased medical costs 
that inevitably result from rescinding motorcycle helmet laws.
    <bullet> Many crashes involving motorcyclists result for drivers 
who ``looked but did not see'' the cyclist. Past efforts at 
increasing the conspicuity of motorcyclists resulted in the practice 
of riding with headlights ``on'' at all times, including daylight 
hours. Research attention must be refocused on developing more 
effective means for making motorcyclists visible to car and truck 
drivers and on developing and testing more effective training and 
licensing programs for novice riders.
    <bullet> The most recent systematic analysis of motorcycle 
crashes was done nearly 20 years ago. During this time, motorcycle 
designs have changed dramatically, favoring sleeker and faster bikes 
with lower profiles, urban areas have expanded while roadways have 
deteriorated, and riding practices have adapted to these changes. 
These events have an unknown effect on motorcycle crashes and, 
consequently, the program actions needed to counteract them.

[[Page 55314]]

Novice Driver Education

Background

    NHTSA was substantially involved in novice driver education 
research from the late 1960s through the early 1980s. However, the 
agency reduced efforts in this area after a major demonstration 
program showed no long-term crash or violation reductions resulting 
from what was then a state-of-the-art novice driver education and 
training program. In 1994, Congress requested recommendations from 
NHTSA on ways to improve novice driver education and the agency 
developed and submitted to Congress a ``Research Agenda For an 
Improved Novice Driver Education Program.'' This report reviewed the 
history of driver education (including, but not limited to NHTSA's 
research and demonstration efforts), suggested reasons why novice 
driver education may not be as effective as it could be, and 
suggested that an improved driver education program should be 
developed as an integral part of a graduated driver licensing 
system. The report also provided a summary of research, development, 
and evaluation activities that could be used to restructure and 
improve the impact of novice driver education. The proposed program 
would have two-stages of education that would parallel stages of a 
graduated licensing system. It would include parent participation, 
and it would incorporate the use of electronic simulation to provide 
risk-management training.

What We Have Learned

    Driving is a complex task that requires many hours of practice 
to reach proficiency in all situations. Much of the time the driving 
task is non-demanding in nature and the basics of vehicle control 
that are learned in a brief training program generally provide the 
skills necessary to drive safely in non-demanding situations. 
However these short courses do not provide the adequate training to 
meet the occasional, but critical, situations where the driving task 
becomes very demanding. Clearly, advanced risk-management skills 
cannot be learned in a short time, nor can they be learned before 
the basics of vehicle handling are mastered. This suggests the need 
to separate the teaching of the two kinds of skills into two 
separate learning situations. Since an additional learning 
requirement would require strong motivation to get novice drivers 
involved, it is logical to tie this two-stage driver education 
approach to the attainment of the drivers' license. Graduated 
licensing programs provide the structure in which two-stage driver 
education could be most effective.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Current research is focused on developing and pilot testing 
materials for use in a two-staged driver education training program. 
Materials include curriculum modules covering essential perceptual 
and cognitive training as well as materials to guide parental 
involvement in providing appropriate experience and modeling proper 
driving behaviors. Current research is also examining interactive 
electronic media for use in learning and practicing advanced, risk-
management skills. Evaluations of graduated driver licensing systems 
are being conducted in Michigan and in North Carolina. Michigan's 
system includes a two-stage driver education program with parent 
participation.

Strategic Issues for Research on Novice Driver Education

    <bullet> In view of the finding that conventional driver 
education has little impact in terms of reducing novice driver 
crashes and violations, any new program approach must show that it 
has the potential to reduce the number, frequency, or severity of 
crashes of novice drivers. Since research on two-stage driver 
education could be confounded by the independent effects of 
graduated licensing, efforts must be made to control for such 
effects.
    <bullet> The success of the two-staged driver education program 
depends in large part on the novice driver obtaining a significant 
amount of driving experience under low-threat conditions before he 
or she moves on to the second stage of training. Graduated-licensing 
systems attempt to use parents (or other significant adults) to 
provide this initial experience, but it is not known to what extent 
parents and other adults will actually participate or what kinds of 
situations will maximize such participation.
    <bullet> The two-stage driver education program is designed to 
be an integral part of a graduated driver licensing system. The 
intent is to use the prospect of full licensure to provide the 
motivation to novice drivers to fully participation in the program. 
However, it may be that mandating such training will impose 
significant hardships on some individuals. The ramifications of 
requiring the driver education as a part of graduated driver 
licensing versus providing it as an optional component need to be 
explored.
    <bullet> If a more difficult licensing exam is given as an exit 
(final) exam, most state licensing authorities could not assume the 
additional costs. Alternative approaches include having states 
charge applicants for this test or having training facilities 
provide this testing service for the licensing agency. Additional 
information about the potential consequences of these alternatives 
is needed to provide guidance to the states.
    <bullet> When public school systems discontinue driver education 
programs, aspiring novice drivers are faced with the requirement of 
obtaining training though commercial agencies. A two-stage education 
program would place even more demands on already burdened school 
systems. Most foreign countries require that novice drivers take 
formalized training and pay for it themselves. The ramifications of 
adopting such a system for this country are currently unknown.
    <bullet> With increased immigration, there is an increase in 
older novice drivers. While these older drivers do not show the age-
related judgement errors associated with young novice drivers, they 
still have a higher level of crashes than experienced drivers of 
their own age. Since these drivers are older, often are less fluent 
in English, and may have learned to drive in another country, the 
extent to which they would benefit from a graduated driver licensing 
and education program oriented to younger, English-speaking novice 
drivers is not clear.
    <bullet> Additional information is needed regarding the 
appropriate role for the Federal government to assume in developing 
and promoting a novice driver education program for use by states 
and communities.
    <bullet> Developers of any complex program such as this, must 
solicit and consider the viewpoints of partners. A variety of 
mechanisms and approaches (e.g., consensus workshops) exist to meet 
these needs. More information about the views and preferences of 
various partners will be necessary to gain agreement on issues such 
as the basic training content needed for novice drivers and the 
development of model education and training programs that meet the 
needs of the various organizations involved.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

Background

    EMS differs from the other program areas receiving research 
attention in that it is entirely focused on post-crash rather than 
pre-crash events. Much of what is known regarding emergency out-of-
hospital medical care stems from clinical studies of stabilized 
patients in treatment settings. This knowledge is not always 
applicable to the pre-hospital setting, where EMS is provided to 
injured, medically-unstable patients in the field. Consequently, 
there are gaps in our knowledge of effective out-of-hospital care. A 
key impediment to research on EMS is the absence of a well defined, 
uniform, and complete data system to track performance of EMS 
systems at local and the national levels. This lack of data makes it 
difficult to set a strategy for EMS research.

What We Have Learned

    EMS research conducted by NHTSA has focused primarily on the 
high mortality rate found in rural settings. Results from studies in 
three states indicate that from 12 percent to 29 percent of deaths 
from highway trauma in rural settings could be prevented by changes 
in patient care.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Current research projects are developing appropriate outcome 
measures for measuring EMS effectiveness and are evaluating 
recommendations for reducing preventable deaths in rural traffic 
crashes. These recommendations resulted from an earlier study of 
rural preventable mortality.

Strategic Issues for Research on Emergency Medical Services

    <bullet> Data provide the foundation for all research efforts 
but there are significant barriers to collecting relevant and 
accurate EMS data. Either the data do not exist, are not collected 
in a reliable fashion, or cannot be linked with other data sets to 
allow tracking of patient outcomes. The integration of information 
systems is not possible with most of the EMS data that is currently 
collected.
    <bullet> The effectiveness of many EMS interventions currently 
being delivered by pre-hospital personnel is not adequately 
documented. Virtually no clinical research has been conducted with 
injured patients in the pre-hospital setting. Such research is

[[Page 55315]]

needed to ascertain the effectiveness of current EMS practices on 
patient outcomes, including reduction in the classic ``6D's'' (i.e., 
death, disease, disability, discomfort, destitution, and 
dissatisfaction).
    <bullet> Retrospective analysis of EMS treatment of crash 
victims in rural settings revealed that errors or omissions in care 
were involved in nearly 30 percent of fatalities. Conclusions from 
these studies suggest a need to improve training in specific 
clinical interventions by EMS personnel, particularly in rural 
settings.
    <bullet> EMS personnel in most states are trained and 
periodically re-trained using NHTSA's pre-hospital curricula or 
similar programs. Little is known about retention periods for the 
material learned, need for skills updating, best methods for 
training, and related professional development and certification 
issues. Research into these areas will be needed to make 
improvements in NHTSA's curriculum.
    <bullet> There are many reasons to use pre-hospital personnel to 
teach injury prevention at the community level. Some of the most 
obvious include: (1) The positive status and acceptance of these 
providers among the general population; (2) the public's willingness 
to accept an injury prevention message from pre-hospital providers; 
(3) availability of EMS providers, when they are not engaged in EMS 
activity; and (4) the potential cost savings that could result by 
preventing injuries. However, it is not clear when or where these 
people are effectively utilized for this purpose. Such knowledge 
could enhance injury-prevention activities.
    <bullet> Accessibility and availability of emergency care to all 
is a basic EMS principle. However, enrollment in managed care plans 
is growing at phenomenal rates and most plans require additional 
levels of review before authorization and payment for EMS services 
is made. These additional requirements may consume precious time in 
emergency situations that can literally mean the difference between 
life and death. Research into the effects of these review 
requirements on EMS outcomes is needed.
    <bullet> A comprehensive, well defined, national research plan 
that could be embraced by the many partners in the EMS community is 
needed. Such a plan would involve researchers and organizations in 
both the public and private sectors. NHTSA could provide the 
leadership for the development of such a plan.

Safe Communities

Background

    Safe Communities is a program area managed jointly under NHTSA's 
Associate Administrations for State and Community Services and 
Traffic Safety Programs. Safe Communities bring together citizens 
and a wide range of local agencies and businesses, such as law 
enforcement, hospitals, managed care facilities, emergency medical 
services, schools, insurance companies, other public and private 
businesses and local governments. These organizations then appoint 
members to work on solving local traffic safety (and other injury 
causing) problems. Program offices within the agency (e.g., State 
and Community Services and Traffic Safety Programs' Office of 
Communications and Outreach) provide the day-to-day management of 
the Safe Communities Program. The Office of Research and Traffic 
Records, Research and Evaluation Division (ORTR/RED) provides 
technical expertise on matters relating to evaluation for this key 
program area.
    The Safe Communities program is similar to the Corridor/
Community Traffic Safety Programs (C/CTSP). However, the Safe 
Communities program uses a ``bottom-up, `` data-based approach to 
identify and address key injury problems. Additionally, this program 
includes an expanded base of partners than the C/CTSPs. In addition 
to the traffic law enforcement, highway safety offices, and 
emergency medical services groups, a Safe Community includes 
citizens, business, and other health care providers such as 
hospitals, managed care facilities, and rehabilitation centers. 
Presently there are over 300 community-based, locally-supported Safe 
Communities in various stages of development.
    Four key components of a Safe Communities program are: (1) 
Injury data analysis and (where possible) database linkages; (2) 
expanded partnerships, especially with health care providers and 
business; (3) citizen involvement and input; and (4) an integrated 
and comprehensive injury control system.

What We Have Learned

    The safe communities program is a new initiative. Evaluation 
results and lessons learned will be published in forthcoming annual 
reports on the program.

Current Research and Evaluation

    As of September of 1997, NHTSA has selected two communities to 
serve as model demonstration sites for the Safe Communities program. 
They are Dallas, Texas and Greenville, North Carolina. ORTR/RED is 
currently providing technical evaluation expertise to these two 
model Safe Community sites. It is anticipated that this service will 
be extended to two additional model sites that are to be selected in 
the near future.

Strategic Issues for Research on Safe Communities

    <bullet> Success in disseminating safety programs to new 
communities depends in large part on having evidence of success. 
Accordingly, it is desirable to obtain information about which Safe 
Communities are thriving and which are faltering and what 
characteristics the stronger programs have in common. Knowledge 
regarding these factors and any identified deficiencies in weaker 
programs will permit intelligent revisions in these programs to 
maximize success.
    <bullet> Currently, linkages between crash records and 
rehabilitation records are usually limited to physical therapy, 
occupational therapy, and recreational therapy. Information on the 
feasibility including and linking additional information (e.g., 
information regarding referral to alcohol or drug rehabilitation 
programs) would be extremely useful to program managers.
    <bullet> A Safe Community is a coalition of medical, 
enforcement, educational, business, and civic groups in a community. 
Such a coalition must include close ties, communication, and 
cooperation among member groups. Additional research is needed to 
define the mechanisms that enable, facilitate, and strengthen the 
formation of such inter-organizational ties. In order to facilitate 
the perpetuation of Safe Communities, information is needed 
regarding the objectives of the various members, how they interact, 
and how to counter the forces that contribute to a program's 
disintegration.
    <bullet> Program evaluation provides the evidence that newly 
developing Safe Communities need to survive. Information on both 
short-term and long-term successes is needed, along with a better 
understanding of which outcomes are most important to each of the 
participating members of a safe community.

Technology Applications

Background

    The traffic safety community is anticipating future increases in 
vehicle travel and risks of crashes, with no such increases in 
funding for safety programs. Police agencies, under pressure to 
fight serious crime with reduced budgets, are allocating fewer 
resources to traffic-law enforcement--even though well-publicized 
traffic-law enforcement is the proven key to compliance with safety-
based laws. With the easiest gains already made, safety experts will 
now have to address populations and problems that have historically 
been most difficult to change (e.g., chronic offenders, risk-takers, 
rural residents).
    In order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of safety 
and enforcement programs, ORTR/RED plans to extend its exploration 
of emerging technologies. Since the early 1980s, the agency has 
evaluated equipment such as alcohol breath-test sensors and laser 
speed-measuring devices. More recently, evaluations have focused on 
newer technologies such as ``smart card'' drivers licenses that 
prevent fraudulent ID, ignition interlock devices, electronic 
monitoring wristbands (worn by drivers with suspended licenses) to 
ensure court-imposed driving restrictions, and electronic vehicle 
and driver identification systems. ORTR/RED is also monitoring 
technology developments such as portable computers to assist police 
when entering crash or ticket citation data, cellular telephones for 
rescue calls, automated crash-notification systems, and photographic 
systems to automate ticketing for red-light running.
    In recent years, electronics and communication technologies have 
been developed to improve highways and vehicles. Government agencies 
and the private sector have allocated significant resources to 
develop an ``Intelligent Transportation Systems'' (ITS). Their 
efforts have focused on commercially appealing applications such as 
congestion relief, navigation information, electronic toll 
collection, and onboard ``Mayday'' communication systems for 
personal security.
    Adaptations of these emerging technologies could have 
significant potential to aid emergency rescue services, crash

[[Page 55316]]

investigations, traffic law enforcement, and other traffic safety 
efforts. However, many traffic-safety priorities, such as increasing 
safety belt use and reducing impaired or aggressive driving, might 
involve vehicle or driver-license technologies requiring public 
investment, vehicle regulations, or court-imposed use--a contrasting 
paradigm from the current ITS ``free-market'' perspective where 
motorists pay for high-tech services.

What We Have Learned

    Applied technology provides demonstrated benefits in safer 
driving behaviors and reduced crashes. For example, speed 
enforcement using photo radar reduced injury crashes by 20 percent 
on Norway's rural roads, and Australia's metropolitan roads saw 20-
49 percent reductions in crash severity. At one busy intersection in 
Maryland, red-light running was reduced by 27 percent, by using an 
automatic system just to mail warnings to violators. Elsewhere, the 
risk of alcohol traffic violations by repeat offenders was curtailed 
by as much as 65 percent in the first year, while their vehicles 
were equipped with alcohol breath testing equipment and ignition 
interlocks.
    Notwithstanding these possible benefits, the traffic safety 
community in the U.S. has been reluctant to adopt technology 
applications. Initial experiences with automated speed enforcement 
and safety-belt interlocks have generated political opposition. 
However, increasing public concerns with aggressive driving and red-
light running may create a climate of greater acceptance for 
carefully selected demonstration projects. Widespread public 
acceptance of traffic safety technologies will depend on the degree 
to which motorists are convinced that these applications improve 
traffic safety, are affordable, reliable, fairly generate ticket 
revenues, deal with laws or matters that are respected by the 
public, and provide sufficient privacy protection. To help alleviate 
the public's fears about potential privacy intrusions and abuses by 
``Big Brother,'' public information addressing technology design and 
program management must accompany the introduction of new 
technology.

Current Research and Evaluation

    One project tested a laboratory prototype instrument that uses 
an infrared laser beam to detect alcohol vapor within the passenger 
compartment of the vehicle. The instrument is intended for use at 
checkpoints, stop signs and other traffic environments to screen 
vehicles for potentially impaired drivers. Another project is 
developing a system of sensors for use at checkpoints that detect 
vehicle maneuvers associated with impaired driving. If tests are 
positive, the system will be field tested in a subsequent study to 
assess its ability to improve police detection of drinking drivers 
at checkpoints.

Strategic Issues for Research on Technology Applications

    <bullet> The ways in which ITS technology could be employed in 
the service of improving traffic safety are currently not known. 
Undoubtedly, some systems could be applied to traffic enforcement as 
currently designed (e.g., traffic observation systems could record 
data on law-breakers, speed monitoring devices could help enforce 
speed limits). Other components would need modification or 
adaptation to be used for traffic safety purposes. And there may 
exist traffic safety applications for which existing products cannot 
be modified to fit and will require new developmental efforts. 
Providing the traffic safety community with improved knowledge of 
the technological products that exist or are in development would 
help foster demand for and permit assessments of how the various 
technologies must be adapted in order to be applied to traffic-
safety applications.
    <bullet> Traffic-safety technologies face a number of practical 
concerns with which other ITS systems may not have to deal. In 
addition to being able to withstand crash forces, safety-oriented 
products must also resist tampering, jamming, counterfeiting, and 
other problems. Research is needed to identify factors that will 
influence production and deployment of technological devices and to 
define system characteristics that will minimize costs of 
production, deployment, operations, training, and maintenance and 
will foster the integration of technologies through sharing common 
hardware or systems.
    <bullet> Development and deployment of traffic-safety 
technologies will require increased political support, executive 
leadership, institutional reforms, legislation, or regulations. 
Acceptance of these technologies by the traffic safety community 
will also require considerable attention to various critical 
concerns (e.g., privacy protection, ``ticketing by mail,'' and other 
institutional/legal barriers). Identification of the institutional 
partners and the barriers to full acceptance and implementation of 
traffic-safety technologies will permit the development of 
strategies and action plans to assist states and communities to make 
necessary accommodations for emerging technologies.
    <bullet> The ultimate success of efforts to employ new 
technologies to improve traffic safety will depend on the acceptance 
and support of the public. Successful applications will require 
proactive dialog with members of the public to overcome their many 
valid concerns and reservations. Accordingly, research is needed to 
define the nature and extent of the public's concerns and to develop 
technical, legal, and administrative strategies to gain public 
support for technological solutions to traffic-safety problems.

Program Evaluation

Background

    ORTR/RED routinely conducts evaluations in the areas of 
legislative changes, enforcement programs, and educational programs. 
ORTR/RED has conducted more than 200 program evaluations. 
Evaluations are conducted on agency-developed countermeasure 
programs and on selected programs that are implemented at the state 
level or local level, independent of the agency. For example, ORTR/
RED initiated and evaluated a program in Baltimore, Maryland to 
determine the effect of various NHTSA-developed countermeasures to 
the alcohol-related pedestrian crash problem. ORTR/RED also 
evaluated the impact of California's upgrade of its safety belt use 
law to allow for primary (standard) enforcement procedures, and an 
evaluation was recently conducted of Maryland's ``zero tolerance'' 
BAC law for underage drivers.

What We Have Learned

    Evaluations provide evidence of impact for several legislative, 
enforcement, education, and other countermeasure programs. As a 
result of past evaluations, the impact of several important programs 
has been documented to provided guidance and support for future 
federal, state, and local efforts. Some of the completed evaluations 
have documented the impact of programs such as: sobriety checkpoints 
and saturation patrols for impaired drivers, impoundment and 
forfeiture laws for repeat offenders, license plate sticker laws, 
minimum drinking age (21) laws, lower BAC limits for youth, .08 BAC 
levels for adults, drug evaluation and classification (DEC) 
procedures, passive alcohol sensors, alternative ride programs, 
safety belt laws, primary enforcement provisions of safety belt 
laws, child passenger safety laws, occupant protection strategies 
for rural areas, special traffic enforcement programs (STEP) for 
safety belt laws, enforcement and education efforts to increase 
toddler restraint use, motorcycle helmet laws (and repeals), 
motorcycle rider education and training programs, driver education 
and training programs, pedestrian programs for young children 
(including elementary school bus riders), publicizing insurance 
sanctions, speed enforcement programs using radar and laser devices, 
municipal speed enforcement programs, emergency medical services 
training, self-sustaining traffic safety programs, etc.
    Evaluation efforts span all of the program areas. However, there 
are constraints involving limited staff and monetary resources. One 
of the key issues that needs to be addressed in the strategic plan 
is the practical matter of deciding which evaluations to perform and 
what level of resources needs to be available for quick turnaround 
evaluations of unexpected events (e.g. legislation) occurring in the 
states.

Current Research and Evaluation

    Recently completed evaluations have demonstrated that: upgrading 
a secondary-enforcement safety-belt law to standard enforcement 
leads to an increase in belt use rates of about 15-19 percentage 
points; routine traffic enforcement reduces crime rates, both 
through police presence and by apprehending suspects for whom 
warrants have been issued; and youth peer-to-peer groups positively 
can affect attitudes and behaviors of teens regarding drinking and 
driving.
    Current evaluations include: a national evaluation of Selective 
Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPs) in 20 states; a national 
evaluation of child safety seat distribution programs; an evaluation 
of the repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws in Arkansas and Texas; 
an evaluation of why alcohol-related fatalities declined 
substantially more in 5 states than the rest of the nation; an 
evaluation of the crash problem on the Capital Beltway, and an 
evaluation of the

[[Page 55317]]

effects of the Section 410 Alcohol Incentive Grant Program.

Strategic Issues for Evaluation

    <bullet> Determining which programs and types of countermeasures 
to evaluate is a question of setting priorities. Current suggestions 
for evaluation projects include examining the relative effectiveness 
of general deterrent legislation (e.g., .08 BAC limits) and specific 
deterrent legislation (e.g., vehicle impoundment for repeat DWI 
offenses) on the incidence of alcohol-related crashes.
    <bullet> Another need is to evaluate the effect of driver 
license points as a sanction for safety belt use law violations.
    <bullet> ORTR/RED's ability to offer program evaluation support 
to individual states and communities is limited. There are usually 
more programs in need of evaluation than ORTR/RED has capability to 
serve. One possible method to expand the number of evaluations that 
can be conducted would be to help develop the capacities of the 
states to perform evaluations.

[FR Doc. 97-28163 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>