Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:45 am
Time: 2:45 am
Results for traffic safety
13 results foundAuthor: Bryant, Kevin M. Title: Shawnee, Kansas, Smart Policing Initiative Reducing Crime and Automobile Collisions through Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) Summary: From 2008 to 2010, the city of Shawnee, Kansas, experienced a 22 percent increase in violent crime. At the same time, the Shawnee Police Department (SPD) was acutely aware of persistent traffic accident hot spots. Moreover, budgetary constraints resulted in nearly a 5-percent decrease in the department's sworn staff in one year (2009). The SPD leadership became increasingly concerned about their ability to maintain a sufficient level of service, and to effectively respond to changing crime trends in the city. In response to these emerging concerns, the SPD implemented the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) model beginning in July 2010. DDACTS identifies locations where crime and traffic problems disproportionately co-occur, and then deploys increased police presence and high-visibility traffic enforcement (HVTE) in those areas. The DDACTS model is grounded in seven guiding principles that highlight collaboration, data-driven decision-making, hot spots policing, and ongoing program assessment and dissemination of findings. In 2011, the Department received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Smart Policing Initiative (SPI) to support the implementation of DDACTS and conduct a rigorous evaluation of the impact of the DDACTS model on crime and automobile crashes in the city of Shawnee. The Shawnee SPI team employed a three-pronged evaluation to examine the implementation and impact of the DDACTS model. First, the SPI team conducted two waves of focus groups with officers from units throughout the department. Results from the focus groups showed evidence of a shift in culture and officer "buy-in," especially with the divisions of the department most closely associated with the model. Participants agreed that DDACTS is an effective and sustainable initiative. The first wave of focus groups identified several areas in need of improvement, most notably with providing training, addressing concerns over resource depletion, and delivery of a clear message about the foundations and goals of the program. Second, the Shawnee SPI team administered surveys to businesses and residents in the DDACTS target area, well after program implementation. Results indicated that a majority of respondents perceived a greater police presence and more traffic stops in the area, and they expressed support for high-visibility, targeted traffic enforcement. Moreover, most respondents stated that DDACTS has improved the quality of life in Shawnee, and the majority rated the relationship between SPD and residents and businesses as very good to excellent. Third, the Shawnee SPI team employed a quantitative impact evaluation of DDACTS by comparing trends in crime over a six-year period (three years pre-implementation and three years post) in the target area and a comparison area. Using both bivariate and interrupted time series analysis, the SPI team demonstrated that the DDACTS model produced statistically significant decreases in robberies (88 percent), commercial burglaries (84 percent), and vehicle crashes (24 percent). The Shawnee SPI experience highlighted several important lessons for police managers and line officers, including recognition of the fundamental connection between crime and traffic problems, the importance of program fidelity through careful implementation, and the need to overcome the tendency to view DDACTS through a "zero tolerance" lens that minimizes the collaborative, data-driven, and problem-solving aspects of the model. - Details: Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2015 at: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Shawnee-Site-Spotlight.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Shawnee-Site-Spotlight.pdf Shelf Number: 135171 Keywords: Community PolicingHot-Spots PolicingProblem-Solving PolicingTraffic SafetyViolent Crime |
Author: Traffic Injury Research Foundation Title: 2016 Annual Ignition Interlock Survey: United States Summary: The Traffic Injury Research Foundation USA, Inc. (TIRF USA) in partnership with the Association of Ignition Interlock Program Administrators (AIIPA) and TIRF in Canada conducted a national survey in 2016 of the number of installed and active ignition interlocks in the United States (U.S.). These data provide a comprehensive picture of interlock installations across the U.S. and are a useful benchmark for state ignition interlock program administrators and the impaired driving community to measure interlock usage and growth in interlock programs on an annual basis. Drunk driving fatalities decreased 51 percent from 1982 to 2015, but it seems progress has been eroded in recent years. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), there were 1,089,171 DWI arrests in 2015. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported 10,265 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in 2015 which accounted for 29% of total fatalities. This is a 3.2 percent increase from 2014, compared to an overall increase in fatalities of 7.2 percent (NHTSA 2016). Interlock programs have been proven to reduce impaired driving while the interlock is installed in the vehicle. Furthermore, interlocks are associated with a reduction in DWI deaths of up to 15% (see: Kaufman & Wiebe 2016; Lucas et al. 2016; Vanlaar et al. 2017; McGinty et al. 2017) and reductions in DWI recidivism (McCartt et al. 2013). Increasing program participation is paramount to reduce impaired driving fatalities and injuries. A NHTSA study of 28 state interlock programs revealed that there were eight interlock program components which may increase interlock use (Casanova Powell et al. 2016). The feature that was found to have the highest correlation with increasing interlock use was implementing a strong interlock requirement and/or incentive in legislation or policy. All states and the District of Columbia have some form of interlock law that includes either judicial discretion or an administrative requirement or a hybrid of the two. States are encouraged to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their interlock programs. As a result, there have been several interlock law changes over the past few years. To illustrate, in 2014, Alabama, Mississippi, and Missouri passed a law requiring all DWI offenders to install an interlock. Indiana also passed legislation requiring ignition interlocks for repeat offenders, and to allow judges to order interlocks for first-time offenders. South Carolina passed Emma's Law, which requires all high-BAC (0.15) offenders to install an interlock. In 2015, Delaware, and Texas passed an all DWI offender law requiring an interlock. In addition, Kentucky strengthened its ignition interlock law which required an interlock for repeat offenders, high-BAC (0.15) first offenders and offenders who refuse a chemical alcohol test. In 2016, Vermont and Washington D.C. passed an all offender interlock law, and Maryland passed "Noah's law", an all offender law with a five-star rating from MADD (MADD 2017). Details: Hamden, CT: TIRF, 2017. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2017 at: http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TIRF-USA-Annual-Interlock-SurveyReport-19.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://tirf.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TIRF-USA-Annual-Interlock-SurveyReport-19.pdf Shelf Number: 146101 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock DevicesAlcohol Law EnforcementAlcohol-Impaired DrivingDriving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrunk DrivingIgnition Interlock ProgramTraffic Safety |
Author: Governors Highway Safety Association Title: Drug-Impaired Driving: A Guide for States Summary: Drug Impaired Driving: A Guide for States, equips states and policymakers with the latest research, data, laws and programs to help them address this growing problem. This new edition includes recent data on drug use by drivers and drug involvement in crashes, new state laws and programs, and information from more than 30 additional research studies. Chief among the report's recommendations is increased training for law enforcement officers to help them identify and arrest drugged drivers. To address this need, Responsibility.org is providing $100,000 in funding to the Illinois, Montana, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin highway safety offices. Each office will use their funding to implement Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) programs. Details: Washington, DC: GHSA, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2017 at: http://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/GHSA_DruggedDriving2017_FINAL_revised.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/GHSA_DruggedDriving2017_FINAL_revised.pdf Shelf Number: 148509 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence Drug-Impaired Driving Traffic Enforcement Traffic Safety |
Author: Teutsch, Steven M., ed. Title: Getting to Zero Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities: A Comprehensive Approach to a Persistent Problem Summary: Alcohol-impaired driving remains the deadliest and costliest danger on U.S. roads today. Every day in the United States, 29 people die in an alcohol-impaired driving crash-one death every 49 minutes. After decades of progress, alcohol-impaired driving fatality rates plateaued and have increased for the past two years-making it a persistent public health and safety problem. Each alcohol-impaired driving crash represents a failure of the system. A coordinated, systematic, multi-level approach spanning multiple sectors is needed to accelerate change. With support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a committee to help identify promising strategies to reduce deaths caused by alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. The resulting report, Getting to Zero Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities: A Comprehensive Approach to a Persistent Problem, highlights interventions and actions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving fatalities- including ways to improve important existing interventions-and presents ideas for reviving public and policymaker attention, thereby turning concern into decisive action to address this tragic and preventable problem. Details: Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2018. v.p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2018 at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2018/getting-to-zero-alcohol-impaired-driving-fatalities.aspx Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2018/getting-to-zero-alcohol-impaired-driving-fatalities.aspx Shelf Number: 148920 Keywords: Alcohol Law Enforcement Alcohol-Impaired Driving Driving Under the Influence Driving While Intoxicated Drunk Driving Traffic Safety |
Author: Robertson, Robyn D. Title: DWI Dashboard Strategic Guide: Addressing Gaps in the DWI System Summary: In 2013, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) developed the Driving While Impaired (DWI) Dashboard in conjunction with the DWI Working Group on System Improvements. The Dashboard was intended to provide jurisdictions with a monitoring tool to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of their own impaired driving systems. It was created based on experiences and input from eight states and critically reviewed by the Working Group. This tool was designed to measure factors that are central to the effectiveness of the impaired driving system. It enables jurisdictions to gain insight and understanding into how and why progress is, or is not, being achieved in reducing impaired driving incidents. It can also inform decisionmakers about strategies to address system gaps that impede progress. The DWI Dashboard consists of a two-tiered structure of questions. Tier I measures issues at a state level and aims to determine whether an issue is a potential gap that requires closer examination. Tier II measures issues at an agency level and acknowledges differences across agencies with respect to a particular topic. Collectively, the results of the Dashboard can identify potential gaps as well as where and why they may be occurring. In 2014, the annual meeting of the DWI Working Group focused its attention on the development of a strategic guide to help states tackle priority issues that were identified by the DWI Dashboard. This guide was compiled by TIRF based upon the proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the DWI Working Group. The purpose of this guide is to provide strategies, describe important caveats, and list helpful resources and templates to states that are seeking to address existing gaps in the impaired driving system. The guide is structured in nine sections according to the priority issues that are examined in the Dashboard tool. The guide is intended to provide options to states to improve their systems since each state will have issues that are unique to its own jurisdiction. This guide lists best practices, major caveats, and resources that practitioners may find useful to guide the implementation of solutions. Ultimately, it is important for practitioners to use their own intimate knowledge of the impaired driving system in their jurisdiction to determine which strategies can be enacted and determine which caveats may be encountered. The DWI Dashboard contains ten priority sections that examine different topics and areas of interest that can affect progress in reducing impaired driving incidents. Since the first section of the Dashboard contains measures of progress related to impaired driving indicators (e.g., alcohol-impaired driving fatalities and injuries, fatalities per VMT, DWI arrests and DWI convictions), there are no strategies associated with this section. However each of the remaining nine sections of the Dashboard are associated with distinct options, tools and resources that jurisdictions may consider as part of a strategic plan to strengthen their state impaired driving system in these respective areas. Each of the nine sections is structured according to the types of strategies that may be considered to strengthen a particular area, important caveats that may influence the strategies, and examples of practical resources that provide more operational guidance and information. Details: Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research foundations, 2018. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WG-2014-_DWI-Dashboard-Guide-9.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Canada URL: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WG-2014-_DWI-Dashboard-Guide-9.pdf Shelf Number: 149035 Keywords: Alcohol Interlock Devices Alcohol Law Enforcement Driving Under the Influence (Canada) Driving While Intoxicated Drunk Driving Traffic Safety |
Author: Perkins, Chloe Title: Red Light Enforcement Cameras to Reduce Traffic Violations and Road Traffic Injuries Summary: Road traffic crashes are a major and increasing cause of injury and death around the world. Many crashes occur as a result of red-light running (RLR), which occurs when a driver enters an intersection after the traffic light has turned red. While most drivers obey traffic signals, the possibility for violations does exist, due to either driver distraction, aggressive driving behaviours, or a deliberate decision to ignore the signal. In the UK, over 67,000 motorists were given points for failing to stop at traffic lights in 2015. A recent survey found that about 25% of motorists admit to running a red-light in the previous year, which is equivalent to 9.3 million motorists. RLR can have severe consequences when it results in collisions that cause damage to vehicles and road users. Red-light cameras (RLCs) are an enforcement mechanism that permit police to remotely enforce traffic signals. In the UK, the cameras are usually placed on one arm of an intersection where a red light running problem has been identified. Unlike traditional manual enforcement methods which are resource intensive and high risk, RLCs operate continuously and without human intervention, freeing up officers to engage in other activities. They do not lead to potentially dangerous high-speed pursuits and they provide a physical record of all violations. Their mechanical nature also reduces the possibility of accusations of human bias, discrimination, or selective enforcement. This review concentrates on the implementation of red-light cameras. It updates and expands a previous Cochrane systematic review to provide a comprehensive account of red-light cameras evaluated worldwide. Details: London: College of Policing, 2017. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: WHAT WORKS: CRIME REDUCTION SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SERIES: Accessed May 3, 2018 at: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Series/Pages/Red-light-cameras.aspx Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Series/Pages/Red-light-cameras.aspx Shelf Number: 150040 Keywords: Red Light Cameras Traffic Enforcement Traffic Safety |
Author: Grondel, Darrin T. Title: Marijuana Use, Alcohol Use, and Driving in Washington State: Emerging Issues With Poly-Drug Use on Washington Roadways Summary: This report provides select updated fatal crash information originally presented in Washington Traffic Safety Commission's report Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-20141 (October 2015). Since that report was published, poly-drug drivers involved in fatal crashes have increased significantly and is described more thoroughly in the present report. For the first time, this report also includes compilations of analyses of Washington's Roadside Self-Report Marijuana Survey, and questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance and Healthy Youth Surveys. The following is a summary of key observations from these various data sources. - Driver impairment due to alcohol and/or drugs is the number one contributing factor in Washington fatal crashes and is involved in nearly half of all traffic fatalities. Poly-drug drivers (combinations of alcohol and drugs or multiple drugs) is now the most common type of impairment among drivers in fatal crashes. - Among drivers involved in fatal crashes 2008-2016 who were blood tested for intoxicants, 61 percent were positive for alcohol and/or drugs. - Among drivers in fatal crashes 2008-2016 that tested positive for alcohol or drugs, 44 percent tested positive for two or more substances (poly-drug drivers). The most common substance in poly-drug drivers is alcohol, followed by THC. Alcohol and THC combined is the most common poly-drug combination. - Although research-based estimates of the risks posed by THC have varied greatly, all studies included in this report agree that combining alcohol and THC will only further inflate the level of impairment and crash risk. The deadly consequences of combining these two impairing substances and driving are already apparent in Washington fatal crash data. - For the first time in 2012, poly-drug drivers became the most prevalent type of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes. Since 2012, the number of poly-drug drivers involved in fatal crashes have increased an average of 15 percent every year. - By 2016, the number of poly-drug drivers were more than double the number of alcohol-only drivers and five times higher than the number of THC-only drivers involved in fatal crashes. - According to the biological results of Washington's Roadside Survey, nearly one in five daytime drivers may be under the influence of marijuana, up from less than one in 10 drivers prior to the implementation of marijuana retail sales. - According to Washington's Roadside Self-Report Marijuana Survey: o 39.1 percent of drivers who have used marijuana in the previous year admit to driving within three hours of marijuana use. This is similar to the results from Washington's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (33.5 percent). o More than half (53 percent) of drivers ages 15-20 believe marijuana use made their driving better. This is a significantly higher rate than drivers ages 21-25 (13.7 percent) and drivers ages 26-35 (17.4 percent). o Among drivers who have used marijuana in the past year, only 36.6 percent believe that it is very likely or likely that marijuana impairs a person's ability to drive safely if used within two hours of driving, compared to 77 percent of drivers who have not used marijuana in the previous year. o 53.5 percent of drivers who have used marijuana in the past year believe it is very likely or likely to be arrested for impaired driving after using marijuana within two hours of driving, versus 70.2 percent of drivers who have not used marijuana in the previous year. - According to Washington's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, drivers who admit to driving within three hours of marijuana use in the previous year are also more likely to: o Drive after having perhaps too much to drink (14.5 percent). o Not always wear a seatbelt (15.2 percent). o Binge drink (45.1 percent). - According to Washington's Healthy Youth Survey: o One in four 12th graders, one in six 10th graders, and one in ten 8th graders report riding in a vehicle with a driver who had been using marijuana. o Slightly more than 16 percent of 12th graders and 9 percent of 10th graders who have used marijuana admitted to, at least once, driving a vehicle within three hours of using marijuana. - From 2008-2016, 76 drivers ages 16-18 involved in fatal crashes tested positive for alcohol and/or drugs. One in four of these young drivers were positive for multiple substances (polydrug drivers). - While driving under the influence of alcohol remains a significant issue, the interplay of drugged driving must be equally considered if we are ever to reach our goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries on Washington roadways. This complex issue will require government, non-profit, corporate, and community response to reverse a rapidly increasing trend. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington Traffic Safety Commission, 2018. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2018 at: http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/04/Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-in-Fatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/04/Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-in-Fatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150045 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: Logan, Barry K. Title: An Evaluation of Data from Drivers Arrested for Driving Under the Influence in Relation to Per se Limits for Cannabis Summary: While the exact relationship between cannabis use and increased risk for crash involvement remains unclear, cognitive and psychomotor effects of cannabis use in the period immediately after use can impact vehicle control and judgment and present some risk for deterioration in driving performance. Background Cannabis is in the spotlight in the United States due to increased acceptance of its medical and recreational use One of the major concerns shared by both opponents and proponents of greater access to cannabis is its impact on driver performance and traffic safety; both sides recognize that the cognitive and psychomotor effects of cannabis use in the period immediately after use can impact vehicle control and judgment and present some risk for deterioration in driving performance These concerns have led to a strong desire among lawmakers and traffic safety advocates to consider laws that criminalize cannabis-involved driving including laws that set a quantitative threshold for concentration of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active component of cannabis, in a person's blood. This threshold would constitute an offense per se in an effort to discourage cannabis-impaired driving. Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether data from drivers arrested for suspected driving under the influence (DUI) supported any particular quantitative threshold for a per se law for THC. Methods Data from two sources were evaluated: 602 drivers arrested for DUI in which only THC was present, along with a sample of 349 drug-free controls, in which full records of the subjects' performance in the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) exam were available. The DRE exam is an assessment of physiological standards and performance on psychophysical tests, including the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) battery; and 4,799 drivers arrested for DUI who tested positive for one or more cannabinoids (THC, hydroxy-THC, and carboxy-THC), and for which demographic information and comprehensive toxicology testing results were available. Key Findings Compared to drug free controls, the DRE arrestees indicated poorer performance in the psychophysical tests (walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand, and finger-to-nose tests) Indicators of red, bloodshot and watery eyes, eyelid tremor, lack of convergence, and rebound dilation all showed significantly greater incidence in the cannabis-positive subjects Analysis of the same data was conducted considering whether indicators of impairment differed between subjects with blood THC concentrations above or below 5 ng/mL, the threshold for per se driving under the influence of cannabis adopted in Colorado, Washington, and Montana. The finger-to-nose test was the only indicator for which performance differed according to whether subjects were in the higher (≥5 ng/mL), or lower (<5 ng/mL) THC group. The number of misses on the finger-to-nose test was greater in the higher THC group. Analyses of alternative threshold THC concentrations from 1-10 ng/mL did not identify a threshold level of the THC concentration such that, if used as per se limit, would provide an acceptable level of agreement with the SFST. Among all cannabis-positive drivers arrested for DUI, 70 percent had THC concentrations below 5ng/mL The majority of cannabis-positive drivers arrested for DUI also tested positive for alcohol and/or other drugs; only 23 percent were positive only for cannabinoids. Conclusions All of the candidate THC concentration thresholds examined would have misclassified a substantial number of driver as impaired who did not demonstrate impairment on the SFST, and would have misclassified a substantial number of drivers as unimpaired who did demonstrate impairment on the SFST Based on this analysis, a quantitative threshold for per se laws for THC following cannabis use cannot be scientifically supported. Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2016. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EvaluationOfDriversInRelationToPerSeReport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EvaluationOfDriversInRelationToPerSeReport.pdf Shelf Number: 150476 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence Drugged Driving Marijuana Traffic Safety |
Author: Arnold, Lindsay S. Title: Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: Synthesis of Barriers and Expert Panel Recommendations Summary: The objective of this project is to identify and recommend strategies for improving statelevel data on the nature and extent of drugged driving in the United States by addressing the most significant barriers that impede state efforts to collect and compile such data. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2012b) Traffic Records Program Advisory Assessment, states need accurate and reliable traffic records data to understand traffic safety problems, and to select and evaluate countermeasures to address the problems and ultimately improve traffic safety. Inadequate state data on drugged drivers limits understanding the extent and nature of the drugged driving problem, communicating it to the public, and measuring how it changes over time and in response to efforts to reduce it. (Berning & Smither, 2014; NHTSA, 2012a, MMUCC Guideline Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Fourth Edition DOT HS 811 631; National Transportation Safety Board, 2012a, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Substance-Impaired Driving Forum Summary.) While drugged driving is receiving increasing national attention, especially as a result of state legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use, most state data on drugged driving in its current form is of limited use for measuring and tracking drugged driving incidents, evaluating the effects of changing laws regarding drug use and driving, or improving our knowledge about drug use and driving impairment. In addition to the limitations of existing data, the relationship between the presence and levels of drugs in a driver's body and their impairment or crash risk is further complicated by the number of potentially impairing drugs, the complexity of drug metabolism compared to that of alcohol, the variability of effects on individuals, and individuals using more than one drug or combining alcohol and drug use. Unlike with alcohol, drug concentrations do not necessarily relate to impairment, and drugs may be detectable after impairment has subsided. Threshold concentrations for drugs, similar to the 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC), have not been agreed upon, and may not be feasible. (Government Accountability Office, 2015) Drugged driving is commonly defined as driving under the influence of or impaired by drugs other than alcohol. Some states define drugged driving as drug-positive driving, though the drugs included vary by state. For the purpose of this effort, "drugged driving" refers generally to driving with any detectable amount of illegal or potentially impairing amounts of prescription or over-the counter medications in one's system, which includes driving while impaired by any of these drugs. "Drug-impaired driving" describes driving while impaired by a drug or drugs other than or in addition to alcohol, as differentiated from drugged driving, which includes drivers whose impairment is unknown (e.g., roadside survey subjects). Drugged driving data of interest include data on the prevalence of drugged and drug-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving citation and adjudication data, and toxicology data for drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs and/or involved in serious injury and fatal crashes. The focus of this project is on improving the quality of data related to drugged and drugimpaired driving. Efforts to enforce drugged driving laws generally, and barriers to such efforts, are outside the scope of this project. Improving our understanding of drug use and driving impairment, while important to combating drug-impaired driving and in need of additional research, is also outside the scope of this project. The improved data that would result from implementation of the recommendations in this report, however, should help guide drugged driving enforcement efforts and improve our understanding of drug presence/levels and crash risk. Issues not specific to collection of data on the presence and levels of drugs in drivers, e.g., funding of law enforcement generally, are clearly relevant to improving data on drugged driving and are important to this project, but are not the focus of this project and thus are only briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2018 at: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AdvancingDruggedDrivingData.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AdvancingDruggedDrivingData.pdf Shelf Number: 150585 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: State-by-State Assessment Summary: There is an urgent need for better data on the drugged driving situation at both the state and national levels as this affects our understanding of the extent of the drugged driving problem and how it is changing over time, of ways of communicating the risks to the general public, and of measuring the effectiveness of efforts to reduce it. In order to address this need for better data, in 2015 the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety conducted a synthesis of scientific literature on barriers that impede state efforts to collect and compile drugged driving data, and existing recommendations aimed at addressing the identified barriers. An expert panel of law enforcement officials, toxicologists and other traffic safety professionals then used that information to formulate recommendations to improve drugged driving data at the state level (Arnold & Scopatz, 2016). Some of the recommendations in that report were at the national level such as authorizing federal funds for roadside surveys and developing national model specifications for oral fluid drug test devices. Twelve recommendations were at the state level to improve drugged driving data, and are addressed in this report. Methodology Based upon legal research and responses to a survey, state laws, policies, and practices were assessed to determine whether and to what degree they align with recommendations aimed at improving drugged driving data. Results State laws, policies, and practices vary across states and substantial progress is still needed. While most law enforcement officers (LEOs) have been trained in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, very few have been trained in the "Drugs That Impair Driving" curriculum and the "Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement" (ARIDE) course, which is critical. The SFST training was developed for detecting alcohol impairment while the other two courses are for detecting impairment by drugs other than alcohol. At the time of the review, 15 states reported they authorize the collection and testing of oral fluid for alcohol and/or other drugs, and 10 states reported having pilot testing programs. Most states authorize the testing of drivers fatally injured in crashes and surviving drivers only when there is probable cause. Most states also reported they have improved the implementation and utilization of the Drug Evaluation and Classification program. The majority of states do not expressly authorize electronic warrants which reduce delays in collecting specimens from drivers arrested for DUI. Finally, 41 states reported that LEOs report observed behavioral impairment among surviving drivers in fatal crashes. Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2018. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 22, 2018 at: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NORC-FINAL-REPORT_State-Recommendations-to-Improve-Data-on-Drugged-Drivi....pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NORC-FINAL-REPORT_State-Recommendations-to-Improve-Data-on-Drugged-Drivi....pdf Shelf Number: 150639 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: DeAngelo, Gregory Title: Policing for Profit: The Political Economy of Law Enforcement Summary: In recent years numerous observers have raised concerns about "policing for profit," or the deployment of law enforcement resources to raise funds for cash-strapped jurisdictions. However, identifying the causal effect of fiscal incentives on law enforcement behavior has remained elusive. Researchers have given little theoretical attention to the potentially confounding responses of potential offenders to increased revenue-seeking by law enforcers. Moreover, empirical designs have not effectively addressed the endogeneity of the spatial and temporal variation in fiscal incentives to factors that may directly affect law enforcement or offender behavior. We model the effects of fiscal incentives on traffic safety enforcement, finding that rules allocating a greater share of fine revenues to deploying jurisdictions may induce increased enforcement effort by patrol officers, and consequent reductions in unsafe driving behavior, with only indeterminate effects on the frequency of citations. We test this model using daily, monthly, and fully aggregated citation and accident data from Saskatchewan, Canada between 1990 and 2017, for towns policed under the province's contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We find that fiscal rules reducing the share of fine revenue captured by the province in jurisdictions above a sharply defined population threshold increase the frequency and severity of accidents in jurisdictions just above this threshold, but have no or even weakly positive effects on the frequency of citations in these jurisdictions; these results are robust to the use of both data-driven regression discontinuity and local randomization inference strategies. We observe no discontinuities in the accident data at this threshold during the period prior to the introduction of these fiscal rules, in the areas "near" these jurisdictions, within which the province receives 100% of fine revenue throughout our period of interest, or at any of 20 placebo thresholds constructed on either side of the actual population threshold. Details: George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3197705 Year: 2018 Country: Canada URL: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=4560951061120660060130990100311190740060040040210630370721120951050171010671060660850361260380561100281180811221161240260731160500820050210061140660691050940260050470870190021120800 Shelf Number: 151486 Keywords: Fiscal IncentivesLaw EnforcementPolitical EconomyTraffic EnforcementTraffic Safety |
Author: Traffic Injury Research Foundation Title: Road Safety Monitor 2017: Drugs & Driving in Canada Summary: This study summarizes national results from the 2017 Road Safety Monitor (RSM) regarding drugs and driving in Canada. The RSM is an annual public opinion survey conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) in partnership with Beer Canada and Desjardins Insurance. The survey takes the pulse of the nation on key road safety issues by means of an online survey of a random, representative sample of Canadian drivers. Data on drugged driving behaviours and attitudes have been collected as part of the TIRF RSM series since 2002, specifically in the years 2002, 2004, 2005, and from 2010 onward. Results are based on analyses of RSM 2017 data, the most recent data available, and trends comparing with previous years when appropriate. Despite a growing body of research on drugs and driving, it can be argued that our understanding of how drugs affect driving behaviours is limited compared to what is known about alcohol. A brief literature review summarizing answers to key questions is below with more information available in TIRF’s DrugImpaired Driving Learning Centre (druggeddriving.tirf.ca). Details: Ontario, Canada: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2018 at: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RSM-Drugs-and-Driving-in-Canada-2017-9.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Canada URL: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/RSM-Drugs-and-Driving-in-Canada-2017-9.pdf Shelf Number: 153028 Keywords: Alcohol Driving Under Influence Driving While Intoxicated Drug Use Marijuana Use Substance Use Traffic Accidents Traffic Safety |
Author: Insurance Information Institute Title: A Rocky Road So Far: Recreational marijuana and impaired driving Summary: As of March 11, 2019, more than 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico have programs that allow qualifying patients to access medical marijuana products. Another 13 states permit non-intoxicating medical marijuana products. Ten states and D.C. permit recreational marijuana, where any adult over the age of 21 can possess and use the drug. Recreational marijuana sales are booming. Many people are rightly concerned about road safety in an age of legal recreational marijuana. Alcohol-impaired driving claimed nearly 11,000 lives in the U.S. in 2017 alone. Will increasing acceptance and use of marijuana lead to a similar trend? In a 2017 report to Congress, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that "the scope and magnitude of the marijuana-impaired driving problem in this country cannot be clearly specified at this time." However, the report did note that "there are a number of indicators that suggest that a problem exists." For example, based on the available evidence, it seems clear that "stoned driving" is dangerous. This report examines the current state of knowledge related to marijuana impairment: its effects on driving abilities, how traffic safety might be impacted, and how states are grappling with the issue of "stoned driving." Key takeaways: Marijuana affects users differently but it generally impairs cognitive and motor skills. The intensity and duration of marijuana impairment depends on several factors. But most research agrees that marijuana use to some degree results in impairment in the following: coordination, memory, associative learning, attention, cognitive flexibility and reaction time. Marijuana impairment increases the risk of culpability for a car crash. And mixing marijuana and alcohol heightens risks. The more impaired the user, the more likely they are to be culpable for a traffic accident. The risks rise dramatically if the user has also consumed alcohol. Mixing both substances increases impairment greater than the net effects of each individual substance. Marijuana use could increase after recreational marijuana legalization - and the number of THC-positive drivers could increase as well. When a state legalizes marijuana, more people use the drug. More people using marijuana could mean more people driving with THC in their systems. Legalization is associated with an increase in collision claim frequency. Early evidence suggests that states with legal recreational marijuana experience higher collision claim frequency than comparable non-marijuana control states. Fatal crashes involving drivers who tested positive for THC have increased - but it remains unclear how legalization impacts fatal crash rates. While THC-positivity rates in fatal crashes has increased, there is conflicting evidence about whether legalization increases fatal crash rates. Details: New York: The Institute, 2019. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2019 at: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/marijuanaanddui-wp-031119.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/marijuanaanddui-wp-031119.pdf Shelf Number: 155275 Keywords: Automobile AccidentsAutomobile InsuranceDrugged DrivingImpaired DrivingLegalized MarijuanaMarijuana UseMarijuana-Impaired DrivingRoad SafetyTraffic Safety |