National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 500 Volume 21: Safety Data and Analysis in Developing Emphasis Area Plans (2008)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Neuman, Timothy R, Delucia, Barbara Hilger, Graham, Jerry L, Peck, Raymond C, Potts, Ingrid B, Harwood, Douglas W, Hutton, Jessica M, Council, Forrest M, Torbic, Darren John, Transportation Research Board. "General Strategic Considerations." NCHRP Report 500 Volume 21: Safety Data and Analysis in Developing Emphasis Area Plans. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
59
bottomleft bottomright
Page
59
Front Matter (R1-R11)
Summary (1-4)
Section I - Introduction (5-5)
Introduction to Proposed Procedures (6-7)
Crash Data and Related Files (8-10)
Roadway Inventory Data (11-11)
Driver History Files (12-12)
National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) (13-13)
Local Data Files (14-14)
Closure (15-15)
Stage 1 Define/Choose One or More Issues/Emphasis Areas (16-16)
Stage 3 Define Treatment Strategies and Target Populations (17-26)
Summary (27-27)
Possible Program Types Spot versus System Programs (28-28)
Procedure 1 Choosing Roadway-Based Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known, and Both Crash and Non-Crash Data Are Available (29-33)
Procedure 2A Choosing Roadway-Based Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known and Mileposted Crash Data Are Available, but Detailed Inventory Data Are Not Available (34-35)
Procedure 2B Choosing Roadway-Based Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known and Neither Mileposted Crash Data nor Detailed Inventory Data Are Available (36-37)
Procedure 3 Choosing Roadway Treatments and Target Locations When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Not Known (38-39)
Procedure 4 Choosing Treatments and Target Populations in Emphasis Areas for which Some Candidate Treatments Have Known Effectiveness Estimates and Other Treatments Do Not (40-41)
Possible Program Types Spot versus System Programs (42-42)
Procedure 1 Choosing Intersection Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known, and Both Crash and Non-Crash Data Are Available (43-46)
Procedure 2A Choosing Intersection Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known and Mileposted Crash Data Are Available, but Detailed Inventory Data Are Not Available (47-48)
Procedure 2B Choosing Intersection Treatments and Target Populations When Treatment Effectiveness Is Known and Neither Mileposted Crash Data nor Detailed Inventory Data Are Available (49-49)
Procedure 3 Choosing Intersection Treatments and Target Locations When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Not Known (50-52)
Procedure 4 Choosing Treatments and Target Populations in Emphasis Areas for which Some Candidate Treatments Have Known Effectiveness Estimates and Other Treatments Do Not (53-53)
Procedure 3 Choosing Roadway User Treatments and Target Subgroups When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Not Known (54-57)
Closure Good Data Produce Better Results (58-58)
General Strategic Considerations (59-59)
Procedure 3 Choosing Treatments and Target Subgroups Related To Illegal Driving Actions When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Unknown (60-63)
Alternative Economic Analysis Procedure Choosing Treatments and Target Subgroups for Alcohol-Related Crash Strategies When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Alcohol-Related Crash/Injury Reduction Can Be Estimated (64-65)
Alternative Procedure Choosing Treatments and Target Subgroups for Alcohol-Related Crash Strategies Based On Existing DWI Program Needs (66-66)
Closure (67-67)
General Strategic Considerations (68-68)
Procedure 3 Choosing Treatments and Target Subgroups Related To Unsafe Driving Actions When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Unknown (69-72)
Closure (73-73)
Procedure 3 Choosing Treatments and Target Subgroups for Crashes Involving Special Vehicle Types When Treatment Effectiveness in Terms of Crash/Injury Reduction Is Not Known (74-77)
Closure Good Data Produce Better Results (78-78)
Section X - Reducing Crashes in Work Zones (79-79)
Level 1 Analysis (80-81)
Level 2 Analysis (82-83)
Level 4 Analysis (84-85)
Procedure (86-88)
Closure (89-89)
Organizational Issues (90-90)
Data Improvement Strategies (91-92)
Closure Good Data Produce Better Results (93-93)
Key References (94-95)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (96-96)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 59
59 SECTION VII Illegal Driver Actions Planning Programs Related treatment-choice procedures will be presented for treatments to Reducing Crashes Involving related to drinking drivers. Aggressive Drivers, Alcohol-Impaired The safety planning team is strongly urged to carefully Drivers, and Unlicensed review the material in each of the pertinent guides before or Suspended/Revoked Drivers beginning the planning process. These user-population- oriented guides are found within NCHRP Report 500: Guidance This section of the guide presents a strategy for selecting for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety treatment programs that offer maximum potential in reduc- Plan. The specific volumes pertinent to this section on illegal ing crashes involving aggressive drivers, drinking drivers, driving acts are: unlicensed drivers, and drivers with a suspended or revoked driver's license (S/R drivers). As noted earlier, it is assumed · Volume 1: A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Colli- that a safety planning team has selected one or more of the sions. (1) above emphasis areas as part of its safety plan and has estab- · Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving lished a "stretch goal" as described in Section I. Four proce- Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Li- dures for choosing treatment strategies and target groups censes. (2) were described in Section III of this guide. Three of these · Volume 16: A Guide for Reducing Alcohol-Related Colli- procedures require known estimates of effectiveness (crash sions. (16) reduction and benefit-costs) for some or all of the selected strategies ­ in other words, that the treatments have known A link to these downloadable guides can be found in CRFs or AMFs. However, none of the guides considered here http://safety.transpportation.org/guides.aspx. The planning identified strategies that completely met this requirement team is also encouraged to review NCHRP Report 501 (18) for even though many of the strategies are supported by com- a detailed description of an integrated problem identification pelling evidence of significant crash reduction. What is and safety planning process. generally lacking are precise estimates of the magnitude of the crash reduction that could be used in the development of General Strategic Considerations an estimated B/C ratio. The latter, in turn, also requires known estimates of treatment costs and effects on crash As noted earlier, data for estimating precise AMFs, CRFs severity, which are often lacking. Thus, we know in some and B/C ratios for many of the driver-oriented strategies do cases that the treatment reduces crashes but not by how not exist. There are also some other differences between much or in terms of net cost-benefits. highway-oriented strategies and driver-oriented strategies Procedure 3, as described in Section III, outlined an ap- that need to be recognized in selecting treatment programs proach for selecting strategies in the absence of known crash and establishing crash-reduction goals. The first relates to the effectiveness estimates (AMFs or CRFs) and B/C ratios. This data source and "ownership" of the treatment delivery sys- procedure is designed for use with treatments where crash tem. In contrast to many of the highway countermeasures, reduction effectiveness has not been established. Many of the most of the effectiveness measures for these driver strategies treatments related to illegal driving fall into this category, and do not relate to crash rates on sections or type of roads. In- that procedure will be presented below. Two additional stead, the safety concern usually relates more to overall crash