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 24
24 Implementation, in some cases, need not be statewide. 2b. Consider Proven Urban jurisdictions will have a greater need for pedestrian Countermeasures with countermeasures than their rural counterparts; rural areas No Effectiveness Estimates may be more concerned with speeding than are urban areas; college communities will be more concerned with underage There are some countermeasures that are Proven yet the drinking than other parts of the state. Problem identification evaluation evidence does not provide estimates of crash re- (i.e., identification of the who, what, when, where, and why duction. These countermeasures are discussed and refer- of any particular target group of fatal and nonfatal injuries) enced in Appendix D. should be used to cost effectively deploy programs. 1. Speed limits, 2. BAC test refusal penalties, 2a. Use Countermeasures That 3. Saturation patrols for alcohol-impaired driving, Are Likely To Be Effective 4. Preliminary breath test devices, Thirteen of the 104 countermeasures are listed as Likely to 5. Passive alcohol sensors, be effective. Each of these countermeasures fits within the 6. Restrictions on plea bargaining, effectiveness guidelines for its classification (i.e., Voluntary 7. Court monitoring, Action; Laws; Laws Plus Enhancements; or Sanctions and 8. Brief interventions (alcohol), Treatments Groups). This means that, based on what has been 9. Vehicle immobilization, seen with other similar countermeasures, these countermea- 10. Vehicle impoundment, sures should be effective, if properly or fully implemented. 11. Close monitoring of DUIs, These Likely to be effective countermeasures include the fol- 12. PI&E supporting belt law enforcement, and lowing (references are provided in Appendix C): 13. Child bicycle helmet promotions. 1. Responsible beverage service; Speed limits, or more particularly, "rational speed limits," 2. Parent guiding teen licensing; can limit the number of speed violators and reduce the 3. Ice cream vendor ordinances; variance between vehicles traveling at the fastest speeds and 4. Local primary seat belt laws or ordinances; vehicles traveling more slowly on a particular stretch of road. 5. Adult bicycle helmet laws; This will make speed-related crashes less likely. However, 6. License renewal policies for elderly drivers; there is no direct formula for creating a crash reduction esti- 7. License actions for underage alcohol violations; mate. Moreover, for most jurisdictions, the number of miles 8. Integrated enforcement (e.g., alcohol, seat belts, speeding); of roadway for which rational speed limits are applicable is 9. Zero-tolerance enforcement; limited. Therefore, statewide implementation of this coun- 10. Vendor compliance checks for age-21 enforcement; termeasure is not possible. This should be viewed as a local 11. Sustained seat belt enforcement; countermeasure. 12. Increased belt use law penalties; and As indicated, the next four countermeasures on the list 13. Simplifying and streamlining DUI statutes. shown above all deal with increasing the arrest rate of drink- ing drivers and/or collecting more complete evidence. Each of Each of these Likely countermeasures has been imple- these should be thought of as enhancements to the process of mented in one or more jurisdictions in the past and most have finding, arresting, and prosecuting offenders. Obviously, been evaluated with positive results. However, the evaluations improvements in the process are desirable and this process has of these countermeasures have typically focused on intermedi- strong general deterrence potential. However, as above, there ate measures of effectiveness (e.g., number of bicycle helmets is no direct formula for creating a crash reduction estimate. distributed, number of drinks served, number of arrests, in- The next group of six countermeasures on the list deal with creases in seat belt use, etc.), often within limited areas of increasing the probability of conviction and the severity of a state or community. These countermeasures may be pre- sanction for drinking drivers. Certainty and severity of sanc- sumed to be effective, although the full benefit they provide as tion are the desirable goal. However, again, there is no direct measured by injury reduction is not fully established. formula for creating a crash reduction estimate from these It is suggested that Likely countermeasures be considered countermeasures. side by side with Proven countermeasures for which benefit Child bicycle helmet promotions increase use to varying information is not available. Both tend to positively impact degrees, but do not yield estimates of injury reductions. Sim- some intermediate measure of highway safety that should, ilarly, PI&E in support of belt law enforcement can increase eventually, reduce injury. use but does not readily convert to injury reductions.