Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
5The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They col- lect them, add them, raise them to the n-th power, take the cube root, and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never for- get that every one of these figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what he damn pleases. âComment of an English judge quoted by Sir Josiah Stamp in Some Economic Matters in Modern Life BACKGROUND State traffic records assessments promoted by NHTSA and FHWA, as well as a recent evaluation of states for possible inclusion in FHWAâs Highway Safety Information System, have discovered a disturbing trend. The completeness and quality of the safety databases of many states are eroding. With reductions in staff and other resources, a smaller pro- portion of motor vehicle crashes is reported to state crash databases than ever before. Crash thresholds are increasing to the point that any meaningful analyses are problematic, and data entry backlogs result in information that is outdated by the time the data are available for use. Although states are increasing their use of geographic information systems (GIS) technology, they are not adequately maintaining or linking a record of the roadway characteristics associated with specific locations. Core data elements such as location control, num- ber of lanes, lane widths, shoulder widths, median type, and median width are missing in many systems that define road- way characteristics. Items such as horizontal curve, vertical grade, intersection features, and interchange features are vir- tually nonexistent. An increasing emphasis on traffic records is not without justification. It has become apparent over time that appro- priate, accurate, and timely information describing various aspects of the transportation system (including its crash expe- rience) are needed to improve traffic safety and mobility. Data on fatalities are not enough. National samples of police- reported crash data are not enough. To manage its safety pro- grams effectively, each state needs to analyze an increasingly wide variety of information about the design characteristics of its road system, the behavior of traffic on that system, and the crash experiences of its users. This need for improved data arises in part from a growing awareness that significant improvements in safety have and will come from state actions to control the crash experience of road users. More than ever states need detailed information about both urban and rural roadways. Without improvements in the quality and utility of these data, it may not be possible to sustain the gains in safety that have been made or to achieve further gains. As shown in Figure 1, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) essentially has flattened in the United States, after experiencing steady improvement for many years (1). In 1990, 44,599 fatalities occurred, for a rate of 2.08 per 100 million VMT. In 2002, 42,815 fatal- ities occurred, for a rate of 1.51 per 100 million VMT. The U.S.DOT and other major stakeholder groups have adopted as their goal to reduce fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100 million VMT by 2008. To meet this goal, it is more crit- ical than ever to be able to analyze state safety data to make informed decisions on the best methods for reducing fatalities. The incentive to improve the quality and utility of traffic records systems, in particular motor vehicle crash data, is undertaken against a backdrop of diminished state resources and increased demands for scarce financial resources. The costs of collecting crash data continue to be a substantial bur- den to all states. In addition, the time required to collect crash data and the costs of doing so compete with demands for other police work, including more recently, homeland secu- rity duties. Consequently, over the past two decades, some states have eliminated some data from their crash report forms rather than adding to the existing information to satisfy emerging needs. Other states have altered reporting criteria to reduce the num- ber of crashes that police investigate or implemented âself reportâ forms for crashes in which no one is injured. At a time when more and better information is needed, these trends can have a disastrous effect on the quality and utility of crash data. Conversely, these trends are also the genesis for attempts to use advanced information collection capabilities in the form of laptop, notebook, and hand-held computers, global position- ing system (GPS) devices, pen-based entry systems, and other technologies that have the potential to improve the process of collecting and automating crash and other transportation data. Crash data are the basis for many decisions regarding traf- fic safety, highway design, operations, and research. These data are used to help identify specific problems, to develop and prioritize remedial actions, and to establish goals and per- formance measures to evaluate whether the desired results CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
are being achieved. All levels of government use these data to determine how to allocate their scarce resources to address traffic safety issues. By applying technological advances and overcoming insti- tutional issues, crash record systems can be improved signifi- cantly. In addition, there is an initiative by NHTSA, in col- laboration with FHWA and the Governorâs Highway Safety Association, which resulted in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). Many states are making changes in their uniform crash reports based on the MMUCC guidelines. SYNTHESIS OBJECTIVES This synthesis provides information on current practices in crash reporting and processing, as applied to highway and traffic safety. To help identify the current practices in crash reporting and processing, surveys were sent to state trans- portation agencies and follow-up interviews were conducted with selected agencies. The discussions focused on the fol- lowing issues: ⢠Who is responsible for administering crash data and how is it collected? ⢠Who is responsible for maintaining the crash databases? ⢠How are data quality (e.g., timeliness, accuracy, com- pleteness, and uniformity) ensured? ⢠How are crash data integrated and linked to other data- bases? ⢠How are crash data made accessible to users? ⢠What barriers exist to the above activities? ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS Identification of information for inclusion in this synthesis began with various types of literature identified by the TRB Transportation Research Information System (TRIS) data- base, copies of recent traffic records assessments provided by NHTSA, and the safety data library maintained at Data Nexus, Inc. Following the review of the existing literature, a screen- ing survey was distributed to all of the states to help identify examples of successful practices in crash records systems. More than half of the state departments of transportation (DOTs) (26) responded to this survey and many were con- tacted for additional information. 6 Of primary concern in this synthesis is the crash records system. However, the utility of crash data to identify safety problems or to evaluate the effect of changes in highway and traffic safety is limited by its ability to be used with other types of data. These other data sources include, at a mini- mum, driver and vehicle records, traffic and roadway condi- tion inventories, and medical outcome data. This synthesis addresses the ability to link crash data with these other traf- fic records system components. Chapter two of this report presents background informa- tion and a review of the pertinent literature for crash report- ing and processing. The review helps to define the character- istics of a good crash records system for use as a benchmark when identifying successful systems. Because crash records systems are in transition, many cur- rent projects that would be of interest to practitioners have yet to be documented in published reports or studies. A brief survey was conducted among agencies involved in crash reporting and processing to get the most up-to-date informa- tion on practices and plans. The survey scope and methodol- ogy are described later in this chapter and chapter three doc- uments the results. Chapter four combines the literature review and survey results and highlights the most successful practices that were identified. The following topics are addressed: ⢠Crash data collection, ⢠Crash processing and management, and ⢠Data linkages for reporting and analysis. Chapter five takes the form of lessons learned in review- ing the current practices in crash records systems. These lessons support future expansion of the use and capabilities of crash records systems. SURVEY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY A survey instrument was designed to gather basic information about current practices in crash records systems (see Appen- dix A). The survey consisted of 13 questions intended to elicit responses describing how each state collects, manages, and uses crash information. This survey provided an initial screen- ing of agencies to identify potential crash records systems and procedures for further study. The survey asked about time- liness, completeness, and perceived accuracy of the informa- tion, as well as how the crash data are used. The overall costs to the state of developing and maintaining the crash records systems were also explored. The survey asked respondents to describe desired improvements to their current system and to identify any other crash records systems they considered to be successfully implemented. FIGURE 1 Plateau of U.S. fatality rates. (Bars show the frequency of fatalities, the line shows the fatality rate.)
