[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36641-36666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17418]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 1204
RIN 2127-AE90
[NHTSA Docket No. 93-21; Notice 2]
Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Revisions to guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 2002 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Highway Safety Programs, requires that
the uniform guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs include six
critical programs. This notice amends the contents of existing Part
1204 by adopting guidelines on three of these programs: Speed Control;
Occupant Protection and Roadway Safety. This notice also revises six of
the existing guidelines to reflect new issues and to emphasize program
methodology and approaches that have proven to be successful in these
program areas. Finally, this notice removes the guidelines from the
Code of Federal
[[Page 36642]]
Regulations. The guidelines, as revised here, will be published in a
separate document made available to the states.
DATES: The amendments made by this action are effective on August 17,
1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office
of State and Community Services, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, telephone:
(202) 366-2121; or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, telephone: (202) 366-
1834. In FHWA: Ms. Mila Plosky, Office of Highway Safety, Federal
Highway Administration, telephone: (202) 366-6902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (section 402
program) was established under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23
U.S.C. Sec. 402. The Act required the establishment of uniform
standards for State highway safety programs to assist States and local
communities in organizing their highway safety programs.
Eighteen such standards were established and have been administered
at the Federal level by FHWA and NHTSA. NHTSA is responsible for
developing and implementing highway safety programs relating to the
vehicle and driver; FHWA has similar responsibilities in program areas
involving the roadway. FHWA is also responsible for implementing
programs relating to commercial motor vehicle safety.
Until 1976, the 402 program was principally directed towards
achieving State and local compliance with the 18 Highway Safety Program
Standards, which were considered mandatory requirements with financial
sanctions for non-compliance. Under the Highway Safety Act of 1976,
Congress provided for a more flexible implementation of the program so
the Secretary would not have to require State compliance with every
uniform standard or with each element of every uniform standard. As a
result, the standards became more like guidelines for use by the
States, and management of the program shifted from enforcing standards
to one of problem identification and countermeasure development and
evaluation, using the standards as a framework for State programs.
On April 2, 1987, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) revised 23 U.S.C. Sec. 402.
The legislation provided, among other things, that the standards
promulgated under section 402 and codified in 23 CFR Part 1204 be
changed to guidelines. The purpose of this amendment was to conform the
language of section 402 and Part 1204 to the manner in which the
programs were then being implemented.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) was enacted in December 1991. Section 2002 of ISTEA required
that the uniform guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs include
programs:
(1) to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicles
being driven in excess of the posted speed limits [Speed Control];
(2) to encourage the proper use of occupant protection devices
(including the use of safety belts and child restraint systems) by
occupants of motor vehicles and to increase public awareness of the
benefit of motor vehicles equipped with airbags [Occupant
Protection]; (3) to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from
persons driving motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol or a
controlled substance [Impaired Driving]; (4) to reduce deaths and
injuries resulting from crashes involving motor vehicles and
motorcycles [Motorcycle Safety]; (5) to reduce injuries and deaths
resulting from crashes involving school buses [School Bus Safety];
and (6) to improve law enforcement services in motor vehicle
accident prevention, traffic supervision, and post-accident
procedures [Police Traffic Services].
Section 2002 also required that the Secretary of Transportation
designate these six programs as National Priority program areas or
submit a report to Congress explaining the reasons for not so
designating these programs.
Four of the six programs identified in section 2002 (Occupant
Protection, Impaired Driving, Motorcycle Safety and Police Traffic
Services) had already been designated as National Priority program
areas, along with four additional programs (Emergency Medical Services,
Traffic Records, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Roadway Safety). In
a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1994 (59
FR 64120), the agencies decided to add Speed Control, but not School
Bus Safety, to the list of priority programs, bringing the number of
programs on the list to nine.
Four of the six programs identified in section 2002 (Alcohol
Safety, Motorcycle Safety, School Bus Safety and Police Traffic
Services) are specifically addressed by the existing 18 Highway Safety
Program Guidelines. The guidelines do not specifically address Speed
Control or Occupant Protection.
In a Notice and Request for Comment published in the Federal
Register on January 14, 1994 (59 FR 2320), the agencies proposed to
issue two new guidelines to address these two programs. The notice also
proposed to add a new guideline to address Roadway Safety. By adding
these three guidelines, there will be a highway safety program
guideline associated with each program that has been designated a
National Priority program area by the agencies. The notice also
proposed to make revisions to the six other guidelines that address
National Priority program areas (Motorcycle Safety, Alcohol in Relation
to Highway Safety, Traffic Records, Emergency Medical Services,
Pedestrian Safety and Police Traffic Services).
Comments Received
The agencies received 35 comments to the docket in response to the
notice, including comments from 20 State agencies (with responsibility
for transportation/highway safety, law enforcement and health); a
municipal law enforcement agency; a county health department; four
individuals; one corporation (3M); and eight national organizations.
The national organizations that commented represent highway safety
interests (National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety); law
enforcement organizations (International Association of Chiefs of
Police and National Sheriffs' Association); pupil transportation
interests (National School Transportation Association and National
Association of Fleet Administrators); and others (National Emergency
Number Association and Institute of Transportation Engineers).
The comments were generally supportive of the agencies' proposal to
add new guidelines in the areas of Speed Control, Occupant Protection
and Roadway Safety and, in today's notice, NHTSA and FHWA have decided
to add these three new guidelines. The comments were also generally
supportive of the agencies' proposed revisions to the guidelines
pertaining to Motorcycle Safety, Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety,
Traffic Records, Emergency Medical Services, Pedestrian Safety, and
Police Traffic Services and, in today's notice, these guidelines have
been revised.
The comments recommended some additional revisions to the
guidelines. These comments, and any changes to the guidelines that the
agencies have made as a result, are discussed below.
[[Page 36643]]
General Comments
Two commenters (the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the
West Virginia Department of Transportation) noted that ISTEA mandated
the use of Safety Management Systems, but the guidelines made little,
if any, reference to their use. These commenters recommended that the
agencies explain the relationship between the guidelines and Safety
Management Systems.
These guidelines are meant to provide direction to state and
community highway safety efforts which are supported with Section 402
grant funds. The Section 402 process in every state is an integral part
of the state's Safety Management System.
To reduce crashes, ISTEA required that every State implement a
process for managing highway safety by ensuring that safety improvement
opportunities are considered and implemented on all highway systems and
during all phases of programs/projects. Although each state has a
unique approach to developing and implementing this SMS, the process
required is similar to the Section 402 process. It includes problem
identification and goal setting; data collection and analysis;
identification of performance measures; and selection and evaluation of
strategies.
The SMS differs from the 402 process in that its scope is broader.
The process brings together new highway safety partners and resources,
and provides for coordination among all those involved in highway
safety, including engineers, enforcement officers, educators, motor
carriers, medical personnel, state officials, and metropolitan planning
organizations. It is intended that the process will assist
decisionmakers in setting highway safety priorities for all safety
elements (human, vehicle, and roadway), and in allocating a broad range
of highway safety resources. Safety projects and programs identified
through the SMS process may be included for funding in each state's
Section 402 plan, Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program State
Enforcement Plan (SEP) and metropolitan and statewide transportation
plans and improvement programs, as appropriate.
The Washington State Department of Health applauded the agencies
for emphasizing the connection made by traffic safety professionals
between traffic safety and good health. Washington State stressed the
importance of informing the public about medical care cost savings that
could result from safe traffic habits and of forming ``partnerships''
between traffic safety professionals and public health officials,
hospitals and EMS/trauma providers. In December 1994, NHTSA completed
and distributed to the public a Model for Integrating Injury Control
System Elements. The agencies have made a number of changes to the
guidelines to incorporate elements of this Injury Control Model, which
stress a systematic approach for preventing and controlling injuries on
our nation's highways.
The Washington State Department of Health also recommended
editorial changes regarding the use of the terms ``crash,''
``accident,'' ``impaired driving'' and ``drunk and drugged driving.''
Except where it was impracticable, such as when referencing Police
Accident Reports or Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Awareness Week,
these comments have been incorporated in the guidelines.
Addition of Three New Guidelines
Guideline #19: Speed Control
Historically, Speed Control has not been separately identified as a
National Priority program area under 23 CFR 1204 or described in a
separate guideline. It has, however, been an integral part of the
Police Traffic Services program. Speed control initiatives have been
supported under the Police Traffic Services priority program, under the
guideline, and also through FHWA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program (MCSAP) as part of an overall traffic enforcement program aimed
specifically at commercial motor vehicles.
In accordance with ISTEA, on January 14, 1994, the agencies
published in the Federal Register an NPRM proposing to designate Speed
Control as a separate National Priority program area and a notice
proposing to add a separate guideline on Speed Control. On December 13,
1994 (59 F.R. 64120), the agencies published a final rule designating
Speed Control as a separate National Priority program area. In today's
notice, the agencies are adding a separate guideline on Speed Control.
The agencies received 16 comments regarding the addition of new
guideline 19. There was strong support from most respondents for
establishing speed control as a separate guideline, consistent with the
support expressed for its inclusion as a priority program area. Three
commenters specifically welcomed the addition of the separate
guideline. The Florida Department of Transportation thought the
inclusion of the guideline would give uniform direction to the States
for building effective programs. The Georgia Department of Public
Safety and The Illinois State Police were pleased that the area of
speed control would now receive individualized attention.
In contrast, two commenters questioned the need to separate speed
control from police traffic services and one commenter questioned the
need for a speed control guideline. The Michigan Department of State
Police believed that keeping these guidelines combined would lead to a
more efficient use of shrinking police resources and better reflect the
integrated belts, alcohol, and speed programs undertaken by many
States. The West Virginia Division of Highways thought that public
acceptance would likely be higher if speed control were part of a
``well-reasoned and balanced'' program, rather than a ``stand-alone''
effort. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) cited several NHTSA and
FHWA publications, which it believes contain more useful information
and are more widely distributed and easier to update than the
guideline. In its view, highway safety personnel have access to
numerous studies and publications concerning speed issues that contain
more current information than the guideline.
Consistent with the view of most commenters, the agencies have
retained the separate guideline. The issuance of the guideline is
appropriate and necessary in light of the recent designation of Speed
Control as a priority program area. The agencies do not believe that a
separate guideline precludes the integration of programs or the
efficient use of resources by the State. Nor do we think that it
represents a ``stand-alone'' effort subject to public disfavor. Rather,
it is one of many guidelines which, taken together, provide guidance to
the States in the implementation of a comprehensive program. With
respect to CHP's comment, the agencies recognize the existence of other
sources of information concerning speed control, and freely encourage
their use in addition to the information in the guideline.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the West Virginia
Division of Highways, and CHP each stressed the importance of traffic
engineering practices in the proper setting of speed limits.
Emphasizing that speed limits should be ``reasonable,'' West Virginia
thought existing speed limits should be subjected to engineering study
prior to funding speed enforcement programs, and recommended that the
guideline contain a strong statement to that effect. CHP urged that
training for traffic engineers include ``Developing guidelines for
setting speed limits; Establishing
[[Page 36644]]
appropriate signing policies; [and] Investigating alternative
approaches to speed control (signing, stripping, channeling, barriers,
speed undulations, etc.).''
The agencies note that the guideline already emphasizes the
important contribution of traffic engineering to the setting of speed
limits. The sections on Program Management, Setting of Speed Limits,
and Legislation stress the role of the ``traffic engineer,'' ``traffic
personnel,'' and ``engineering investigations'' in that process.
However, we agree that it is appropriate for the Training section to
contain a similar emphasis, and have adopted CHP's proposed language.
The agencies have not adopted West Virginia's suggestion to include a
statement that enforcement funding be preceded by engineering
evaluations of existing speed limits. To do so would hinder enforcement
efforts, based on a blanket presumption that existing speed limits are
not reasonable. The agencies are neither willing to accept that
presumption nor to place conditions on enforcement efforts, which we
view as a vital tool for effective speed control.
CHP thought the guideline was too detailed, in recommending under
the section on Training that law enforcement officers escort and assist
traffic engineers and technicians in the deployment of speed measuring
equipment. CHP viewed such escort and assistance as an operational
courtesy, and inappropriate for inclusion in a Federal guideline. In
contrast, the National Sheriff's Association thought that training law
enforcement officials in speed measurement was ``critical.'' CHP also
commented that ``new'' technology is over-emphasized in the guideline.
Citing the introductory paragraph's use of the term ``state-of-the-art
equipment'' for setting and enforcing speed limits and a similar
``emphasis'' in other sections, CHP argued that the emphasis should
instead be placed on ``appropriate technology,'' whether it is new or
traditional, because some new techniques are unproven.
The agencies agree with the National Sheriff's Association that
training of law enforcement officials is important. We do not agree
with CHP's view of the recommendation that law enforcement officers
escort and assist traffic engineers in deploying speed measuring
equipment. This is not a courtesy, but rather a training experience to
provide officers with a broad-based familiarity with speed measurement
devices. Consequently, the guideline retains the recommendation, but
the reference to ``escorting'' has been deleted to remove any
ambiguity. With respect to CHP's comment about ``new'' technology, the
introductory paragraph of the guideline, in fact, urges the use of
``both traditional methods and state-of-the-art equipment.'' Moreover,
the section on Technology exhorts the States to use only equipment
``that is approved or recognized as reliable.'' The agencies believe
that the guideline affords full flexibility, as written, for the use of
technology that is appropriate under the circumstances, while
accommodating prospective advances in the state of the art.
Consequently, we have not adopted CHP's comment.
CHP urged that the guideline devote more attention to speed
variability and traveling at speeds unsafe for conditions. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) supported efforts
to focus on speed variability as a cause of crashes, and endorsed the
funding of variable message boards that adjust speed limits to
conditions. In contrast, The Washington State Patrol thought that the
adoption of variable speed limits would create enforcement problems
because of motorist confusion, and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation was concerned about liability incident to the posting of
variable speed limits for prevailing conditions.
The agencies agree that the issues of speed variance and traveling
at speeds unsafe for conditions deserve special attention, particularly
from the standpoints of enforcement and education. Consequently, we
have added specific references to these problem areas in the sections
on Enforcement Program and Public Information and Education. The
agencies believe that variable message speed limit signs can provide
valuable safety benefits, and field evaluations have not disclosed
concerns about liability or motorist confusion. The agencies will
cooperate with State highway safety agencies to address any concerns
that might arise. We have retained the references to these devices in
the guideline, encouraging their use as a viable part of a
comprehensive speed control program.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) suggested that
the term ``vigorous enforcement,'' which appears in the Enforcement
Program section, be defined in terms of the qualities and
characteristics that might comprise such an effort to better assist
jurisdictions in carrying out enforcement campaigns. The agencies
believe the term is unambiguous as stated--it conveys a high degree of
effort. The qualities and characteristics of a comprehensive speed
control program are set forth throughout the guideline.
The New York City Police Department (NYPD) commented that more
educational programs should be designed to raise public awareness of
the hazards of speeding. The NYPD thought this could be best
accomplished by starting with students during their freshman year in
high school. The Washington State Department of Health recommended that
language concerning bicyclists be included among the issues deserving
attention in anti-speeding efforts under the Enforcement Program
section. The agencies fully support increased educational efforts in
this area, and particularly those directed at an age group that has
been traditionally over-represented in highway injuries and fatalities.
We believe that the Public Information and Education section of the
guideline fully accommodates NYPD's interest in expanding educational
efforts concerning the hazards of speeding, and therefore no changes
have been made to the guideline. The agencies have adopted Washington's
comments concerning bicyclists, and have included a reference in the
Enforcement Program section.
The Washington State Patrol commented that the use of photo radar
technology and VASCAR, as identified in the Enforcement Program and
Technology sections of the guideline, is not approved under current
State statutes. Washington identified aerial speed enforcement as a
viable alternative to VASCAR. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation thought that the Program Management section was too
prescriptive. Minnesota did not articulate any reasons for its view,
but sought a less ``rigid framework.'' The agencies have made no change
to the guideline, because it does not compel the use of a particular
technology or framework. States have the flexibility to choose among
the different strategies contained in the guideline in implementing
speed control programs, according to their needs and particular
circumstances.
A number of commenters expressed concerns about the National
Maximum Speed limit. One commenter urged the repeal of the National
Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL). Another commenter complained that in the
guideline's section on Legislation, the NMSL was specifically excluded
from those speed limits that need to be ``realistic.'' Yet another
commenter urged renewed focus on the NMSL at the national level,
because of a perceived erosion in voluntary compliance. The NMSL is
governed by statute, and it is not within
[[Page 36645]]
the agencies' authority to change or rescind it. The agencies have
deleted the parenthetical statement in the Legislation section, which
implies unintentionally that the NMSL need not be ``realistic.'' The
statement was intended to convey that the NMSL is excluded from those
speed limits that States may set, but its existence may lead to
confusion and its deletion does not affect the guideline . With respect
to the comment urging a renewed national focus, the agencies would
point out that speed control has recently been designated as a priority
program area, reflecting a strong national focus on the issue and a
commitment to full cooperation with the States in this area.
Guideline #20: Occupant Protection
When the original highway safety program standards were established
by NHTSA and FHWA, an occupant protection program standard was not
included among them.
In 1982, the agencies issued a final rule which identified six
National Priority program areas that were considered the most effective
in reducing highway deaths and injuries. Occupant Protection was
designated as one of the six most effective programs. However, the
agencies did not at that time, and have not since, issued a highway
safety program standard or guideline on Occupant Protection.
The January 1994 Federal Register notice proposed to add a separate
guideline on Occupant Protection. In today's notice, the new guideline
is adopted.
The agencies received 11 comments regarding new guideline 20, which
generally expressed strong support for its addition. The Georgia
Department of Public Safety and the Illinois State Police were
especially supportive of giving occupant protection individualized
attention. The National Sheriff's Association (NSA) stated that strict
enforcement of occupant restraint and child safety seat use
requirements by all State, county, and municipal law enforcement
officers was ``a must.'' NSA also recommended that references to air
bags and anti-lock braking systems be included. Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety urged the agencies to specifically endorse the primary
enforcement of mandatory safety belt and child restraint use laws as
part of the ``vigorous enforcement'' contemplated by the guideline.
The agencies agree with NSA that strict enforcement efforts are a
vital component of a successful occupant protection program, and
believe that the guideline, as proposed on January 14, 1994, places a
strong emphasis on enforcement. The agencies also agree that air bags
play an important role in occupant protection. In recognition of this
role, references to airbags already appear in the guideline, in the
sections on Legislation, Regulation, and Policy; Enforcement Program;
and Public Information and Education Program. In response to NSA's
comment, we have also added a reference to air bags in the context of
trend data collection in the Evaluation Program section. However, the
agencies do not agree that references to anti-lock brakes are
appropriate in the Occupant Protection guideline, as this issue falls
more properly within the ambit of crash avoidance. Consequently, the
agencies have not adopted NSA's suggestion to add such references. The
agencies agree with Advocates that primary enforcement legislation
deserves special emphasis, and have added appropriate language in the
section on Legislation, Regulation, and Policy.
The National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) supported
all employer programs directing the use of safety belts by employees.
NAFA commented, however, that the employer's responsibility should be
limited to the adoption of policies and to informing employees of those
policies. NAFA voiced its member fleets' concerns that States might
pass laws requiring an employer to monitor compliance, raising the
specter of unjust liability and penalties. According to NAFA, it would
be unfair to hold an employer responsible where an employee willfully
disregards the employer's policy. The agencies agree with NAFA about
the importance of employer-based programs for the use of safety belts.
In fact, through a public/private partnership popularly known as
``NETS'' (Network of Employers for Traffic Safety), the agencies are
actively encouraging such programs, because of their demonstrated
safety benefits and resulting economic benefits to the employer. Since
the guideline proposed on January 14, 1994 does not discuss issues of
liability or responsibility associated with employer-based programs, no
changes have been made in response to NAFA's comment.
The proposed guideline provided for basic and in-service training
in the Enforcement Program section. In connection with that training,
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) commented that
NHTSA should not insist on a particular curriculum or dictate the
number of hours. In IACP's view, training should be described in terms
of learning goals and performance objectives. The guideline presently
allows the flexibility IACP seeks, specifying neither the particular
curriculum nor the number of hours of training required. Consequently,
no changes have been made in response to IACP's comment.
The Washington State Patrol expressed concern that data requested
in the Evaluation section of the guideline, such as conviction rates on
restraint violations, are not available or easily obtained. Collection
of the specific data listed in the guideline (safety restraint
citations and convictions) is not required but rather suggested as an
aid to the State in fashioning its evaluation program. The agencies are
aware that, while data on motor vehicle restraint violations are
generally available, conviction rate data may be more difficult to
obtain. Where such data are unavailable, States may choose to collect
other useful data for evaluation purposes.
The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended
that the guideline discuss the issue of ``compartmentalization,'' to
educate the public about the safety record of school buses. NSTA also
suggested that continued emphasis be placed on school bus drivers
wearing safety belts. The agencies have not adopted NSTA's
recommendations, because they are more appropriate for consideration in
the specific context of school bus safety, and have been addressed
elsewhere. For example, NHTSA periodically publishes the ``School bus
safety report,'' a widely disseminated document containing useful
safety information, including a discussion of the importance of
compartmentalization. Additionally, the Highway Safety Program
Guideline on Pupil Transportation Safety (not under revision at this
time) places an emphasis on the importance of safety belt use by school
bus drivers.
3M Corporation commented that the guideline fails to consider the
safety of occupants of disabled vehicles, and recommended that
conspicuity enhancement, such as reflective license plates and garments
for stranded motorists, be considered. The agencies agree that
conspicuity can play a role in motorist safety. However, we do not
believe that the issue is appropriate for consideration in the context
of the occupant protection guideline, which addresses the protection of
vehicle occupants during a crash.
The New York City Police Department urged the expansion of programs
advocating the use of safety belts to junior high school through the
last year of high school. The proposed guideline already recommends
that programs for grades kindergarten through 12 include ``highway
safety in general and
[[Page 36646]]
occupant protection in particular.'' Accordingly, no change in the
guideline is necessary.
Guideline #21: Roadway Safety
When the original 18 standards were established, there was not an
individual roadway safety program standard. Instead, four standards
were published, each of which pertained to some aspect of safety in the
roadway environment: Standard 9 on Identification and Surveillance of
Accident Locations; Standard 12 on Highway Design, Construction and
Maintenance; Standard 13 on Traffic Engineering Services; and Standard
14 on Pedestrian Safety. In 1982, the agencies issued a final rule
which identified six National Priority Program Areas that were
considered the most effective in reducing highway deaths and injuries.
``Safety Construction and Operational Improvements'' was designated as
one of the six most effective programs. In 1987, the agencies changed
the ``Safety Construction and Operational Improvements'' priority
program to ``Roadway Safety'' to encompass a wider breadth of safety
activities related to the roadway environment. However, the agencies
have never issued an individual highway safety program standard or
guideline to encompass the entire area of either ``Safety Construction
and Operational Improvements'' or ``Roadway Safety.''
In the notice published on January 14, 1994, the agencies proposed
to more effectively organize and consolidate the roadway safety
components from each of the four guidelines that pertain to safety in
the roadway environment by creating a new guideline entitled ``Roadway
Safety.'' At that time, the agencies contemplated that the four related
guidelines would remain unchanged. The agencies received 14 comments
regarding the proposed Roadway Safety guideline, supporting the
creation of a separate new guideline. Two of the comments recommended
that, with the creation of this new guideline, the agencies could
eliminate guidelines 9, 12, and 13. The agencies agree with these
comments and have decided in this notice to remove these three
guidelines. The new Roadway Safety guideline will be numbered Guideline
No. 21, and contain additional section headings for ease of reference
and conformance with the format of the other guidelines. Guideline Nos.
9, 12 and 13 will be reserved.
The West Virginia Department of Transportation was the only
commenter that questioned the issuance of the Roadway Safety guideline,
stating that it was almost a verbatim restatement of the requirements
imposed on States under the Federal Aid Policy guide (23 CFR 924). The
agencies disagree with this comment. The guide to which West Virginia
referred deals specifically with the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP). Under this program, specific funding is set aside from the
Surface Transportation Program for carrying out the Rail-Highway
Crossings and Hazard Elimination programs. While HSIP funds are
available for roadway safety construction and hardware improvements,
Section 402 funds are not. The Roadway Safety guideline refers
specifically to non-construction items which are authorized under
Section 402. In addition, the guideline is broader in scope,
articulating recommended policies, practices, and procedures.
3M Corporation supported the use of conspicuity treatment on
vehicles and clothing for motorcyclists and pedestrians, and
recommended data collection and education efforts on the effectiveness
of conspicuous materials. The NYPD recommended educating all grades of
high school students, through community policing, on safety issues such
as the hazards attendant to changing flat tires in traffic lanes. The
agencies agree with 3M that use of conspicuous materials has a safety
benefit. However, 3M's recommendations are not directly related to this
guideline, which concerns safety aspects of roadways. Moreover, the
agencies note that conspicuity requirements are already in place for
highway construction and maintenance workers, and that the safety
benefits associated with enhanced visibility are well-established,
obviating the need for data collection and educational efforts in this
area. As discussed below, however, we have identified retroreflective
materials as important treatments for the improvement of nighttime
visibility. The agencies strongly support highway safety education
efforts, but note that NYPD's recommendation for education concerning
safety hazards to those changing tires is more appropriate for
consideration in the context of programs concerning pedestrians or
driver education.
The Michigan Department of State Police suggested that new
technology, such as high intensity sheeting on signs, might render
roadway lighting less cost effective than it has been in the past.
Michigan also thought that evaluating the impact of specific traffic
control measures on all traffic crashes might be problematic, and that
it might be more reasonable for States to evaluate spot improvements.
The agencies agree that new technology, such as retroreflective
materials, can provide valuable safety benefits at night, and should be
considered in addition to traditional lighting applications.
Accordingly, we have added a reference to retroreflective materials in
the guideline. The agencies also agree that spot evaluations are an
effective means of measuring the impacts of specific traffic control
measures on traffic crashes. Spot evaluations are currently routine
practice, and no change in the guideline is needed to accommodate them.
The ITE recommended that specific minimum education standards and
certain registration requirements be established for personnel
responsible for traffic engineering and highway safety. ITE believes
that the guideline should direct each State to implement such
requirements. The agencies share ITE's concerns that personnel involved
in traffic engineering and highway safety be properly trained and
qualified. However, the agencies believe it is appropriate for the
States to set standards in consultation with professionals within their
borders and based on particular State circumstances. We would point
out, however, that FHWA is developing a series of training courses on
the Safety Management System and other roadway safety topics. These
courses are specifically designed for those who are involved in safety
and traffic engineering, and are offered through the National Highway
Institute at locations across the country.
The Washington State Department of Health suggested that the
guideline include language recommending the development of an ``open
process for frequent roadway users, e.g., EMS/trauma providers, law
enforcement, CMV drivers, and commuters to report dangerous roadway
sections and/or specific hazards that they encounter.'' Many such
processes already exist. For example, the emergency telephone number
``911'' has been in use for many years, and is widely accepted as a
means of communicating roadway safety hazards. The Federal
Communications Commission recently issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing that commercial wireless operations be required to
make Enhanced 911 available to customers, and is soliciting comments on
how this may be accomplished. In addition to the universal 911
emergency number, some States have provided emergency numbers for
motorists to report road hazards. Most law enforcement agencies also
monitor channel 9 on citizen's band radio. In Highway Safety Program
Guideline 11 (Emergency Medical Services), NHTSA supports these
[[Page 36647]]
programs by encouraging states to require a communication system that
begins with a universal system access number. In view of the many
programs currently in existence, the agencies do not believe that a
change in the guideline is necessary.
CHP commented that the guideline should support construction zone
safety programs, traffic operations programs, emerging technologies
having applications in the roadway safety environment, and public
awareness/education programs. CHP also sought consideration of
congestion mitigation efforts. Advocates suggested that where the
guideline refers to the regulation of traffic in work zones
(construction and repair sites and detours), it should clarify that
such zones should conform to recognized standards and guidelines, such
as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The guideline
proposed on January 14, 1994 is sufficiently broad to support most of
the activities identified by CHP (construction zone safety programs,
traffic operations programs, and emerging technologies), provided they
do not involve highway construction, design, or maintenance activities,
for which Section 402 funds are not available. Federal-aid funds are
available separately under other programs to finance these latter
activities. (For example, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
establishes standards for specific traffic control devices and
procedures to be used in work zones. Funding for these devices and
activities is available through the regular Federal-aid program.) The
agencies agree that the guideline should be expanded to discuss public
awareness and congestion mitigation. Consequently, we have highlighted
public awareness issues in a new ``Outreach Program'' section and added
language concerning congestion mitigation under the section on Highway
Design, Construction, and Maintenance. The agencies also agree with
Advocates' comment concerning conformance with recognized standards,
and have added language identifying the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices in the guideline.
The IACP encouraged a focus on two areas, under Program Management,
where it thought the agencies could make a significant impact. IACP
suggested that start-up funding be provided for up to 3 years for
additional police patrols in connection with the construction of a new
stretch of highway and funding of innovative programs bringing together
engineering and enforcement professionals at conferences and the like.
Funding for police patrols associated with highway construction is
authorized under other Federal-aid highway appropriations.
Consequently, the agencies have not adopted the recommendation
concerning the funding of police patrols with respect to this
guideline. The bringing together of engineering and enforcement
professionals is already accommodated by the guideline, which
specifically encourages a multi-disciplinary approach, including the
fostering of dialogue between engineering and enforcement personnel.
Consequently, while the agencies agree with the comment, no change in
the guideline is necessary.
Revision of Six Existing Guidelines
The highway safety program standards were first issued in the early
1970's, and the contents of most of these standards have not been
revised significantly since that time. The highway safety environment,
however, has changed dramatically during the past twenty years.
Accordingly, in the notice published on January 14, 1994, NHTSA and
FHWA proposed to update a number of the guidelines. The agencies
proposed to update only those guidelines that correspond to programs
currently designated as priority programs.
The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives (NAGHSR) supported the agencies' proposed changes to
the guidelines, but expressed disappointment that the agencies ``did
not use this opportunity to propose additional amendments.'' NAGHSR
suggested that all of the guidelines should be revised and updated. In
particular, NAGHSR recommended that the guidelines should be revised to
better address emerging safety issues, such as high risk drivers and
rail grade crossing safety, and that the agencies should consider
establishing a process under which all the guidelines would be reviewed
periodically to ensure they are current and useful to State
implementing agencies.
With regard to NAGHSR's specific comment regarding emerging issues,
the agencies wish to note that rail grade crossing safety is addressed
in the Roadway Safety guideline referenced above, and issues involving
impaired drivers are fully addressed in the Impaired Driving guideline
referenced below.
With regard to the other issues raised in NAGHSR's comments, the
agencies will take them under advisement for future planning purposes.
However, the notice published in January 1994 proposed only to add
three guidelines and modify six others. As noted above, the creation of
a new Roadway Safety guideline has resulted in the removal of former
guidelines 9, 12 and 13. Modifications have not been made, however, to
any other guidelines. If the agencies decide to make changes to other
guidelines, such changes will be made after providing notice in the
Federal Register and an opportunity to comment.
Revision to Guideline No. 3--Motorcycle Safety
The agencies proposed that the Motorcycle Safety guideline would
continue to emphasize the importance of motorcyclists wearing helmets
and would be amended to place greater emphasis on improving the
knowledge and skills of motorcycle operators through motorcycle rider
education and training programs.
The agencies received 10 comments concerning proposed revisions to
the Motorcycle Safety Guideline. Four individuals submitted comments
opposing the mandatory use of motorcycle helmets. One stated that
Illinois, Iowa, and Colorado are consistently among the ten safest
motorcycling States, though they lack helmet laws. Another cited data
showing that motorcycle fatalities in Minnesota and Wisconsin
constitute a small percentage of both vehicular and head trauma
fatalities, and stated that fatalities had decreased after Minnesota's
rescission of its helmet law. A third cited data showing a large drop
in motorcycle fatalities in California since the implementation of a
motorcycle safety program in 1987. Three of the four commented that
States without mandatory helmet laws show lower rates of fatalities,
and urged education and training instead of mandatory use laws. One of
these highlighted driving under the influence of alcohol and failing to
obtain a motorcycle endorsement as issues associated with motorcycle
fatalities, and suggested the need for stiffer penalties.
These individuals raised a number of other points in opposition to
mandatory helmet use. One stated that, because motorcyclists are
covered by insurance, any argument that helmet use would lower health
care costs for everyone held no merit. Another cited claims that
helmeted riders ``may be involved in as many as 14 to 16% more
accidents than non-helmeted riders'' and that head injuries account for
28.1% of non-helmeted fatalities and 29.4% of helmeted fatalities.
According to this commenter, helmets contribute to obstructed vision
and hearing and
[[Page 36648]]
increased weight, temperature, and fatigue of the rider. This commenter
also criticized the DOT helmet tests for failure to ``probe all the
effects of a helmet in an actual accident situation.''
The agencies agree with the commenters that education and training
should form an important component of a comprehensive motorcycle safety
program, and that penalties should be imposed for driving under the
influence of alcohol and failing to obtain a motorcycle endorsement.
The guideline currently accommodates these concerns. The agencies do
not agree, however, that education and training should exist to the
exclusion of laws requiring the use of helmets. The arguments raised by
these commenters questioning the safety benefits attributable to
helmets fail to properly distinguish between fatality rates and
absolute numbers of fatalities. The apparently low fatality numbers
cited by the commenters follow naturally from the fact that there are
relatively few motorcycles on the road, and they travel relatively few
miles. Motorcycles make up only 2 percent of all registered vehicles in
the United States and account for only 0.5 percent of all vehicle miles
traveled. (Notably, most of the States cited by the commenters fall
within the bottom of the range with respect to numbers of motorcycles
registered and miles traveled, so it is not surprising that their
fatality statistics are even lower.) However, on the basis of vehicle
miles traveled, motorcyclists are about 20 times more likely to die in
a motor vehicle crash than are passenger car occupants. Moreover,
though motorcyclists were involved in only 1 percent of all police-
reported motor vehicle crashes in 1991, they accounted for 8 percent of
all occupant fatalities and almost 7 percent of total traffic
fatalities.
Riding a motorcycle is a very high risk form of transportation in
the normal traffic environment, and it is even more risky without a
helmet. NHTSA estimates that an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent
more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to
incur a non-fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist when
involved in a crash. The level of protection afforded by helmets is
borne out by recent statistics in California, one year after
implementation of a mandatory motorcycle helmet use law. Statewide
fatilities decreased 37.5 percent from 523 fatalities in 1991 to 327 in
1992. An estimated 92 to 122 fatalities were prevented, and head
injuries decreased significantly among both fatally-injured and non-
fatally-injured motorcyclists.
The agencies do not agree with the comment that, because
motorcyclists carry insurance, health care costs are not an issue for
consideration. The data show that large numbers of motorcyclists either
do not carry insurance or do not carry enough insurance to fully cover
expenses. It is notable that the commenter stating this position also
cited statistics showing that many riders involved in motorcycle
fatalities did not have a motorcycle license. (It is reasonable to
assume that these unlicensed riders did not carry insurance.) More
importantly, the societal costs have been documented. The General
Accounting Office, in a 1991 report reviewing a broad array of
published and unpublished effectiveness studies on helmets and helmet
laws, highlighted the societal costs, stating that:
The studies we evaluated showed that nonhelmeted riders were
more extensive users of medical services and long-term care, and
were more likely to die or lose earning capacity through disability.
In one sense, the care of accident victims represents a claim on
society's resources regardless of how payment is made. The studies
we evaluated also indicated, however, that much of the actual
payment for care is made by society through tax-supported programs
or insurance premiums.
The agencies do not accept the premise that helmeted riders may be
involved in more accidents than non-helmeted riders due to helmet-
related factors, such as interference with vision or hearing. Studies
confirm that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear horn
signals or the likelihood of visually detecting a vehicle in an
adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change. The relatively higher
involvement of helmeted riders in crashes, as compared to non-helmeted
riders, follows naturally from the fact that, nationwide, more
motorcycle riders wear helmets than do not. Indeed, if 100 percent of
motorcycle riders wore helmets, 100 percent of the observed fatalities
would consist of helmeted victims. The agencies agree with the
commenter that the DOT helmet test cannot replicate all aspects of an
actual crash situation, but do not accept the conclusion that the test
has no value. Among other parameters, the test measures impact
attenuation, helmet retention, and resistance to penetration. These
parameters are important determinants of the level of crash protection
afforded by a helmet.
In contrast to the comments of these four individuals, the majority
of commenters generally supported the guideline. Four commenters
specifically identified the use of helmets as an important component of
the guideline. Advocates recommended that the guideline urge the
enactment of motorcycle helmet use laws more directly, rather than
parenthetically. The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives (NAGHSR) thought that more emphasis should be placed on
mandatory helmet use laws, because it viewed helmets as the most
effective means of reducing motorcycle head injuries. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation urged continued emphasis on the importance
of wearing motorcycle helmets. 3M Corporation supported mandatory
helmet laws from the standpoint of conspicuity, recommending that
helmets be made conspicuous for both daytime and nighttime visibility.
The agencies agree with all of these comments about the importance of
wearing motorcycle helmets. In particular, the agencies agree with
Advocates that motorcycle helmet use laws deserve more than
parenthetical reference, and have included additional language in the
Program Management section. We have also added, under the section on
equipment, language clarifying that helmets should meet the Federal
Motor Vehicle safety Standard on helmets. The agencies agree with 3M
that daytime and nighttime conspicuity of helmets would add to
motorcyclist safety, and have included appropriate language in the
Conspicuity section of the guideline.
Several commenters made recommendations concerning training,
education, or licensing issues. Minnesota stressed the need for
emphasis on improving the knowledge and skills of operators. Advocates
noted that, even with school certification, adolescent motorcycle
operators suffered a disproportionate number of fatalities.
Consequently, Advocates believed that the guideline should not
encourage newly licensed and younger drivers to seek motorcycle license
endorsement. Instead, Advocates believed that training should be
limited to those with motorcycle licenses, and should not be conducted
in schools, youth groups, or the like, where it might serve to
encourage motorcycle riding by the young.
The Hawaii DOT recommended the deletion of the entire Rider
Education and Training section, reasoning that ``government should not
care how a rider is educated, only that he is educated,'' and
concluding that motorcycle riding criteria should be performance
oriented (i.e., government should set criteria for the licensing test,
but not for the training). Citing NHTSA's five-year study of driver
[[Page 36649]]
education in DeKalb County, Georgia, which showed only a short-term
benefit, Hawaii also suggested amendment of the introductory paragraph
of the guideline to remove training from the list of ``effective''
programs. According to Hawaii, enforcement, rather than training, is
the proper role of government. Hawaii also asked for more specificity
in the guideline's recommendations concerning licensing. For example,
Hawaii asked for the identification of medical criteria specific to
motorcycle (rather than car) licensing. With respect to license
renewal, Hawaii asked whether a knowledge test would be sufficient or
whether a skills test should also be required. Finally, Hawaii asked
what time frame the guideline contemplated by recommending the issuance
of a learner's permit only twice per applicant.
The agencies believe that training and education are an important
part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program. Consequently, we
agree with Minnesota's comment concerning the need for emphasis on the
knowledge and skills of operators, and this is already reflected in the
guideline proposed on January 14, 1994. However, the appropriate age
for motorcycle licensing is properly a matter of State concern and, for
this reason, the agencies decline to recommend actions, as urged by
Advocates, that would restrict the availability of training for
adolescents. The agencies do not believe that motorcycle training and
education should be withheld from any segment of the population that
has reached the age set by the State for obtaining a motorcycle
license. Similarly, the agencies disagree with Hawaii's comment that
the guideline should concern itself with testing, but not with
training. A well balanced program should focus on both aspects, as
currently reflected in the guideline.
The identification of specific medical criteria relevant to
motorcycle licensing decisions and the nature of testing required for
license renewal are also matters properly left to the discretion of the
State. Consequently, the agencies have not adopted Hawaii's
recommendation to provide further specifics in the guideline concerning
these areas. In response to Hawaii's question regarding the issuance of
learner's permits only twice per applicant, the agencies have broadened
the language in the guideline to indicate that States should limit the
number or frequency of learner's permits issued to any one individual.
Hawaii also disagreed with the guideline's emphasis on impaired
motorcyclists. Instead, Hawaii thought it would be more cost-effective
to take a generic approach to the issue of DUI. The agencies agree that
DUI is a dangerous problem regardless of the type of vehicle being
operated, but believe it is important to include specific consideration
of impaired motorcyclists in this guideline. The problem of impaired
motorcyclists is commonly overlooked in most impaired driving
enforcement programs. Focus testing conducted by NHTSA has shown that
DUI messages directed at motorcyclists (a subgroup overrepresented in
DUI statistics), need to be different than those directed at other
motorists in order to produce the desired awareness. Consequently, it
is especially important that DUI programs and activities be referenced
separately in this guideline, and that they be tailored to the
motorcyclist audience.
The Texas Motorcycle Safety Bureau thought that the funding source
advocated by the guideline under the Program Management section should
be sufficient to fund all program needs and secured from use by other
state agencies. Texas noted that much additional funding would be
needed to implement the all-encompassing program addressed in the
guideline. Texas also recommended that the requirement for data
collection be more specific, but cautioned that if it included crash
data, it would fall within the responsibility of another State entity
and not be allowed. Finally, Texas expressed confusion about the
provision, under the section on Motorcycle Rider Education and
Training, advocating ``permission to spend money in other motorcycle
safety program areas as deemed appropriate.''
The agencies agree with Texas that the funding source sought under
the guideline should be secured from use for other purposes, but
believe that this is implicit in the guideline as written. With respect
to the concern about the need for additional funds, we are optimistic
that Texas will strive to implement comprehensive motorcycle safety
programs, making the best use of the funds available. The agencies
decline to further articulate the data collection requirement. States
are encouraged to collect data which they determine is useful in
contributing to motorcycle safety activities. The guideline does not
specify responsibilities for collecting data, so Texas need not be
concerned about conflicting duties among State agencies. The agencies
agree with Texas' comment that the provision about spending money in
other program areas is confusing, and have deleted it from the
guideline.
Revision to Guideline No. 8--Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety
The agencies proposed that the guideline entitled ``Alcohol in
Relation to Highway Safety'' would be renamed ``Impaired Driving,'' and
would be amended to encourage use of a comprehensive, community-based
approach. Its goals would include preventing people from being killed
and injured in the short-term through general deterrence programs, and
permanently reducing the number of drivers impaired by alcohol or other
drugs through long-term prevention and intervention measures.
The agencies received eleven comments regarding the proposed
changes to Guideline 8. The National Sheriffs' Association and the New
York Police Department agreed with the proposed changes to this
guideline. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
supported the proposed revisions, particularly those portions that
encourage the adoption of programs that emphasize the likelihood of
officer-violator contact. Both the IACP and the Illinois State Police
emphasized the importance of police visibility in the community.
Illinois and the Minnesota Department of Transportation strongly
supported the guideline for recommending use of long-term prevention
and intervention programs, such as DARE, and expressed confidence that
such programs would reduce DUI/DWI levels significantly in the future.
Advocates stated that it favored the general approach and most of
the details included in the proposed amendments to Guideline 8, but
suggested that the agencies consider recommending that States adopt
0.05 BAC as the legal limit for the general driving public and
administrative license revocation or suspension sanctions as a means to
reduce impaired driving.
The agencies have not amended the guideline in response to this
comment. The agencies believe administrative license revocation or
suspension sanctions are already addressed sufficiently in the
guideline. Section II.A recommends that States should ``permit a broad
range of administrative and judicial penalties and actions'' and it
includes in its list of ``effective penalties'' for impaired driving
offenses the ``prompt and certain administrative license revocation or
suspension of at least 90 days for persons determined by chemical test
to violate the State's BAC limit.''
[[Page 36650]]
The agencies disagree that the legal limit should be lowered to
0.05 BAC for the general driving public. The agencies recommended that
States adopt 0.08 BAC for many of the reasons set forth in NHTSA's
Report to Congress on Alcohol Limits, Driving Under The Influence, in
October 1992. As the agency explained in the report:
A BAC level below 0.08 would have safety benefits if it could be
implemented effectively. However, a lower BAC might strain judicial
and enforcement resources and possibly result in public backlash if
these lower limits are viewed as unreasonable.
The Florida Department of Transportation stated that use of
preliminary breath test (PBT) devices has created confusion and
resulted in findings of not guilty in DUI cases in the State of
Florida, and recommended deleting from the guideline any reference to
PBTs and emphasizing instead use of the Standardized Field Sobriety
Test (SFST), with updated guidelines and training programs.
The agencies support the use of SFST and will continue to recommend
its use in Guideline 8. The agencies have not, however, deleted
references to PBTs from the guideline. PBTs are used widely in many
States. The agencies believe PBTs are extremely useful as law
enforcement tools, when used properly. In fact, the Illinois State
Police Department stated in its comments that ``the availability of PBT
devices is essential to enhanced DUI/DWI patrol, especially if .08
[BAC] is established as the per se [level for] alcohol impairment.''
The Michigan Department of State Police recommended that the
guideline be amended to include a reference to party host
responsibilities. The agencies agree that social host responsibilities
should be addressed in the guideline and have amended the Responsible
Alcohol Service section of Guideline 8 in response to this comment.
The Washington State Department of Health suggested that the
agencies make a number of specific changes to Guideline 8. The agencies
have adopted one of these suggestions. The agencies have not amended
section I.B on School Programs to promote the fact that underage
drinking is illegal in every State. This section recommends the type of
school programs that States should conduct, not the content of the
programs. Moreover, the guideline recognizes elsewhere (in sections I.D
and II.A) that it is illegal for persons under 21 years of age to
drink.
Section II.A recommends that States should ``provide effective
penalties for [certain] offenses.'' Washington recommended that the
guideline clarify that penalties should apply whether the offenses are
motor vehicle-related or not. The agencies have not amended the
guideline to make this change. We believe it is unnecessary,
particularly since the guideline lists, as an example, a mandatory
driver's license suspension for any violation of law involving the use
or possession of alcohol or other drugs by a person under the age of
21, an offense that is not necessarily motor vehicle-related.
Washington suggested that Guideline 8 be amended to recommend
tiered sentencing of hard core, repeat and high BAC drivers. The
agencies have not amended the guideline in response to this comment.
The guideline already recommends ``increasingly more severe penalties
for repeat offenders.'' The agencies do not currently have a position
on whether more severe penalties should be placed on high BAC drivers.
Finally, Washington recommended that public information and
education (PI&E) programs for deterrence should include information
about the risk of injury and/or death as well as legal, medical and
other costs. The agencies have amended the guideline to recommend that
this information be included in PI&E efforts. We have added this
recommendation to the prevention rather than the deterrence PI&E
section, however, where we believe it will have a greater impact.
The Hawaii Department of Transportation raised a number of issues,
most of which question the recommended use of sanctions that shift
responsibility away from individuals that drink and drive. Hawaii
objected, for example, to the recommended use by employers of treatment
programs, laws that impose liability on alcohol servers, and driver
licensing sanctions against license holders convicted of offenses that
do not involve the use of a motor vehicle.
The agencies wish to stress that most of the sanctions recommended
in Guideline 8 emphasize personal responsibility on the part of
individuals who drink and drive (such as administrative license
suspension, imprisonment, or impoundment or confiscation of license
plates or vehicles), as these sanctions are considered to be among the
most effective. However, there has been considerable success using some
of these other methods. Driver licensing sanctions against persons
under the age of 21 who purchase or possess alcohol illegally, whether
or not such persons are operating a motor vehicle at the time, have
been particularly effective. Accordingly, the agencies will continue to
include these recommendations in the guideline.
Hawaii raised several other issues, with respect to which the
agencies wish to provide clarification. Hawaii questioned the
guideline's recommendation that States implement K-12 traffic safety
education that includes an emphasis on impaired driving. Hawaii asks
whether the agencies believe children in grades K-3 should be educated
about this subject. The agencies believe students should be educated
about impaired driving well before they are old enough to obtain a
driver's license. We defer to educators to determine the appropriate
age at which to begin such education.
Hawaii objected to the recommendation in Guideline 8 that States
require the use of a victim impact statement prior to sentencing in
certain DWI cases. Hawaii argued that ``these statements may be
subjecting victims to additional misery without providing any profit.''
The agencies wish to explain that this recommendation is intended to
require that statements be used, if given by victims. It is not
intended to require that victims give statements if they do not wish to
do so.
Finally, Hawaii suggested that the guideline be changed to
recommend that ``happy hours'' be controlled rather than eliminated.
The agencies have amended the guideline, in response to this comment,
to clarify that the guideline does not recommend that all ``happy
hours'' be eliminated, only those ``that include free or reduced-price
alcoholic beverages.''
Revisions to Guideline No. 10--Traffic Records
The agencies proposed that the Traffic Records guideline would be
amended to recommend methods for establishing comprehensive traffic
records systems that would enable states to use data to identify
emerging traffic safety problems, develop appropriate countermeasures
and evaluate program performance.
The agencies received ten comments regarding the proposed changes
to Guideline 10.
The National Sheriffs' Association concurred with the agencies'
proposal. The Illinois State Police applauded the proposed changes,
particularly those relating to the development of a shared traffic data
base and improved linkage of data. The California Highway Patrol (CHP)
supported the creation of a linked traffic records system, but
cautioned that a great deal of time, effort and funding will be
required to accomplish
[[Page 36651]]
such a system. CHP stated that it had no suggestions to improve the
guideline.
NAGHSR recommended that the guidelines be revised to more
accurately reflect the role of traffic records as ``an essential,
integral part of every highway safety countermeasure [and] part of a
state's highway safety infrastructure.'' According to NAGHSR, the new
Safety Management System (SMS) requirements place additional importance
on traffic records, and the guidelines should be adjusted accordingly.
The agencies agree with NAGHSR's assessment regarding the importance of
traffic records in support of other highway safety countermeasures and
the new Safety Management System. In response to this comment, the
agencies have amended section III and the opening paragraph of the
Traffic Records Guideline to recognize these uses of traffic records.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) advised
increased support for use of citation/violation data and the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) commented that data should be
available for use by all State and local agencies with highway safety
responsibilities. The agencies agree that data should be available to
and used by State and local agencies. The agencies have supported
States and local agencies in their efforts to link data, such as under
the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project.
ITE commented also that ``audits'' or ``surveys'' should be
conducted by States to determine such things as crash costs. The
agencies do not agree with this comment. ``Audits'' and ``surveys'' are
extremely labor-intensive procedures and the agencies believe it is not
practicable for all States to conduct them. Individual States may
choose to conduct these procedures, but the agencies have not amended
the guideline to recommend that all States do so.
The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended
that the Federal government take a leadership role in the development
of better and more uniform data on school bus accidents and problem
drivers. The agencies are taking steps to improve these data.
Currently, pursuant to section 2002(a) of ISTEA, the Department is in
the process of soliciting comments from the highway safety community on
issues of data uniformity and reporting criteria for deaths and
injuries resulting from school bus crashes, as well as deaths and
injuries involving other circumstances.
The State of Kansas advised that the agencies postpone making any
final revisions to this Guideline until after it completed its Traffic
Records Assessments. The Kansas Traffic Records Assessment was
completed in August 1994. However, the Kansas comment raises the
broader question whether this Guideline should be revised while any
State Traffic Record Assessments are pending. The agencies strongly
believe the revision should not be delayed on this basis. Assessments
are being conducted in the Traffic Records and in other highway safety
areas, on a State-by-State basis. The purpose of these assessments is
to assist States as they review their highway safety programs, and note
program strengths and accomplishments as well as opportunities for
improvement. The agencies see no reason to postpone the revision of
these Highway Safety Program Guidelines until after all assessments
have been conducted. In fact, one of the reasons for revising the
guidelines is so that they can be used in future assessments.
3M recommended that Guideline 10 be modified to provide for the
collection of data on the conspicuity of clothing worn by pedestrians,
bicyclists and motorcyclists involved in crashes, and Advocates
recommended that the text regarding the Roadway File element of the
guideline be augmented by including a partial listing of relevant
design characteristics of a roadway that directly affect safety. The
agencies believe this level of specificity in the guideline is
unnecessary. The elements contained in the guideline are sufficiently
broad to encompass these details, without the need to list them
individually.
Advocates also recommended that Guideline 10 should encourage
States to cross-reference motor carrier information files. The agencies
agree with this comment, and have amended the guideline to clarify this
point.
Revisions to Guideline No. 11--Emergency Medical Services
The notice proposed that the Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
guideline would be amended to expand its focus, by recommending
improvements to the entire EMS and trauma care system for highway-
injured patients.
The agencies received seven comments regarding the proposed changes
to Guideline 11. The New York City Police Department and the National
Sheriffs' Association had no objections to the guideline, as proposed.
The Illinois State Police applauded the proposed changes,
particularly those relating to improved linkage of data and the focus
on first responder training. Advocates also supported the proposed
amendments to Guideline 11. Advocates recognized that there ``have been
vast improvements in safety due to developments in EMS response
capability * * * [which] greatly improves the chance for survival of
crash victims'' and stated that the ``proposed guideline will assist
states in that endeavor.''
The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) strongly supported
the proposed revisions to Guideline 11, particularly those relating to
use of a common phone number (e.g. 911) for quick public access to
emergency medical care, training and certification criteria. NENA
suggested that the guideline be further modified to recommend the
deployment of 911 (rather than other common phone number) systems, to
urge rapid upgrade to enhanced 911 services and to refer persons
interested in accomplishing these objectives to NENA for assistance.
The agencies have modified the guideline in response to NENA's
recommendations regarding the deployment of 911 and the rapid upgrade
to enhanced 911 services. NENA's third recommendation, however, has not
been accepted. It would be inappropriate for the agencies to appear to
endorse private organizations.
3M recommended that Guideline 11 be modified to recommend that
first responders and prehospital providers receive training on proper
procedures for roadway situations and use of clothing that enhances
conspicuity, as well as the proper care of clothing to reduce hazards
associated with blood-borne pathogens and other soils.
The National Standard Curricula for First Responders and the
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Basic, which were developed by
NHTSA, both address issues relating to safety at the scene of a crash.
The specifics concerning the types of clothing to wear and how to care
for such clothing are best addressed in training courses conducted
using these curricula. They need not be included in the Highway Safety
Program Guideline.
The Washington State Department of Health suggested changes to the
guideline that would clarify its emphasis on injury and trauma
prevention. The agencies agree with Washington State's comments, and
have changed the guideline accordingly.
[[Page 36652]]
Revisions to Guideline No. 14--Pedestrian Safety
When the original highway safety program standards were established
by NHTSA and FHWA, Guideline 14 addressed pedestrian safety issues, but
there was no guideline that addressed bicycle safety. In 1991, NHTSA
and FHWA designated Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety as a National
Priority program area. Accordingly, in the notice published in January
1994, the agencies proposed to expand Guideline 14 to address bicycle
safety as well as pedestrian safety issues.
The agencies received eight comments regarding the proposed changes
to Guideline 14. The New York City Police Department supported the
combination of bicycle and pedestrian safety.
The National Sheriffs' Association concurred with the proposed
guideline, but noted that safety towns, children's villages and safety
farm/rural towns (Life Safety Programs) should be addressed. These Life
Safety Programs are examples of public information and education and
school-based programs conducted by States and communities for children
that fall within the scope of Sections VI and IX of the guideline. The
agencies support their use, but do not believe these programs need to
be mentioned specifically in the guideline.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation supported having
pedestrian and bicycle safety principles and rules included in all
driver training and licensing examinations. 3M Corporation recommended
that the guideline be modified to emphasize the use of highly visible
clothing to improve conspicuity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The agencies believe these issues were covered sufficiently in the
guideline, as proposed. Section IX of the proposed guideline
recommended that each State ``should address pedestrian and bicycle
issues in State driver education and licensing programs [and that]
pedestrian and bicycle safety principles and rules should be included
in all driver training and licensing examinations.'' Section VI of the
proposed guideline recommended that State and community programs should
address ``being visible in the traffic system (conspicuity).'' These
portions of the guideline have not been changed.
3M also recommended that the guideline emphasize the use of retro-
reflective signing. Section V of the proposed guideline recommended the
application of appropriate traffic engineering measures, including the
use of signs. These signs are required to be constructed using
retroreflective materials, in accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. The agencies note that Section V of the
proposed guideline referenced pedestrian but not bicycle signals, signs
and markings. The agencies have amended the guideline to correct this
omission.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) objected
to the guideline's emphasis on planning and designing sidewalks and
bicycle facilities. IACP argued that experienced bicycle riders find
these facilities to be more dangerous than operating a bicycle in a
conspicuous fashion on the roadway and asserted that measures, such as
bicyclist and motorist training plus improved conspicuity, would be
more effective at improving bicycle safety.
The proposed guideline advised States to provide ``a safe
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists'' and indicated that States
may use measures, such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities, for those
who wish to use them. The proposed guideline also recognized, in
Section V, that ``balancing the needs of pedestrians and those of
vehicular traffic (including bicycle) must always be considered.'' The
agencies agree that other measures, such as training and improved
conspicuity, are also important. Proposed Guideline 14 recognized that
``a comprehensive highway safety system is the most effective means of
producing consistent, long-term changes.'' The agencies do not believe
any changes are necessary in response to this comment.
The Washington State Department of Health recommended that the
guideline be amended to clarify that public information and education
should cover not only proper selection and use but also fit, and should
address both bicycle helmets and bicycles. The agencies agree, and have
amended the guideline accordingly.
Advocates supported the proposed changes to the guideline, but
recommended that the guideline include ``a more detailed presentation
of regulatory and legislative policies and countermeasures.'' In
response to this comment, the agencies have decided to include in
Section III of the guideline a specific example of legislation that we
support. The guideline has been amended to recommend that States should
enact and enforce bicycle helmet use laws.
The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended
that a training program be developed for monitors who help load and
unload children riding on school buses. In addition, NSTA suggested
that children who walk to and from school should be educated about the
dangers school buses pose to pedestrians. NSTA cautioned, however,
against including this information in a general pedestrian safety
program.
In the final rule published in the Federal Register on December 13,
1994 (59 FR 64120), in which the agencies decided not to add School Bus
Safety to the list of National Priority program areas, the agencies
recognized that nearly one-third of all persons who die in school bus-
related crashes are non-occupants (i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists).
The agencies also identified steps currently underway to address this
problem, including the development of a separate school bus/pedestrian
safety educational program for children in grades K-6, and indicated
that:
States are able to address * * * school bus-related fatalities,
which occur while children are boarding or exiting * * * under the
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program.
In today's notice, the agencies have modified Guideline No. 14 to
address loading and unloading of children who ride school buses and
other school bus-related issues that affect the safety of pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Revisions to Guideline No. 15--Police Traffic Services
The agencies explained in the January 14, 1994 notice that the
proliferation of highway safety legislation in recent years, such as
tougher DWI laws, child restraint and seat belt use laws, and
commercial motor vehicle safety laws, combined with an increased demand
for other law enforcement services, has placed a strain on police
agencies during a time of reduced budgets, manpower and resources. The
notice proposed to revise Guideline 15 to assist law enforcement
agencies by addressing how to do more with less.
The agencies received five comments regarding the proposed changes
to Guideline 15. The New York City Police Department supported the
agencies' approach and stated that the changes would further enhance
safety. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
concurred with the proposed changes to the guideline, particularly with
regard to enforcement actions where officers ``look beyond the traffic
ticket,'' the use of problem identification (such as Problem-Oriented
Policing, or POP, strategies) and the need to provide traffic
enforcement training. The Illinois State Police supported the agencies'
proposal, and stated that it ``provides a thorough framework for fine
tuning of the services performed by law enforcment.'' Illinois
[[Page 36653]]
cautioned, however, that significant progress will be difficult to
achieve without additional funding.
The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) suggested a number of
changes to the proposed guideline. NSA observed that the proposed
guideline mentions Police Departments, but not Sheriff's Offices, and
recommended that Sheriff's Offices should be mentioned specifically and
that State Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) should be
changed to read Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). NSA also
recommended that the guideline address waterway patrol (for which many
Sheriff's Offices have responsibility) and drugs that impair driving.
By referring to ``State and local law enforcement agencies'' and
``State Police Officer Standards and Training'' in Guideline 15, the
agencies did not intend to exclude County law enforcement agencies or
Sheriff's Offices. The guideline has been amended to clarify that
State, county and local law enforcement agencies are all covered and
that POST can refer to either police or peace officers.
The agencies have not amended the guideline in response to the
other recommendations in NSA's comments. Waterway patrol activities are
beyond the scope of what is authorized under the Section 402 Highway
Safety Program. Their inclusion in this Section 402 guideline would
therefore be inappropriate.
The guideline has not been amended to further address drugs that
impair driving. The agencies believe the guideline already addresses
this issue adequately. The introductory paragraph of Guideline 15, for
example, provides that ``Traffic law enforcement plays an important
role in deterring impaired driving involving alcohol or other drugs.''
The guideline also recommends that law enforcement agencies develop and
implement enforcement plans that include impaired driving involving
alcohol or other drugs, and that they address impaired driving
involving alcohol or other drugs in their public information and
education activities.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) commented that the guideline
should not mandate the provision of specialized commercial motor
vehicle in-service training to traffic enforcement officers. The
agencies recognize that CHP has officers who have been trained and who
enforce commercial motor vehicle requirements. This recommendation in
the guideline was intended to address the need for training in those
States that do not have these specialized resources available to them.
By providing specialized training, law enforcement agencies would be
able to augment ongoing inspection activities with the resources
already available in their current law enforcement program. Moreover,
the guideline represents recommendations to the States, not mandates.
The agencies have not changed the guideline in response to this
comment.
Other Guidelines Remain Unchanged
The agencies proposed that all other guidelines contained in part
1204 would remain intact and unchanged by this proposal. As discussed
above, commenters supported the agencies' proposal to add a new Roadway
Safety guideline, and suggested that guidelines 9, 12 and 13 would then
become duplicative and should be removed. The agencies have adopted
this suggestion. All other guidelines remain unchanged. The following
guidelines remain unchanged by this proposal:
Guideline No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection
Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration
Guideline No. 4 Driver Education
Guideline No. 5 Driver Licensing
Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws
Guideline No. 7 Traffic Courts
Guideline No. 16 Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup
Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation Safety (Rev. 4/91)
Guideline No. 18 Accident Investigation and Reporting
It should be noted that the guidelines are not binding on the
States. A State's decision not to adopt a portion of a guideline, for
example, would not entail penalties for the State. Nonetheless, the
agencies encourage the use of the recommendations contained in these
guidelines to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs
conducted at the State and local level.
All Guidelines Removed From Code of Federal Regulations
As discussed above, with the passage of the Surface Transportation
and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17),
Congress gave statutory recognition to the treatment of the guidelines
as information the States could draw upon to build the framework of
their highway safety programs. With the shift in focus from mandatory
standards to advisory guidelines, this information need no longer
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For these reasons, and
consistent with streamlining efforts under the President's regulatory
reform initiative, this action simultaneously removes all guidelines
from the 23 CFR part 1204. The existing guidelines, as amended by
today's action, and the new guidelines introduced by today's action,
will be published in a separate document which will be made available
to the States in the near future. For reference until that time, the
guidelines affected by today's action are set forth below in an
appendix.
Economic and Other Effects
The agencies have considered the impacts that are associated with
this action, and determined that it is not significant within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 or the Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The guidelines contained in Part
1204 are advisory, not mandatory. Accordingly, a full regulatory
evaluation is not necessary.
Since this matter relates to grants, the notice and comment
requirements established in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553, are not applicable. Because the agencies were not required to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this action, the
agencies are not required to analyze the effect of this action on small
entities, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
agencies have nonetheless evaluated the effects of this notice on small
entities. Based on the evaluation, we certify that this notice will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is unnecessary.
Environmental Impacts
The agencies have also analyzed this action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agencies have determined that
this action will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.
Federalism Assessment
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been determined
that it has no federalism implication that warrants the preparation of
a federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1204
Grant programs, Highway safety.
[[Page 36654]]
PART 1204--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 402, 23 CFR part 1204 is removed and reserved.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Issued on: July 11, 1995.
Appendix--Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3, Motorcycle Safety
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,
should have a comprehensive program to promote motorcycle safety and
prevent motorcycle-related injuries. To be effective in reducing the
number of motorcycle crash deaths and injuries, State programs
should address the use of helmets and other protective gear, proper
licensing, impaired riding, rider training, conspicuity, and
motorist awareness. This Motorcycle Safety Program Guideline will
assist States and local communities in the development and
implementation of effective motorcycle safety programs.
I. Program Management
Each State should identify the nature and extent of its
motorcycle safety problems, establish goals and objectives for the
State's motorcycle safety program, and implement projects to reach
the goals and objectives. State motorcycle safety plans should:
Designate a lead agency for motorcycle safety;
Develop funding sources;
Collect and analyze data on motorcycle safety;
Identify the State's motorcycle safety problem areas;
Develop programs (with specific projects) to address
problems;
Coordinate motorcycle projects with those for the
general motoring public;
Integrate motorcycle safety into community/corridor
traffic safety and other injury control programs; and
Include passage and enforcement of mandatory motorcycle
helmet legislation.
II. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment
Each State should encourage motorcycle operators and passengers
to use the following protective equipment:
Motorcycle helmets that meet the Federal helmet
standard (their use should be required by law);
Proper clothing, including gloves, boots, long pants,
and a durable long-sleeved jacket; and
Eye (which should be required by law) and face
protection.
Additionally, each passenger should be provided a seat and
footrest.
III. Motorcycle Operator Licensing
States should require every person who operates a motorcycle on
public roadways to pass an examination designed especially for
motorcycle operation and to hold a license endorsement specifically
authorizing motorcycle operation. Each State should have a
motorcycle licensing system that requires:
Motorcycle operator's manual;
Motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and
skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;
License examiner training;
Motorcycle license endorsement;
Motorcycle license renewal requirements;
Learner's permit issued for a period of 90 days and
limits on the number or frequency of learner's permits issued per
applicant; and
Penalties for violation of motorcycle licensing
requirements.
IV. Motorcycle Rider Education and Training
Safe motorcycle operation requires specialized training by
qualified instructors. Each State should establish a State
Motorcycle Rider Education Program that provides for:
Source of program funding;
State organization to administer the program;
Use of Motorcycle Safety Foundation curriculum or
equivalent State-approved curriculum;
Reasonable availability of rider education courses for
all interested residents of legal riding age;
Instructor training and certification;
Incentives for successful course completion such as
licensing skills test exemption;
Quality control of the program;
Ability to purchase insurance for the program;
State guidelines for conduct of the program; and
Program evaluation.
V. Motorcycle Operation While Impaired by Alcohol or Other Drugs
Each State should ensure that programs addressing impaired
driving include a focus on motorcycles. The following programs
should include an emphasis on impaired motorcyclists:
Community/corridor traffic safety and other injury
control programs;
Public information and education campaigns;
Youth impaired driving programs;
Law enforcement programs;
Judge and prosecutor training programs;
Anti-impaired driving organizations; and
College and school programs.
VI. Motorcycle Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs
State motorcycle safety programs should emphasize the issues of
rider conspicuity and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These
programs should address:
Daytime use of motorcycle lights;
Brightly colored clothing and reflective materials for
motorcycle riders and motorcycle helmets with high daytime and
nighttime conspicuity;
Lane positioning of motorcycles to increase vehicle
visibility;
Reasons why motorists do not see motorcycles; and
Ways that other motorists can increase their awareness
of motorcyclists.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 8--IMPAIRED DRIVING
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,
should have a comprehensive program to combat impaired driving. This
guideline describes the areas that each State's program should
address. Throughout this guideline, ``impaired driving'' means
operating any motor vehicle while one's faculties are affected by
alcohol or other drugs, medications, or other substances. ``Impaired
driving'' includes, but is not limited to, impairment as defined in
State statutes.
I. Prevention
Each State should have prevention programs to reduce impaired
driving through approaches commonly associated with public health--
altering social norms, changing risky or dangerous behaviors, and
creating protective environments. Prevention and public health
programs promote activities to educate the public on the effects of
alcohol and other drugs, limit alcohol and drug availability, and
prevent those impaired by alcohol and drugs from driving. Prevention
programs are typically carried out in schools, work sites, medical
and health care facilities, and community groups. Each State should
implement a system of impaired driving prevention activities and
work with the traffic safety, health and medical communities to
foster health and reduce traffic-related injuries and their
resulting costs.
A. Public Information and Education for Prevention
States should develop and implement public information and
education (PI&E) programs directed at impaired driving, and reducing
the risk of injury or death and their resulting medical, legal and
other costs. Programs should start at the State level and extend to
communities through State assistance, model programs, and public
encouragement. States should:
Have a statewide plan, program, and coordinator for all
impaired driving PI&E activities;
Develop their own PI&E campaigns and materials, either
by adapting materials from the Federal government or other States,
or by creating new campaigns and materials;
Encourage and support communities to implement
awareness programs at the local level;
Encourage businesses and private organizations to
participate in impaired driving PI&E campaigns; and
Encourage media to support impaired driving highway
safety issues by reporting on programs, activities (including
enforcement campaigns), alcohol-related arrests, and alcohol-related
crashes.
B. School Programs
Student programs, including kindergarten through college and
trade school, play a critical role in preventing impaired driving.
States should:
Implement K-12 traffic safety education, with
appropriate emphasis on impaired
[[Page 36655]]
driving, as part of a comprehensive health education program;
Establish and support student safety clubs and
activities and create a statewide network linking these groups;
Establish liaisons with higher education institutions
to encourage policies to reduce alcohol, other drug, and traffic
safety problems on college campuses;
Promote alcohol- and drug-free events throughout the
school year, with particular emphasis on high-risk times such as
prom, spring break, and graduation;
Coordinate closely with anti-drug education efforts and
programs;
Develop working relationships with school health
personnel as a means of providing information to students about a
variety of traffic safety and health behaviors; and
Make effective use of criminal justice, medical, or
other professionals through presentations in the classroom or
assembly programs.
C. Employer Programs
States should provide information and technical assistance to
all employers, encouraging them to offer programs to reduce impaired
driving by employees and their families. These programs should
include:
Model policies for impaired driving and other traffic
safety issues, including safety belt use and speeding;
Management training to recognize and address alcohol
and drug impairment;
Education and treatment programs for employees; and
Employee awareness activities.
States should especially encourage companies and businesses to
provide impaired driving programs to their youthful employees. The
States should also be familiar with FHWA's drug and alcohol
requirements for employers of commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers.
D. Responsible Alcohol Service
States should promote responsible alcohol service policies and
practices through social host programs and well-publicized and
enforced laws, regulations, policies and education in the retail
alcohol service industry (including package stores, restaurants, and
taverns). States should:
Implement and enforce programs to eliminate the sale or
service of alcoholic beverages to those under 21 years of age;
Promote alcohol server and service programs, including
assessments, written policies, and training;
Ensure adequate alcohol control regulations dealing
with issues such as service to visibly intoxicated patrons and the
elimination of ``happy hours'' during which free or reduced-price
alcoholic beverages are offered (food and non-alcoholic beverages
may be offered instead during such times);
Provide adequate resources (including budget, staff,
and training) to enforce alcohol beverage control regulations;
Promote the display of responsible alcohol use and
drinking and driving information in alcohol sales and service
establishments;
Promote participation in designated driver, safe rides,
and other alternative transportation programs; and
Provide that commercial establishments may be held
responsible for damages caused by any patron who was served alcohol
when visibly intoxicated.
E. Transportation Alternatives
States should promote alternative transportation programs that
enable drinkers to reach their destinations without driving.
Alternative transportation programs include:
Designated drivers; and
Safe rides.
II. Deterrence
Each State should have a deterrence program to reduce impaired
driving through activities to create the maximum possible perception
of detection, arrest and punishment among persons who might be
tempted to drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs,
including CMV drivers. Close coordination with law enforcement
agencies on the municipal, county, and state levels is needed to
create and sustain the perceived risk of being detected and
arrested. Specialized traffic enforcement efforts, such as the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), also serve as a core
element in the detection of impaired drivers. Equally close
coordination with courts and the motor vehicle licensing and
registration agency is needed to enhance the fear of punishment.
Effective use of all available media is essential to create and
maintain a strong public awareness of impaired driving enforcement
and sanctions.
Each State should implement a system of activities to deter
impaired driving. The deterrence system should include legislation,
public information and education, enforcement, prosecution,
adjudication, criminal sanctions, driver licensing, and vehicle
registration activities. The goal should be to increase the
perception and probability of arrest for violators and the
imposition of swift and sure sanctions.
A. Laws To Deter Impaired Driving
States should enact laws that define and prohibit impaired
driving in broad and readily enforceable terms, facilitate the
acquisition of evidence against impaired drivers, and permit a broad
range of administrative and judicial penalties and actions. These
laws should:
Define impaired driving offenses--
Establish .08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) as the
blood alcohol level at or above which it is illegal to operate a
motor vehicle (``illegal per se'');
Establish .04 BAC as the illegal per se blood alcohol
level for commercial truck and bus operators, as provided by
commercial driver license regulations;
Establish that it is illegal per se for persons under
the age of 21 (the legal drinking age) to drive with any measurable
amount of alcohol in their blood, breath, or urine;
Establish that driving under the influence of other
drugs (whether illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter) is
unlawful and is treated similarly to driving under the influence of
alcohol;
Establish vehicular homicide or causing personal injury
while under the influence of alcohol as a separate offense; and
Prohibit open alcohol containers and consumption of
alcohol in motor vehicles.
Provide for effective enforcement of these laws--
Authorize police to conduct checkpoints, in which
vehicles are stopped on a nondiscriminatory basis to determine
whether or not the operators are driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs;
Authorize police to use a preliminary breath test for a
vehicle operator stopped for a suspected impaired driving offense;
Authorize police to test for impairing drugs other than
alcohol;
Include implied consent provisions that permit the use
of chemical tests and that allow the arresting officer to require
more than one test of a vehicle operator stopped for a suspected
impaired driving offense;
Require prompt and certain license revocation or
suspension for persons who refuse to take a chemical test to
determine whether they were driving while intoxicated (``implied
consent''); and
Require mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing
whenever a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe
that a driver has committed an alcohol-related offense.
Provide effective penalties for these offenses--
Require prompt and certain administrative license
revocation or suspension of at least 90 days for persons determined
by chemical test to violate the State's BAC limit;
Provide for increasingly more severe penalties for
repeat offenders, including lengthy license revocation, substantial
criminal fines, jail, and/or impoundment or confiscation of license
plates or vehicles registered by the offender;
Provide for more stringent criminal penalties for those
convicted of more serious offenses, such as vehicular homicide;
Contain special provisions for youth under the age of
21 that mandate driver's license suspension for any violations of
laws regarding the use or possession of alcohol or other drugs; and
Establish victim assistance and victim restitution
programs and require the use of a victim impact statement prior to
sentencing in all impaired driving cases where death or serious
injury occurred.
B. Public Information and Education for Deterrence
States should implement public information and education (PI&E)
programs to maximize public perception of the risks of being caught
and punished for impaired driving. Public information programs
should be:
Comprehensive;
Seasonally focused; and
Sustained.
C. Enforcement
States should implement comprehensive enforcement programs to
maximize the
[[Page 36656]]
likelihood of detecting, investigating, arresting, and convicting
impaired drivers. These programs should:
Secure a commitment to rigorous impaired driving
enforcement from the top levels of police management and State and
local government;
Provide state-of-the-art training for police officers,
including Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and Drug
Evaluation and Classification (DEC);
Provide adequate equipment and facilities, including
preliminary and evidentiary breath test equipment;
Deploy patrol resources effectively, using cooperative
efforts of various State and local police agencies as appropriate;
Maximize the likelihood of violator-officer contact;
Make regular use of sobriety checkpoints;
Facilitate the arrest process;
Implement state-of-the-art post-arrest investigation of
apprehended impaired drivers;
Emphasize enforcement of youth impaired driving and
drinking age laws; and
Emphasize enforcement of laws regulating alcohol or
drug impairment by CMV drivers.
D. Prosecution
States should implement a comprehensive program for visible and
aggressive prosecution of impaired driving cases. These programs
should:
Give impaired driving cases high priority for
prosecution;
Provide sufficient resources to prosecute cases
presented by law enforcement efforts;
Facilitate uniformity and consistency in prosecution of
impaired driving cases;
Provide training for prosecutors so they can obtain
high rates of conviction and seek appropriate sanctions for
offenders;
Prohibit plea bargaining in impaired driving cases,
through appropriate legislation;
Encourage vigorous prosecution of alcohol-related
fatality and injury cases under both impaired driving and general
criminal statutes; and
Ensure that prosecutors are knowledgeable and prepared
to prosecute youthful offenders appropriately.
E. Adjudication
The effectiveness of prosecution and enforcement efforts is lost
without support and strength in adjudication. States should
implement a comprehensive impaired driving adjudication program to:
Provide sufficient resources to adjudicate cases and
manage the dockets brought before them;
Facilitate uniformity and consistency in adjudication
of impaired driving cases;
Give judges the skills necessary to appropriately
adjudicate impaired driving cases;
Provide similar training to administrative hearing
officers who hear administrative license revocation appeals;
Inform the judiciary about technical evidence presented
in impaired driving cases, including SFST and DEC testimony;
Educate the judiciary in appropriate and aggressive
sanctions for offenders including violators of commercial motor
vehicle safety regulations; and
Ensure that judges are knowledgeable and prepared to
adjudicate youthful offenders cases in an appropriate and aggressive
manner.
F. Licensing
Driver licensing actions can be an effective means for
preventing, deterring, and monitoring impaired driving. In addition
to the license sanctions for impaired driving offenses discussed
earlier, States should:
Implement a graduated licensing system for novice
drivers;
Provide for license suspension for drivers under age 21
who drive with a BAC exceeding .02 (or some other low BAC value);
Issue distinctive licenses to drivers under the age of
21;
Monitor licensing records to identify high risk drivers
for referral to education or remediation programs;
Ensure the accurate and timely reporting of alcohol and
drug violations as prescribed by the Commercial Drivers License
(CDL) regulations;
Assure that all licensing records are used to help
assess whether a driver requires alcohol or drug treatment; and
Actively participate in the Driver License Compact to
facilitate the exchange of driver license information between
jurisdictions.
III. Treatment and Rehabilitation
Many first-time impaired driving offenders and most repeat
offenders have substantial substance abuse problems that affect
their entire lives, not just their driving. They have been neither
prevented nor deterred from impaired driving. Each State should
implement a system to identify and refer these drivers to
appropriate substance abuse treatment programs to change their
dangerous behavior.
A. Diagnosis and Screening
States should have a systematic program to evaluate persons who
have been convicted of an impaired driving offense to determine if
they have an alcohol or drug abuse problem. This evaluation should:
Be required by law;
Be conducted by qualified personnel prior to
sentencing; and
Be used to decide whether a substance abuse treatment
program should be part of the sanctions imposed.
B. Treatment and Rehabilitation
States should establish and maintain programs to treat alcohol
and other drug dependent persons referred through traffic courts and
other sources. These programs should:
Ensure that those referred for impaired driving
offenses are not permitted to drive again until their substance
abuse problems are under control;
Be conducted in addition to, not as a substitute for,
license restrictions and other sanctions; and
Be conducted separately for youth.
IV. Program Management
Good program management produces effective programs. Planning
and coordination are especially important for impaired driving
activities, since many different parties are involved. Each State's
impaired driving program management system should have an
established process for managing its planning (including problem
identification), program control, and evaluation activities. The
system should provide for community traffic safety programs (CTSPs),
State and local task forces, data analysis, and funding. It also
should include planning and coordination of activities with other
agencies involved in impaired driving programs, such as MCSAP, and
expansion of existing partnerships, such as with the health and
medical communities.
A. State Program Planning
States should develop and implement an overall plan for all
impaired driving activities. The plan should:
Be based on careful problem definition that makes use
of crash and driver record data; and
Direct State and community resources toward effective
measures that address the State's impaired driving issues.
B. Program Control
States should establish procedures to ensure that program
activities are implemented as intended. The procedures should
provide for systematic monitoring and review of ongoing programs to:
Detect and correct problems quickly;
Measure progress in achieving established goals and
objectives; and
Ensure that appropriate data are collected for
evaluation.
C. State and Local Task Forces and Community Traffic Safety and
Other Injury Control Programs
States should encourage the development of State and community
impaired driving task forces and community traffic safety and other
injury control programs. States should:
Use these groups to bring a wide variety of interests
and resources to bear on impaired driving issues;
Ensure that Federal, State, and local organizations
coordinate impaired driving activities, so that the activities
complement rather than compete with each other; and
Ensure that these groups include traditional and non-
traditional partners, such as law enforcement, local government,
business, education, community groups, health, medicine, prosecutors
and judges.
D. Data and Records
States should establish and maintain records systems for
accidents, arrests, dispositions, driver licenses, and vehicle
registrations. Especially important are tracking systems which can
provide information on every driver arrested for DWI to determine
the disposition of the case and compliance with sanctions. These
records systems should be:
Accurate;
Timely;
Able to be linked to each other; and
Readily accessible to police, courts, and planners.
[[Page 36657]]
E. Evaluation
States should evaluate all impaired driving system activities
regularly to ensure that programs are effective and scarce resources
are allocated appropriately. Evaluation should be:
Designed to use available traffic records and other
injury control data systems effectively;
Included in initial program planning to ensure that
appropriate data are available and that adequate resources are
allocated; and
Conducted regularly.
Evaluation results should be:
Reported regularly to project and program managers; and
Used to guide further program activities.
F. Funding
States should allocate funding to impaired driving programs that
is:
Adequate for program needs;
Steady--from dedicated sources; and
To the extent possible, paid by the impaired drivers
themselves. The programs should work toward being self-sufficient.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 10--TRAFFIC RECORDS
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,
should establish and implement a complete and comprehensive traffic
records program. The Statewide program should include, or provide
for, data for the entire State. A complete and comprehensive traffic
records program is essential for the development and operation of a
viable Safety Management System and effective traffic-related injury
control efforts. It is also essential for the performance of
planning, problem identification, operational management and
control, tracking of safety trends, and the implementation and
evaluation of highway safety countermeasures and activities. It is
the key ingredient to safety effectiveness and management.
I. Traffic Records System
To provide a complete and useful records system for safety
program management at both the State and local level, the State
should have a data base consisting of the following:
A Crash File with data on the time, environment, and
circumstances of a crash; identification of the vehicles, drivers,
cyclists, occupants, and pedestrians involved; and documentation of
crash consequences (fatalities, injuries, property damage and
violations charged) with the data tied to a location reference
system;
A Driver File or driver history record of licensed
drivers in the State, with data on personal identification and
driver license number, type of license, license status (suspended or
revoked), driver restrictions, driver convictions for traffic
violations, crash history, driver control or improvement actions,
and safety education data;
A Vehicle File with information on identification,
ownership and taxation, and vehicle inspection (where applicable);
A Roadway File with information about roadway location,
identification, and classification as well as a description of a
road's total physical characteristics, which are tied to a location
reference system. This file should also contain data for normalizing
purposes, such as miles of roadway and average daily traffic (ADT);
A Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash File which uses
uniform data definitions and collects information on the vehicle
configuration, cargo body type, hazardous materials, information to
identify the motor carrier, as well as information on the crash
(States are encouraged to use available information systems to
cross-reference commercial vehicle citations for violations of
Federal and State commercial vehicle safety regulations);
A Citation/Conviction File which identifies the type of
citation and the time, date, and location of the violation; the
violator, vehicle and the enforcement agency; and adjudication
action and results, including court of jurisdiction (an Enforcement/
Citation File could be maintained separate from a Judicial/
Conviction File) and fines assessed and collected;
An Emergency Medical Services (EMS) file with emergency
care and victim outcome information about ambulance responses to
crashes, e.g., emergency care unit, care given, injury data, and
times of EMS notification and arrival; information on emergency
facility and hospital care, including Trauma Registry data; and
medical outcome data relative to crash victims receiving
rehabilitation and for those who died as the result of the crash;
and
Provisions for file linkage through common data
elements between the files or through other consistent means;
performance level data as part of the traffic records system;
demographic data to normalize or adjust for exposure when analyzing
the various data in the files; and provisions for the use of cost
data relative to amounts spent on countermeasure programs and the
costs of fatalities, injuries and property damage.
II. Data Characteristics
Traffic records programs should meet basic requirements for the
most effective use of the data by program managers. Accordingly,
each State should emphasize the following characteristics:
An accurate identification of the crash location;
Timely, accurate, and complete data collection and
input to all files, and especially to the Crash and Driver Files, to
assure maximum utilization and confidence in the traffic records
system. Each state is encouraged to join and fully participate in
the driver license compact to ensure that complete data are
available from other states;
Data uniformity, providing for uniform coding and
definition of data elements to allow a State to compare its crash
problems to other States, regions and the nation; and the use of
uniform coding of violations and convictions for the efficient
exchange of driver information between States;
Data consistency within a State over time to provide
for multi-year analysis of data to detect trends and for
identification of emerging problems, as well as to determine
beneficial effects of highway safety programs; and
Timely, accurate, and complete data output to ensure
that highway safety program managers will have records that are
accessible, understandable, and effective.
III. Use of Traffic Records
The measure of a good records system is the degree to which it
is used by those it was designed to serve. Each State will develop
and operate a Safety Management System and must use traffic records
as part of that System. In addition, each State should establish a
process for the effective use of traffic records by highway safety
management and other injury control professionals both Statewide and
for political subdivisions, when conducting the following
activities:
Performing planning, problem identification, program
management or control, tracking, implementation and evaluation,
pursuant to a management process developed by the State which
addresses the role or use of traffic records data;
Developing a problem identification strategy that
specifies the necessary data, assures that accurate and timely data
are available, defines the analyses conducted (including the
variables used, statistical tests applied, and trends examined), and
describes how results are reported and used;
Conducting analyses and presenting results so that they
are clearly understood and usable by managers, including the use of
problem reports which describe the magnitude of the problems, and
appropriate graphs, tables and charts to support the conclusions
reached; and
Performing program evaluation, beginning at the
planning stage and carrying through implementation and final
evaluation, essentially using the same types of data that were used
in developing the programs implemented.
IV. Managing Traffic Records
Each State should have an organizational structure in place for
effective administration of its traffic records program, at a
minimum consisting of the following components:
A permanent Traffic Records Committee, representing the
principal users and custodians of the data in the State, that
provides administrative and technical guidance. The Committee should
be responsible for adopting requirements for file structure and
linkage, assessing capabilities and resources, establishing goals
for improving the traffic records program, evaluating the program,
continuously developing cooperation and support from State and local
agencies as well as the private sector, and ensuring that high
quality and timely data are available to authorized persons or
agencies for appropriate use;
A single state agency with responsibility for
coordinating the traffic safety-related data aspects of the various
State information systems. This would include ensuring that the
necessary data were available for use in safety and analyses; and
Professional staff with analytical expertise to perform
data analysis for program planning and evaluation, including a basic
understanding of data processing as
[[Page 36658]]
it relates to the use of personal computers (PCs) and the ability to
use PC software application packages to perform problem
identification and program evaluation tasks.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE, NO. 11--EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,
should ensure that persons incurring traffic injuries (or other
trauma) receive prompt emergency medical care under the range of
emergency conditions encountered. Each of the component parts of a
system should be equally committed to its role in the system and
ultimately to the care of the patient. At a minimum, the EMS program
should be made up of the components detailed in this chapter.
I. Regulation and Policy
Each State should embody comprehensive enabling legislation,
regulations, and operational policies and procedures to provide an
effective system of emergency medical and trauma care. This legal
framework should:
Establish the program and designate a lead agency;
Outline the lead agency's basic responsibilities,
including licensure and certification;
Require comprehensive planning and coordination;
Designate EMS and trauma system funding sources;
Require data collection and evaluation;
Provide authority to establish minimum standards and
identify penalties for noncompliance; and
Provide for an injury/trauma prevention and public
education program.
All of these components, which are discussed in different
sections of this guideline, are critical to the effectiveness of
legislation that is the legal foundation for a statewide EMS system.
II. Resource Management
Each State should establish a central lead agency at the State
level to identify, categorize, and coordinate resources necessary
for overall system implementation and operation. The lead agency
should:
Maintain a coordinated response and ensure that
resources are used appropriately throughout the State;
Provide equal access to basic emergency care for all
victims of medical or traumatic emergencies;
Provide adequate triage and transport of all victims by
appropriately certified personnel (at a minimum, trained to the
emergency medical technician [EMT] basic level) in properly
licensed, equipped, and maintained ambulances;
Provide transport to a facility that is appropriately
equipped, staffed, and ready to administer to the needs of the
patient (section 4: Transportation); and
Appoint an advisory council to provide a forum for
cooperative action and maximum use of resources.
III. Human Resources and Training
Each State should ensure that its EMS system has essential
trained persons to perform required tasks. These personnel include:
first responders (e.g., police and fire), prehospital providers
(e.g., emergency medical technicians and paramedics), communications
specialists, physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, and
planners.
Each State should provide a comprehensive statewide plan for
stable and consistent EMS training programs with effective local and
regional support. The State agency should:
Ensure sufficient availability of adequately trained
EMS personnel;
Establish EMT-Basic as the State minimum level of
training for all transporting EMS personnel;
Routinely monitor training programs to ensure
uniformity and quality control;
Use standardized curricula throughout the State;
Ensure availability of continuing education programs;
Require instructors to meet State requirements;
Develop and enforce certification criteria for first
responders and prehospital providers; and
Require EMS operating organizations to collect data to
evaluate emergency care in terms of the frequency, category, and
severity of conditions treated and the appropriateness of care
provided.
IV. Transportation
Each State should require safe, reliable ambulance
transportation, which is critical to an effective EMS system. States
should:
Develop statewide transportation plans, including the
identification of specific service areas;
Implement regulations that provide for the systematic
delivery of patients to appropriate facilities;
Develop routine, standardized methods for inspection
and licensing of all emergency medical transport vehicles;
Establish a minimum number of providers at the desired
level of certification on each response;
Coordinate all emergency transports within the EMS
system, including public, private, or specialty (air and ground)
transport; and
Develop regulations to ensure ambulance drivers are
properly trained and licensed.
V. Facilities
It is imperative that the seriously injured patient be delivered
in a timely manner to the closest appropriate facility. Each State
should ensure that:
Both stabilization and definitive care needs of the
patient are considered;
The determination is free of non-medical considerations
and the capabilities of the facilities are clearly understood by
prehospital personnel;
Hospital resource capabilities are known in advance, so
that appropriate primary and secondary transport decisions can be
made; and
Agreements are made between facilities to ensure that
patients receive treatment at the closest, most appropriate
facility, including facilities in other States or counties.
VI. Communications
An effective communications system is essential to EMS
operations and provides the means by which emergency resources can
be accessed, mobilized, managed, and coordinated. Each State should
require a communication system to:
Begin with the universal system access number 911;
Strive for quick implementation of enhanced 911
services which make possible, among other features, the automatic
identification of the caller's physical location;
Provide for prioritized dispatch (dispatch-to-
ambulance, ambulance-to-ambulance, ambulance-to-hospital, and
hospital-to-hospital communication);
Ensure that the receiving facility is ready and able to
accept the patient; and
Provide for dispatcher training and certification
standards.
Each State should develop a statewide communications plan that
defines State government roles in EMS system communications.
VII. Trauma Systems
Each State should maintain a fully functional trauma system to
provide a high quality, effective patient care system. States should
implement legislation requiring the development of a trauma system,
including:
Trauma center designation, using American College of
Surgeons Committee on Trauma guidelines as a minimum;
Triage and transfer standards for trauma patients;
Data collection and trauma registry definitions for
quality assurance;
Mandatory autopsies to determine preventable deaths;
and
Systems management and quality assurance.
VIII. Public Information and Education
Public awareness and education about the EMS system are
essential to a high quality system. Each State should implement a
public information and education (PI&E) plan to address:
The components and capabilities of an EMS system;
The public's role in the system;
The public's ability to access the system;
What to do in an emergency (e.g., bystander care
training);
Education on prevention issues (e.g., alcohol or other
drugs, occupant protection, speeding, motorcycle and bicycle
safety);
The EMS providers' role in injury prevention and
control; and
The need for dedicated staff and resources for PI&E
programming.
IX. Medical Direction
Physician involvement in all aspects of the patient care system
is critical for effective EMS operations. EMS is a medical care
system in which physicians delegate responsibilities to non-
physician providers who manage patient care outside the traditional
confines of the office or hospital. States should require physicians
to be involved in all aspects of the patient care system, including:
Planning and protocols;
[[Page 36659]]
On-line and off-line medical direction and
consultation; and
Audit and evaluation of patient care.
X. Evaluation
Each State should implement a comprehensive evaluation program
to effectively assess and improve a statewide EMS system. EMS system
managers should:
Evaluate the effectiveness of services provided to
victims of medical or trauma-related emergencies;
Define the impact of patient care on the system;
Evaluate resource utilization, scope of service,
patient outcome, and effectiveness of operational policies,
procedures, and protocols;
Develop a data-gathering mechanism that provides for
the linkage of data from different data sources through the use of
common data elements; and
Evaluate both process and impact measures on injury
prevention, and public information and education programs.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 14--PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,
should have a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety program
that educates and motivates its citizens to follow safe pedestrian
and bicycle practices. A combination of legislation, regulations,
policy, enforcement, public information, education, incentives, and
engineering is necessary to achieve significant, lasting
improvements in pedestrian and bicycle crash rates, and to reduce
resulting deaths and injuries.
Each State should recognize that its pedestrians and
bicyclists--citizens of all ages who are virtually unprotected from
the forces of a crash--face major safety problems and are a valid
traffic safety concern. Because of the diverse nature of these
issues, education, enforcement, and engineering are critical
components to any strategies devised to reduce these problems. In
formulating policy, the State should promote these specific issues:
The provision of early pedestrian and bicycle safety
education and training for preschool children;
The inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist safety in
health and safety education curricula;
The inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist safety in
driver training programs and driver licensing activities;
The provision of a safe environment for pedestrians and
bicyclists through such measures as sidewalks and bicycle
facilities, in the planning and design of all highway projects;
The use of bicycle helmets as a primary measure to
reduce death and injury among bicyclists;
An awareness of the role of alcohol in crashes
involving adult pedestrians;
The safeguarding of older citizens from crashes
involving pedestrians; and
The establishment and support of Community/Corridor
Traffic Safety Programs and other injury prevention programs at the
local level.
A comprehensive highway safety system is the most effective
means of producing consistent, long-term changes in knowledge and
behavior necessary to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. The
following components create a structure for identifying problem
areas; implementing, measuring, and evaluating the problem areas;
and directing the results back into system improvements. We believe
these elements will effectively address the problem.
I. Program Management
Each State should have centralized program planning, initiation,
and coordination to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety program
issues as part of a comprehensive highway safety program. Evaluation
is also important for determining progress and ultimate success of
pedestrian and bicycle safety programs and for providing those
results to revise existing programs and to develop new programs. The
State should have program staff trained in pedestrian and bicyclist
safety so that this program can:
Conduct regular problem identification activities to
identify fatality and injury crash trends for pedestrians and
bicyclists and to provide guidance in development of
countermeasures;
Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance
to other State agencies and local pedestrian and bicycle safety
programs and projects;
Convene a pedestrian and bicycle safety advisory task
force or coalition to organize, integrate with other involved
groups, and generate broad-based support for programs;
Integrate pedestrian and bicycle safety programs into
Community/Corridor Traffic Safety Programs, injury prevention
programs, and transportation plans; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of its pedestrian and
bicycle safety program.
II. Multi-Disciplinary Involvement
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety goes beyond the confines of any
single State or local agency (engineering, education or enforcement)
and requires the combined support and coordinated attention of
multiple agencies, representing a variety of disciplines, at the
State and local level. At a minimum, the following kinds of agencies
should be involved:
Law Enforcement
Education
Health and Medicine
Driver Education and Licensing
Transportation--Engineering, Planning
Public Communications
III. Legislation and Regulations
Each State should enact and enforce pedestrian and bicyclist-
related traffic laws and regulations, including laws that require
the use of bicycle helmets. Specific policies should be developed to
encourage coordination with Federal agencies (including NHTSA and
FHWA), in the development of regulations and laws to promote
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
IV. Law Enforcement
Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and
bicycle programs include a law enforcement component. Each State
should strongly emphasize the role played by law enforcement
personnel in pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Essential components
of that role include:
Developing knowledge of pedestrian and bicyclist crash
situations, investigating crashes, and maintaining a report system
that supports problem identification and evaluation activities;
Providing public information and education support;
Providing training to law enforcement personnel in
matters of pedestrian and bicycle safety;
Establishing agency policies; and
Coordinating with and supporting education and
engineering components.
V. Highway Engineering
Traffic engineering is a critical element of any crash reduction
program. This is true not only for the development of programs to
reduce an existing crash problem, but also to design transportation
facilities that provide for the safe movement of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and all motor vehicles. Balancing the needs of
pedestrians and those of vehicular traffic (including bicycle) must
always be considered. Therefore, each State should ensure that State
and community pedestrian and bicycle programs include a traffic
engineering component. Traffic engineering efforts should be
coordinated with enforcement and educational efforts. This effort
should improve the protection of pedestrians and bicyclists by
application of appropriate traffic engineering measures in design,
construction, operation, and maintenance. These measures should
include but not be limited to the following:
Pedestrian, bicycle and school bus loading zone
signals, signs, and markings
Parking regulations
Sidewalk design
Pedestrian pathways
On-road facilities (signed routes, marked lanes, wide
curb lanes, and paved shoulders)
Off-road bicycle facilities (trails and paths)
VI. Public Information and Education
Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and
bicycle programs contain a public information and education
component. This component should address school-based education
programs, coordination with traffic engineering and law enforcement
components, public information and awareness campaigns, and other
targeted educational programs such as those for the elderly. These
programs should address issues such as:
Being visible in the traffic system (conspicuity)
Use of facilities and accommodations
Law enforcement initiatives
Proper street crossing behavior
Safe practices near school buses, including loading and
unloading practices