Revised7/31/92
A GUIDE FOR THE OFFICE OF SHERIFF
AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
IN
RURAL COMMUNITIES
Prepared by:
National Sheriffs' Association
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PREFACE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHARGE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS IN RURAL AMERICA
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I INITIATIVES FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
CHAPTER II PROGRAM PLANNING
CHAPTER III PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER IV BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
STATE ASSOCIATIONS
LOCAL OFFICIALS
STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH STATE ASSOCIATIONS AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
PROMOTING BROAD BASED TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS: THE SHERIFF AS THE CATALYST FOR ACTION
APPENDIX A
RESOURCES
FUNDING
PUBLICATIONS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
NHTSA Regional Administrators
Governor's Highway Safety Representatives
APPENDIX B
THE SOUTH CAROLINA EXPERIENCE
PREFACE
Rural Initiatives For Traffic Safety: A Guide for the Office of
Sheriff and Other Law Enforcement Administrators was developed by the
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) as part of a grant funded by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The concept for this guidebook
evolved from the highly successful rural traffic enforcement experience of
eleven South Carolina counties (Darlington, Dorry, Greenville, Horry,
Lancaster, Lexington, Orangeburg, Pickens, Spartanburg, Sumter, Union, the
municipality of Myrtle Beach, and the Horry County Police Department).
It is important not only to share the results of this
experience but to also share the positive effect this program has had on the
involvement of sheriffs in traffic enforcement.
In September 1990, USA Today featured a front page article on the 500
"Deadliest Counties" (based on 1989 traffic fatality statistics) in the United
States. Rural roads in the State of South Carolina were declared the nation's
"deadliest" based on a comparison made against other counties. The State's
rural roadways accounted for approximately 68 percent of the statewide total of
996 traffic fatalities experienced that year. The same roadways also accounted
for approximately 87 percent of all vehicle crashes and 80 percent of all
traffic-related injuries in the State.
Prior to this article, South Carolina's Office of Highway Safety had stated in
its annual highway safety plan that crashes on rural roadways were a serious
problem. They also noted that one of the principal issues the State had to
address was the noticeable lack of interest in traffic enforcement by sheriff's
agencies which have the primary responsibility for enforcement of traffic laws
on these roadways. Since the statistics were evidence of a problem, the NSA
entered into partnership with NHTSA to implement a pilot project for South
Carolina sheriffs that would target improvement of their traffic enforcement
attitudes and hopefully, a remedy of the problem. The project was called the
RURAL INITIATIVE.
The RURAL INITIATIVE traffic enforcement program was inaugurated in
September 1990, and involved the combined efforts of NHTSA, NSA, the South
Carolina Office of Highway Safety (SCOHS), the South Carolina Sheriffs'
Association (SCSA) and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Training Academy.
The project was a joint endeavor by both NHTSA and NSA to address the
extraordinarily high number of crashes, fatalities and injuries experienced on
South Carolina's rural, non-Interstate roadways (see Appendix B, Crash Statistics -
South Carolina 1989-1991).
The specific goal of this guide is to help sheriffs and/or other law
enforcement administrators in other areas of the country (with similar
problems) reduce the number, frequency and severity of crashes on their rural,
non-Interstate roadways.
The objectives of the Rural Initiatives for Traffic Safety Guide are:
The guide also focuses on public information and education programs which will
help administrators involve the community in the program for greater, overall
affect. The media focus, in addition to assisting administrators in gaining
needed community support, will contribute greatly toward raising motorists'
awareness of the local crash problem. Finally, the guide suggests ways to
develop a cooperative atmosphere among other highway safety professions in
order to help identify and correct specific highway safety problems within the
community.
When the original Rural Initiative program was conceptualized, it was decided
to move forward in several stages. Each stage, therefore, contributed to the
totality of information contained in this Guide. The NSA and NHTSA
appreciate and acknowledge the efforts of other agencies which assisted in
providing training and/or information published in this document. They
include:
We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the following individuals who
contributed significantly to the success of this project:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Rural America is served by some 3.2 million miles of public roads. Most rural
communities depend heavily upon these vital arteries for commerce and pleasure
as well as connectors or alternatives to the nation's Interstate system. A
close review of statistical data for these roadways reveals that rural highways
are experiencing a disproportionate amount of crashes and related trauma when
compared to the rural Interstate system. For example, in the Southeast
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Tennessee), the following data were noted:
It was also noted that, in addition to a myriad of other responsibilities, the
Offices of Sheriff in these States have primary responsibility for most traffic
enforcement activities within rural communities, including the investigation of
traffic related crashes and enforcement of violations of traffic laws. Some of
the problems these sheriffs have identified, which are directly associated with
this responsibility, are:
If a decision is made to undertake a rural initiative, it would be very
beneficial for the administrator to consider adoption or expansion of the theme
used by South Carolina sheriffs in their program the "quality of life."
This theme was especially effective and instrumental in changing the mind set of
law enforcement officials who were skeptical at first but willingly participated
in the pilot test program. The sense of community spirit and caring contributed
greatly in garnishing the support needed to implement the programs.
Once the benefits of the program were realized,expansion and/or involvement
of the participants grew naturally.
The theme adopted for the rural traffic enforcement initiative, "quality of
life," is not just another trivial phrase. The unnecessary suffering and
expense related to crashes in rural America truly affect the heart and soul of
these communities. The loss of a colleague, friend, or family member, the
experience of a long term rehabilitation, or the cost of repairs and rising
insurance rates extract resources, directly or indirectly, from everyone.
According to latest NHTSA figures, the costs being absorbed by society for
crashes (nationally) are estimated to exceed $137 billion a year. This fact
heavily underscores the meaning of "quality of life" and adds emphasis to the
need for closer attention to violators of traffic laws and more uniform
enforcement of all traffic violations on rural roadways.
Traffic related motor vehicle crashes continue to be a major source of death
and disability in the United States. More than 1,200,000 persons have been
killed in motor vehicle crashes in the past 25 years. According to the most
recent NHTSA crash data (FARS, 1991), 41,462 persons 1.9 persons per 100 million
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) died on the nation's highways.
An interesting but deadly fact is that if the 1991 fatality rate
were as high as the fatality rate for 1966, which was 5.5 persons per 100
million VMT, there would have been approximately 120,000 traffic fatalities in
1990. Using this same presumption, at least 67 percent (80,400) of those
fatalities would have occurred on the nation's rural primary and secondary
roadways. As it was, approximately 30,000 persons died on rural roadways in
1991.
Even in the more "acceptable" reality of the actual data recorded for 1991, the
need for a collective effort by law enforcement agencies to improve traffic law
compliance in rural America becomes a major challenge.
The Rural Initiative Traffic Safety Guide contains information designed
to deal with the many issues, problems and concerns of sheriffs and other law
enforcement administrators who are directly responsible for the enforcement of
traffic laws and regulations on rural highways within their jurisdictions. The
Guide provides law enforcement officials with practical approaches for
combating the myths which sometimes stymie the level of active traffic law
enforcement needed. It also identifies new enforcement techniques or
strategies that can easily be incorporated into existing enforcement programs,
without the need for additional personnel, and provides new ideas for expanding
current programs to make them more budget "friendly."
This guidebook is available to any law enforcement agency that is interested in
new or innovative approaches to rural traffic safety. The information is
simplified to encourage participation within the law enforcement family and the
other traffic safety disciplines. Although initially designed as a resource
manual for the Office of Sheriff, the Guide may be used by any local law
enforcement official who perceives a rural traffic crash/fatality/injury
problem and wants to take positive steps to reduce the problem, and is truly
concerned about the quality of life within communities.
Police resources traditionally have been deployed in a reactive manner. It is
anticipated that with the information contained in this manual a change in
attitudes and past procedures will occur. At a minimum, this manual will allow
administrators to be proactive, to address specific problems in a logical
manner, and to plan ahead for unscheduled events in a concise and systematic
way.
INITIATIVES FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS DATA COLLECTION Establishing the data base to assist administrators in determining the
magnitude of a jurisdiction's rural crash problem, along with its nature and
location, are essential first steps. These activities must be completed prior
to developing any meaningful preventive plan and/or the decision to commit
agency resources.
There are a number of computerized and manual systems available to assist
agencies in the identification of crash problem areas. One low-cost
system (tried but true) is the use of spot (pin) maps. This manual means of
tracking crashes has proven very effective in the past and can be used instead
of elaborate and costly computer programs.
Whatever data base systems are incorporated, they should have the additional
capacity to record crash data from all jurisdictions located within a "rural
community" (i.e., county, towns, incorporated municipalities). Check with your
State Department of Transportation to be sure similar data base systems do not
already exist.
All data bases should include the Critical Automated Data Reporting Elements
(CADRE) and the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System
(CODES) Programs". At a minimum, the following types of crash information are
very useful in the identification of problems: types of vehicles involved;
primary causative collision factors; time of day; day of week; age and sex of
driver; major truck routes; the seasons of the year when crashes occur; and
whether or not occupant protection devices were used. Such basic information
is necessary in order to effectively focus any future enforcement efforts; to
evaluate past enforcement efforts; to identify training needs; and to develop
specific/general public information and education programs relative to the
problem.
DATA UNIFORMITY/CONSISTENCY Law enforcement administrators must realize that both the general public and
the media are concerned about the prevention of fatal crashes. Therefore, they
should make sure data are collected and evaluated properly to provide sound
guidelines needed for effective action. Analysts and administrators should be
aware of any inconsistencies in data collection, especially when the data are
being used for problem identification, program planning and evaluation.
The issues of data uniformity and consistency are very critical in the
development of any data collection system. The National Safety Council's
publication, MANUAL ON CLASSIFICATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, provides
consistent definitions and classifications for traffic crash data. In
addition, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has
published and periodically updates a companion document to the manual entitled,
THE DATA ELEMENT DICTIONARY, which provides uniform coding for each data
element. The Manual defines and classifies the crash data element while
the Dictionary gives it an alpha or numerical code.
Uniform data coding is critical. With uniform data coding, a county, city or
town can compare its crash problems with similar entities, other regions within
the state or nationally. This means that preventive measures successfully
implemented in another locale could be adopted or modified to fit specific
needs (provided that crash experiences are similar). Uniformity in data
collection also helps agencies like NHTSA determine crash problems across the
nation. Technical assistance, i.e., alcohol, speed, heavy truck, pedestrian,
etc. enforcement strategies, could then be tailored to address the reduction or
elimination of the specific problem.
Another benefit of code uniformity is the flexibility it allows the traffic
manager in planning future trends. By analyzing certain experiences in
surrounding jurisdictions or similar jurisdictions in another state, traffic
planners can project programs needed to address an increase in elderly drivers,
a significant youth-related problem, pedestrian fatalities, etc.
The need for collection of uniform data is critical to many programs. For
example, NHTSA has encouraged states to adopt the CRITICAL AUTOMATED DATA
REPORTING ELEMENTS (CADRE), which are especially crucial for conducting
analyses of highway safety issues. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has also adopted a uniform set of crash data for trucks and buses. This
information helps FHWA track the safety records of thousands of shippers and
motor carriers in the country.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION An administrator should select a capable person or unit to take the lead in
developing an analysis strategy and carrying it out. At a minimum, the
strategy should include the data to be normalized, the process used to collect
the data, developing useful data comparisons, appropriate statistical tests,
and the best format for presenting the analyzed results to management for
review and acceptance. The measure of a good data collection system is the
degree to which it is used. It is very important that an agency develop and
implement an analysis strategy based on good "collection" programs to ensure
that data will be available on a complete, accurate and timely basis.
While problem identification is usually done on an annual basis in order to
provide enough time to detect trends, it may be advisable for agencies to
adjust their frequency of problem identification for certain target
populations, depending on the magnitude of the crash problem and anticipated
changes over time.
A very important resource document for traffic safety managers is a NHTSA
publication entitled Problem Identification Manual for Traffic Safety
Programs, which discusses extensively the treatment of problem
identification as part of planning highway safety activities. A companion
document, Planning and Programming, is a publication on the management
process . Both documents discuss and give examples of data analysis levels,
the need and techniques for normalizing data. They suggest how program
managers can present and display results of an analysis to management.
Both publications, although dated, are still available through NHTSA's
Technical Reference Division, Room PL-403, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
20590.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION Every agency should conduct several post-evaluations in order to determine
effectiveness of its program and overall progress. By conducting several
different evaluations the program manager can measure any progress. Based
on that evaluation, the program manager can then plan and
implement new program strategies, if needed. Some different types of program
evaluations (i.e., occupant protection) are:
Although these are only a few examples on conducting a safety belt program
evaluation, a systematic application of any or all of the above examples should
assure the program manager of an effective evaluation. It is noted here that a
program manager can substitute the use of occupant protection terminology with
a particular program objective (speed, DWI, etc.) and use the same evaluation
approach illustrated above.
Ongoing evaluations are an integral component of any program since they are the
only way of judging success or failure. The fundamental measure of success
would be changes in behavior and/or voluntary compliance with the law.
However, by closely monitoring the program, the manager can effectively design
and/or implement improvements.
PROGRAM PLANNING OVERVIEW
Planning is the key component of any management process. Planning enables
administrators to determine the best allocation of resources to achieve optimum
results, determine the current level of program activity and identify and
prioritize problems that should be addressed. Effective planning enables
management to select and implement appropriate strategies, establish goals and
performance measures, itemize the resources needed for success and ensure
proper evaluation.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT Over the past few decades, attention to traffic safety problems on our nation's
Interstate highway system has contributed significantly to its current
reputation for motoring safety. At the same time, fatal crashes and serious
injuries have risen disproportionately on our rural primary and secondary
roads. However, law enforcement officials in areas experiencing a dramatic or
steadily rising number of fatal crashes do not have to wait until a data
program is in place before some type of remedial action is taken. You can
access most information immediately through your State's Office of Highway
Safety.
The importance of conducting a thorough needs assessment, based on factual
information, is critical in the formulation of an effective action plan. Once
the magnitude, location and nature of your rural traffic safety problems are
identified, then resources both equipment and personnel can be focused to
address them.
For example, once the pilot Rural Initiative traffic enforcement plan was
conceptualized for the State of South Carolina, the State Office of Highway
Safety was able to provide statistical data on fatal, injury property damage
crashes and driver-related violations by county, for every type of roadway.
Next, 13 of the worst (46)counties in the State were targeted for the program.
Eleven of these counties, along with the municipality of Myrtle Beach,
elected to participate. In an organizational meeting, specific traffic safety
problems were presented to their representatives, along with a plan to address
their specific needs (acounty could choose between a single, a multiple,
or a passive traffic enforcement program). Participation by the law enforcement officials
represented was 100 percent. The needs assessment in this case involved the
identification of the county's crash problem and an assessment of each
representative's traffic enforcement capabilities. Based on both assessments,
a plan was specifically designed and implemented for each individual county.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Some planning development procedures go deeper than selection of the most
appropriate enforcement strategy or the establishing of goals and performance
measures needed to effectively implement an enforcement strategy, and/or the
identification of the resources needed to bring the strategy to a successful
conclusion. Extensive planning procedures enable managers to assess current
and past levels of traffic enforcement and the availability and use of
resources (beyond those in-house) involved in other programs. Planning
allows them to outline their in-service
training requirement needs, and to verify and prioritize the crash causes that
should be targeted.
At a minimum, adequate planning assures that all program elements are
identified. It clearly states program goals and objectives, allows for
adequate personnel, delivers the required training, is able to supply or
acquire essential equipment needs, and describes funding resources available or
needed. Adequate planning also means providing the program with an experienced
manager who has the authority to act in the absence of the sheriff (or similar
head of an agency). In addition, adequate planning describes in detail how
public information and education will be involved as a critical element of the
program. Once all planning factors are addressed by the agency head, then the
type and extent of program participation can be determined.
Further, once formalized, the plan can serve as a convenient document to
describe various job classifications, outline staffing needs for both short-term
personnel assignments and long-range
budgeting, and be used to justify new or additional specialized training (i.e.,
radar operation, accident reconstruction, standardized field sobriety testing).
It can be a valuable support document for budget or outside funding requests
and can serve as a "memorandum of understanding" between two or more agencies
involved in a joint operation.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives incorporated into any plan to remedy the problem of
crashes on rural roadways can be narrow and well defined. However, the goals
and objectives should be realistic. Traffic fatalities can be cyclic and
unpredictable. Multiple fatalities involved in single crashes can easily
inflate data. Therefore, it is best to set long-range
goals (three to five years) and develop objectives to achieve these goals. In
this way, an administrator can evaluate the plan's progress.
POLICY STATEMENTS Police administrators are charged with the responsibility of protecting life
and property, and providing police related services to the citizens of their
communities in the most efficient and effective manner possible. For example,
one of the greatest public safety issues today is the topic of this guidebook the
ever increasing number of crashes on rural roadways. While it is recognized
that many integral components are needed to maintain a safe highway
transportation system, the fact remains that people play a vital and highly
visible role in maintaining a problem-free
driving environment. It is to the people, therefore, that this message must be
directed.
Policies guide an organization toward achieving its goals and reflect on the
overall plan, i.e., the rural initiative traffic enforcement program. Since a
policy statement is based on the views of the administration, the desires of
the community and its leaders, and the mandate of the law, it informs the
public as well as department members about the purpose and direction of the
program. Most important is the fact that policy statements summarize a
department's position on the direction or limitations of an agency's authority
in specific matters. Therefore, a policy statement from the head of the local
law enforcement agency, which clearly and concisely outlines the issue, is
critical to the success of any program, especially the rural initiative
program. The principles contained in the policy statement are essential to the
delivery of the type of effort which will favorably impact the problem. (See
NHTSA publication entitled "Model Enforcement Program For Occupant
Protection" for a sample model policy statement).
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Police administrators are strongly encouraged to include in the formulation of
any traffic safety program a public information and education component as an
integral part of any enforcement activity. This component is paramount to
success and necessary in order to reap every possible benefit from their
planned activity. (See NHTSA publication entitled "Law Enforcement Public
Information" for an in-depth guideline for conducting successful and effective strategies).
There are many benefits to public information projects. Of primary importance
is the knowledge that is created within the community of any enforcement
effort. This creates an additional "perception of risk" on part of the
motoring public. The potential of being ticketed for a traffic violation or
killed or injured in a crash promotes voluntary compliance which
provides the greatest possibility for reducing fatalities, injuries and
property damage crashes. The guide, mentioned above, discusses successful
media relations, effective traffic-related
public information strategies, and implementation and maintenance of a public
affairs unit/function. This publication is highly recommended for any program
administrator.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW
Once a rural traffic safety crash reduction plan is developed (all of the
program data elements have been identified, the personnel and equipment
resources have been defined, an evaluation process is in place, a departmental
policy stating the program's goals and objectives has been clearly written and
distributed, and the extent of the public information and education emphasis
has been determined) then the implementation date should be determined.
A key factor in the implementation of any traffic enforcement program is
"timing." Implementation that is poorly timed could scuttle the most
meaningful and best designed program. For example, does the planned program
kick-off date coincide with the crash problem (i.e., seasonal)? Has the community been
thoroughly apprised (through the media) of the "problem" and alerted to the
implementation date? Have support agencies (i.e., courts, department of motor
vehicles, etc.) been notified about your program plan (if applicable)? Is
there evidence that the community has shown strong support for the plan?
If the answer to any of these questions is "no," it would be best to evaluate
the public information and education efforts made in conjunction with the
program (if any).
SPEED ENFORCEMENT Most highways and motor vehicles are designed and built for safe operation at
the speeds travelled by most motorists. Nevertheless, exceeding posted speed
limits and driving too fast for conditions are contributing factors in almost
one-third of all fatal crashes on rural roadways. In fact, vehicles traveling much
faster than the posted speed on a highway have a crash potential six times
greater than vehicles traveling at the posted speed. Studies have shown that a
driver traveling 20 mph above the speed limit has a crash potential 11 times
greater than a driver traveling at the posted speed.
The most recent NHTSA report to Congress (Effects of the 65 MPH Speed
Limit Through 1990) reports that based on information from 18 of 40 states
with increased rural Interstate speed limits, the 85th percentile speed (the
speeds on the Interstate system being travelled by 85 percent of the motorists)
was unchanged for 1990 when compared to 1989. However, even though the percent
of vehicles exceeding 70 mph in 1990 (relative to 1989) experienced no change,
this percent has incresed from an estimated 6 percent in 1986 to 19 percent in
1990. One of the primary concerns of highway safety activists is that when a
motorist leaves the freeway, speeds are not decreased to reflect the non-freeway
driving conditions (spill over effect). This situation creates problems in the
vicinity of major interchanges and on roadways not built to safely handle these
higher speeds.
Nothing could underscore more simply the responsibility that law enforcement
administrators have in the enforcement of speed laws, than the charge given to
the participants at the U.S. Department of Transportation Traffic Safety
Summit, held in Chicago, Illinois, April, 1990, by the Honorable Samuel K.
Skinner, then the Secretary of Transportation:
"It should be the goal of all law enforcement agencies to
foster voluntary speed limit compliance on the part of all
motor vehicle operators, through public awareness and
enforcement measures, in order to create safer roadways for
our nation."
In addition to speed zoning, speed enforcement can be a very effective way to
reduce serious crashes on rural roadways. If used judiciously, it can provide
immediate and long-term benefits. Use of speed enforcement
equipment does require training, but generally speaking it is an inexpensive
program to initiate. Some major
factors should be considered prior to setting up a speed enforcement program:
These are some of the major considerations agencies should be aware of before
committing themselves to a speed enforcement program. However, the value of
using speed enforcement as a primary program has many positive sides. For
example, speeding is involved in many other unsafe driving behaviors, including
the means for avoiding apprehension if involved in some overt criminal
activity. Law enforcement administrators have found that the active
enforcement of speed limits has reduced not only the crash problem but drunk
driving, non-use of safety belts, and many Part I criminal offenses (see ACE Program).
SPEED ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES In addition to the common practice of "pacing" a speeding vehicle, law
enforcement agencies throughout the United States use one or more of the speed
enforcement techniques listed below:
Many variations of the above, including the use of "teams," have been
incorporated into speed enforcement strategies. However, the second strategy
mentioned above is losing favor with some officers who patrol 65 mph
roadways.
Some innovative speed enforcement strategies used in the United States in
recent years are:
Some innovative speed enforcement strategies used in Europe are:
IMPAIRED DRIVING As a nation, we have accomplished much in the last decade to elevate public
awareness about impaired driving (DWI). However, impaired driving, whether it
involves drugs or alcohol, continues to be one of the nation's most serious
public health and safety problems. Each year one million crashes involving
impaired drivers occur, resulting in approximately 540,000 injuries. In 1990,
NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) revealed that approximately 40
percent of all fatal crashes involved a driver or non-occupant
whose blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level was above 0.10 percent. An
additional 10 percent of fatal crashes involved a person whose BAC level was
above 0.00 but below 0.10 percent. Further, additional information available
from FARS revealed that 33 percent of all other crashes involved driver alcohol
use, and that almost two-thirds of these drivers were also speeding. Also, almost two-
thirds of all crashes occurring in the late evening or early morning hours involved
alcohol use by the driver (see NHTSA publication Safer Streets Ahead, a
community handbook to prevent impaired driving, under list of available
resources).
Although there is evidence that, through the combined efforts of Federal, state
and local law enforcement agencies, a significant impact has been made in
reducing the DWI problem, much more needs to be done. If your data-needs-
assessment reveals that a significant number of crashes are alcohol-related,
then some type of impaired driving countermeasure program is warranted. Most
of the same questions put forth under speed enforcement factors can be used
to help you decide whether to initiate a DWI enforcement program.
IMPAIRED DRIVING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES Law enforcement agencies in the United States use one or more of the following
strategies for enforcement of impaired driving laws:
Roadside sobriety checkpoints have provided the most effective documented
results of any of the DWI enforcement strategies. Checkpoints raise the
public's perception level concerning DWI and become a valuable deterrent if
used in conjunction with a strong media campaign. Checkpoints do require
significant resources, both personnel and equipment, and should be thoroughly
planned prior to their use. To help you in deciding whether or not to use
sobriety checkpoints, the NHTSA has developed a guidebook entitled, The Use
of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement (see list
of publication resources for reference number).
The use of in-car video recorders has proven to be a very effective strategy.
Many agencies strongly advocate their use while other agencies have adopted the use of
Preliminary Breath Testers (PBTs) for assisting officers in establishing
probable cause for further testing.
To further strengthen any DWI enforcement program, it is strongly recommended
that administrators consider training their personnel in use of the
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). Training in the proper use of the
SFSTs will enhance the motivation of all patrol personnel and is a valuable
asset to any DWI countermeasure program. Currently, 35 states have adopted the
NHTSA-developed DWI Detection and SFST training course as mandatory training for
all recruits. Five states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico use the NHTSA curriculum
as part of their in-service training. (See catalog of available NHTSA training
under list of publication resources.)
It has long been known that people who operate motor vehicles while impaired by
alcohol kill and maim thousands of people each year but only recently has the
magnitude of drug-impaired driving (cocaine, marijuana, PCP, etc.) surfaced.
A progression of the SFST training program has been the implementation of
advanced training in drug recognition. This program allows qualified officers
(who have successfully completed the basic SFST course) to expand their newly
acquired SFST skills by learning additional procedures in the form of a battery
of tests (a series of clinical and psychological examinations)
to assist them in determining possible drug or multi-drug
use. The evidence used in this procedure provides valuable guidance to the
laboratory in narrowing the universe of drugs for which tests need to be
performed, thus decreasing the cost of the analysis, and increasing the odds
that the analysis will produce a positive result. The drug recognition program
also aids in the conviction of these drivers, based on the testimony of the
trained officers.
This training is also available through NHTSA. A pre-requisite
for any officer interested in becoming a Drug Recognition Expert is to have
successfully completed the basic SFST training program and to have been a SFST
practitioner for a reasonable length of time. (See catalog of available NHTSA
training under list of published resources.)
Drug-impaired driving can easily become an extension of any one of the alcohol-
impaired enforcement strategies. The advantage of the drug recognition program is the
ability of trained officers to probe deeper into instances of obviously
impaired operation of a motor vehicle whenever the suspect's breath test
reveals little or no evidence of alcohol consumption.
OCCUPANT PROTECTION The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Sheriffs'
Association (NSA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
support an aggressive safety belt and child safety seat enforcement program.
Quite simply it saves lives!
Some facts associated with occupant protection:
The NSA, through the efforts of its Traffic Safety Committee, has identified
safety belts as one of the most effective ways to reduce deaths and disabling
injuries in a crash. The NSA strongly advocates that all sheriffs adopt and
enforce a safety belt policy within their respective agencies. NSA underscores
this position with its "Saved by the Belt" program.
NHTSA has supported the enforcement of child passenger safety laws since 1978
and safety belt laws since the enactment of the first law in June 1984. Since
that time, studies conducted in several states (i.e., New York, Illinois and
Texas) have revealed some interesting data. Of primary value is the data which
showed that safety belt usage can only be increased through publicized
enforcement. In addition, studies have shown that "blitz" or "STEP" program
approaches are not the only programs that work. Integrating safety belt
enforcement with other traffic enforcement programs (i.e., speed, DWI, child
restraint use) result in greater and longer lasting gains in usage rates.
These gains are achieved because officers make the effort to increase the
motoring public's perception of enforcement.
Everything NHTSA and the NSA have learned to date on this issue indicates that
visible enforcement of existing occupant protection laws offers the greatest
potential for increasing safety belt use, thus reducing the unnecessary death
and injury rate currently being experienced. Moreover, an occupant protection
enforcement program offers sheriffs an "untapped" opportunity for becoming more
involved within their communities in a positive manner. One of the most
effective campaigns a sheriff can initiate is one that shows concern for
constituents. If traffic safety is an issue in a community, then a sheriff, or
any law enforcement official for that matter, can take advantage of the
situation and turn it into a positive experience. (See under NHTSA publications
Model Enforcement Program for Occupant Protection A Point Program for
Increasing Safety Belt and Child Restraint Usage).
One of the key advantages of an occupant protection enforcement program is that
it does not require the use of additional resources (equipment or personnel),
nor does it require an increase in patrol hours (i.e., overtime, etc.). A
policy to ticket safety belt or child restraint violations as part of an
ongoing patrol activity can be subscribed to easily. Integrated enforcement
can be conducted in secondary law states as well as in primary law states
(secondary safety belt laws restrict their enforcement to occasions when a
vehicle is stopped for another traffic offense, while primary safety belt laws
can be enforced at any time). Both activities can effectively increase
occupant protection usage, even in situations where personnel resources have
been diminished.
OCCUPANT PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES The sheriff or law enforcement official of any community can have a significant
effect in raising safety belt usage rates (thus decreasing the likelihood that
motor vehicle occupants would be injured or killed in a crash) through two
commonly used programs - "blitz" and "integrated" occupant protection enforcement.
Sheriffs or other law enforcement officials considering an occupant protection
enforcement or public relations program must realize that without the full
support and participation of sworn personnel, the general public will not be
convinced to "buckle up." Of even greater concern for administrators should be
the alarming number of crashes being experienced by their officers. Studies
have underscored the fact that state police officers are involved in crashes at
more than twice the rate of civilians, while urban and county officers crash
more than 10 times as often as the public. Officer injuries occur in about one-
fourth of these crashes, with an average loss of 23 workdays per injury (over one
month off the job). When you compute the lost time and consider that crashes
killed 42 police officers in 1990 (one-third of the total),
administrators whose agencies do not have a safety belt use
policy should seriously consider adopting such a policy.
Along with adopting a mandatory use policy, there is the need to train your
personnel. Training programs can be informal: remarks and/or public
statements by the sheriff, roll call reminders, periodic memos or messages,
staff meetings and posters. Training programs can be formal, e.g. NHTSA
Occupant Protection Usage and Enforcement (OPUE) course for line officers or a
police risk management workshop for police executives. The OPUE course
requires approximately 4-6 hours of training while the risk
management course is about 4 and 1/2 hours long. (See catalog
of NHTSA training under list of available resources).
AGGRESSIVE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT (ACE) The strategy of aggressive traffic enforcement as a means to deter criminal
activity is not a new concept. Varieties of this programs are used by many
police agencies. The project employed in South Carolina is modeled after the
"Operation Nighthawk Program" used by the Georgia State Patrol. Aggressive
Criminal Enforcement (ACE) techniques have been used in Georgia for many years,
with outstanding results. Veteran Georgia State Troopers trained in ACE
procedures speak highly of the program and how it rejuvenated their interest in
traffic enforcement. However, ACE does not have the singular objective of
traffic enforcement. Basically, it teaches officers to use traffic enforcement
as a bridge to the detection of other criminal activity.
Because of the fact that the criminal's use of the automobile is well
documented in this country (FBI Uniform Crime Report - 1990),
ACE is an ideal program for sheriff's department personnel since it appeals to
the natural instinct and interest of all law enforcement officers -
catching crooks. The combination of aggressive traffic stop techniques with in-
depth training to "look beyond the ticket" has proven to be an extremely successful
way to raise the public's perception regarding traffic enforcement. The
ultimate goal of any enforcement program is voluntary compliance. A well
managed and active ACE program will achieve this goal.
SOUTH CAROLINA'S AGGRESSIVE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The ACE program in South Carolina began in May 1989 with a meeting of
representatives from Sheriff agencies (13 counties having the worst crash
fatality rates) and representatives from the other State highway safety
disciplines (see Preface). Among the issues discussed at this meeting were:
the extent of the problem; the resources available; the training and equipment
that could be provided; media involvement; an incentive program; the evaluation
system and the achievable benefits of the program a
better "quality of life" for individuals living or visiting in South
Carolina.
Following the meeting, representatives from each law enforcement agency agreed
to participate in one of three traffic enforcement-related safety projects -
a multiple enforcement project, a singular enforcement project or a passive
project. Projects in the 13-county pilot test areas were designed to target
rural or local roads for a four-month period September 1 to December 31, 1989.
ACE training for the participants started immediately after the planning
meeting in order to coincide with the purchase of the equipment needed to
supplement their choice of program(s) e.g., radar sets, video cameras, etc.
Although the pilot project was scheduled in 13 pre-selected
counties there was a built-in option for expansion to other counties depending
upon the results of the initial evaluation.
These evaluations, conducted in early 1990, were very encouraging. A county-by-
county crash/injury/fatal comparison (same months, three years 1987,
1988 and 1989) revealed decreases in most categories. Building on this
positive report, the ACE program was expanded to include projects and training
for deputies and officers from 21 additional counties and law enforcement
agencies. It should be noted that, of the 28 counties now participating in the
program, 12 sheriff departments had NEVER enforced traffic laws and/or were
NEVER involved in a highway traffic safety program. Currently, as a result of
the Rural Initiative program, five departments (Dorchester, Lancaster,
Orangeburg, Pickens, and Darlington) in the "never" catagory have full time
traffic enforcement units, while four other departments (Union, Newberry,
Calhoun and Chester), which partially enforced traffic laws, have adopted full-
time traffic units.
Although it's still growing, the Rural Initiative program in South Carolina
currently involves 32 law enforcement agencies (28 Sheriff departments and four
municipal police agencies). From these agencies a total of 179 sheriffs'
deputies and municipal police officers have been trained in the ACE enforcement
program and NHTSA's DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing and
OPUE courses.
South Carolina's Rural Initiative experience is beginning to bear fruit.
Statistics released by the South Carolina Office of Highway Safety (SCOHS) for
the three-year period (1989-1991) reveals a significant reduction in deaths/injuries
and fatalities (statewide). SCOHS reports there were 12,472 fewer crashes,
2,333 fewer injuries and 106 fewer fatalities in this three-year
period. In the months September-December(the original pilot test period)
a comparison of 1990 and 1991 data revealed
3,107 less (total) crashes. This was further broken down to 2,576 less
property damage crashes, 502 less injury crashes and 29 less fatal crashes.
South Carolina's Rural Initiative experience has also had some successes that
cannot be expressed statistically. Sheriffs' deputies involved in the program
have seized scores of vehicles used to transport drugs and other contraband and
have seized kilos of uncut cocaine, with a street value in the millions of
dollars. Deputies have also seized hundreds of pounds of marijuana, recovered
hundreds of thousands of dollars identified as drug-related monies, and have
made numerous felony arrests of wanted subjects. Unrelated to
the Rural Initiative project, but relevant to the successful enforcement
experience agencies are having with the ACE program, is a report from the South
Carolina Highway Patrol which details the accomplishments of its special 14
officer ACE unit. To date, in addition to issuing over 8,000 citations for various
traffic violations, the Patrol has seized over $300,000 in drug-related
currency and various illegal drugs with a total street value of over $800,000,
captured 15 fugitives, and recovered 30 weapons.
Finally, one of the most impressive bits of information coming out of the State
of South Carolina is the report that the Governor's Office of Highway Safety
has a waiting list of over 50 law enforcement officers who desire to be trained
in the ACE program. In addition, the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy
recently decided to make the ACE program required training for all future
recruits.
ACE PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES Some examples of effective passive program strategies are:
BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS OVERVIEW
In order for traffic safety programs to be successful at the community level,
support from elected officials and other community leaders is essential. This
has been proven repeatedly in campaigns against impaired driving and attempts
to initiate legislation to enact child safety seat and safety belt laws, and to
reduce speeding. Without the support of influential leaders in the community,
traffic safety programs and policies will not get enacted, implemented or
enforced.
The societal costs of traffic crashes and the dramatic impact they have on
local, state and Federal governments, both in terms of services provided and
loss to employers, have already been addressed. However, many local elected
officials may not realize the impact traffic safety has on their community
whether rural or urban, unless they have a traffic safety program in place or have
faced a particular traffic-related crisis. As responsible law enforcement
managers you have the tough job of convincing local leaders of the benefits
(quality of life) of having traffic safety policies and programs. Further,
it is important that you and other local officials are aware of not only the
negative impact of crashes on the community, but what assistance is available
to help your community prevent these crashes.
STATE ASSOCIATIONS Efforts to build support for traffic safety programs among local elected
officials can also result in benefits beyond the boundaries of their individual
communities. Since most local officials participate in state associations
representing cities, counties, regional councils or townships, law enforcement
officials can build this support through the establishment or strengthening of
relationships with these associations. Associations representing these
officials can serve as helpful resources in gaining access to them.
LOCAL OFFICIALS Local elected and appointed officials play a critical role in the enactment,
implementation and enforcement of traffic safety initiatives. As a result of
their roles as legislators and recognized leaders in the community, local
officials can lend their support to rural traffic enforcement initiatives
through:
Local leaders can also use their influence to coordinate traffic safety
programs across state and local department lines by creating special offices or
assigning individuals to handle specific issues. Despite the influential role
that local elected officials can play in forging traffic safety projects and
programs, these leaders typically do not access their community's traffic
safety networks. Some of the obstacles a law enforcement administrator might
encounter while trying to develop an effective traffic safety program are:
Although these obstacles to forging effective partnerships with local officials
are formidable, they can be overcome. One of the ways to overcome these
obstacles is to work through local government associations or public interest
groups. There are several key public interest groups which represent local
officials:
For example, Suffolk County, New York was the first county in the State to
submit a plan to use State special traffic funds to fight DWI. The County, led
by the County executive and working through the State Association of Counties,
initiated a comprehensive program of enforcement, education, prosecution,
rehabilitation and public information to address the problem. This effort
resulted in a decline of 35 percent in alcohol-related
fatalities, a 50 percent increase in DWI arrests and a 40 percent increase in
safety belt use.
Another example of local officials and law enforcement collaborating to reduce
a serious traffic problem was reported in Indiana. Concerned that their county
had the highest traffic crash rate of the seven counties surrounding
Indianapolis, the Hamilton County prosecutor and the sheriff spearheaded the
establishment of a Traffic Safety Task Force. Headed by a full-time
executive director, the task force developed measures to address the County's
traffic problems. Since its formation two years ago, safety belt use has risen
from 28 percent to 68 percent, hazardous road sites have been identified and
redesigned, thereby reducing or eliminating serious crashes at those sites.
STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH STATE ASSOCIATIONS OR LOCAL OFFICIALS The following strategies highlight the actions a law enforcement official could
take to work with state associations or elected officials when t\rying to
generate interest and support for traffic safety initiatives:
It may appear from these recommendations that it will take a great deal of
effort for law enforcement officials to work with state and local officials.
However, if you choose to work through state associations of local elected
officials, you can easily and directly maximize their political support for
your efforts. Through these contacts you can build the support needed at the
local and state level to create, expand, or strengthen the development,
implementation and enforcement of traffic safety policies and programs in your
area.
PROMOTING BROAD BASED TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS: THE SHERIFF AS THE
CATALYST FOR ACTION. The traffic safety programs or actions recommended here are those which are
more generic in nature and are such that the sheriff can not act alone.
Rather, they require the sheriff to take a leadership position and to work in
concert with others so as to articulate and/or facilitate the development of
specific traffic safety programs.
In promoting broad based traffic safety programs, sheriff are uniquely
qualified:
The programs outlined in this section go beyond the traditional mode of strict
enforcement and those strategies designed to stop or curtail unsafe driving
actions deemed unacceptable by constituents. These programs are more general
and attempt to encourage action and public support. It is recommended, for
maximum effectiveness, that they be implemented in conjunction with a
neighboring sheriff, or better yet, through the state sheriff association.
Implementation of any of these programs is an opportunity for a sheriff to
mount a "campaign" of coalition building. In this light, the programs are
politically attractive and can generate positive citizen feedback. Taking the
lead in the implementation of any one of these programs allows the sheriff to
convene coalitions, thus becoming the catalyst of local traffic safety efforts
and the coordinator of an important campaign which is in the public interest.
Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Program.
In 1991, 608 occupants of motor vehicles were killed in crashes with trains at
rail-crossings. This is a particularly acute problem in rural areas. Accordingly,
sheriffs in these areas should promote safety programs that use state-of-the-art
materials on cross-bucks and track advance warning signs; use the latest advancement
in pavement markings on approaches to these grade crossings, etc. This type of program can
be accomplished in conjunction with federal, state and/or municipal departments
of transportation or public works. In 1992, the National Sheriffs' Association
adopted a resolution in this regard.
Vehicle Registration Systems.
The license plate is a critical law enforcement tool for apprehending criminals
and for public safety identification purposes. Many states continue to
authorize single plates. Sheriffs in those states should advocate, through
their state legislatures and departments of motor vehicles, incorporation of
two fully reflective license plates which are reissued at regularly scheduled
intervals. The National Sheriffs' Association also supports this program.
Positive Guidance Highway Safety Programs.
Sheriffs can be the linchpin with state, county and local highway officials to
facilitate the upgrading of signs, signals and road markings and to recommended
specifications in order to produce positive guidance systems. It is estimated
that 7,000 lives a year might be saved if such systems are adopted and
implemented. In addition, positive guidance systems have been shown to be the
most cost effective way to improve roadway traffic safety.
Bus Safety Programs.
The safe transportation of school-age
children in buses presents unique safety challenges to sheriffs in rural
communities. Sheriffs can work with elected school boards and state
legislators to fund improved safety markings on buses, signs or in paved school
bus loading zones. Passenger loading or discharge educational programs for
drivers and students are available to PTA groups for board of education
meetings or school assemblies. Sheriffs can be instrumental in improving
school bus safety by taking a strong public stand against violators.
Theme Vehicles.
The sheriff in Carson City County, Nevada was instrumental in obtaining a grant
(Section 402 funds-see resources) to purchase a vehicle which displayed a traffic
safety theme for specific periods of time depending on the seriousness of the problem.
Deputies assigned to the "Theme Car" were tasked with the responsibility of enforcing
the traffic regulations associated with the designated theme. This innovative
program has been very effective in reducing traffic problems in his county and
has attracted strong citizen approval.
OVERVIEW
Sheriffs and/or other law enforcement officials contemplating a rural
initiative traffic safety program should be aware of the many resources,
whether in the form of financial assistance, publications or technical
assistance, that are available.
FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS Funding for highway safety programs is legislated by the Congress and delegated
to the U.S. Department of Transportation to be administered by NHTSA and FHWA,
through each state's Governor's Highway Safety Representative (GHSR) (see
Appendix A-5 for current list). Monies for these program priorities (Section 402 highway
safety funds) are distributed to the states according to population and road
mileage, on a 60 percent (to state) and 40 percent (to local communities)
split. Applications for funds are filed with the GHSR. Funded programs or
projects that are approved by the GHSR are then forwarded to and reviewed by
each NHTSA Regional Administrator (See Appendix A-4).
Highway safety problems depicted in the project applications, must be
thoroughly documented, as must be the intended solution to the problem. Some
stipulations exist on the use of Section 402 monies. Therefore, if Federal
dollars are needed to assist you in conducting one of these traffic enforcement
programs, please contact your state's GHSR.
Among the programs available for Federal funding under the latest Congressional
authorization are drunk driving enforcement, speed enforcement, occupant
protection (including child restraint systems), motorcycle safety, and police
traffic services. Including below (as headings under "Publications") are some
of the topical program areas to be considered in conducting a rural initiative
program. The program summaries include an overview of the problem and
recommend enforcement strategies.
PUBLICATIONS It is impossible to list all the publications that are available through the
U.S. Department of Transportation's, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration or the Federal Highway Administration to assist law enforcement
agencies develop or implement a traffic safety program. However, some of the
more helpful publications are listed below:
1. General Program Topics
2. Traffic Safety Topic -Speed
3. Traffic Safety Topic -Impaired Driving
4. Traffic Safety Topic -Occupant Protection
5. Miscellaneous Topics
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Technical assistance in almost any topical area can be provided by the NHTSA's
Office of Enforcement and Emergency Services, Police Traffic Services Division
(NTS-41), 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, (202) 366 9837. Additional
assistance can be provided by the NHTSA Regional Offices. NHTSA Regional
Administrators are located in the following offices:
NHTSA Regional Offices:
Governor's Highway Safety Representatives:
Requests for funding assistance for noteworthy traffic safety related
enforcement projects should be directed to your State's Governor's Highway
Safety Representative (GHSR). Monies for these projects must be applied for in
accordance with existing law and/or regulation. Congress appropriates monies
under the stewardship of NHTSA for Section 402 of the Highway Safety Act. The
Act details program emphasis areas. These monies are then apportioned to the
states according to population and road mileage, on a 60 (state), 40 (local
community) split. When applying for funding under this Section the applicant
must address specific problems and the corrective action. Program(s) must
thoruoghly document goals and objectives in order to qualify for assistance.
There is a filing due date for the application.
Listed below are the addresses and phone numbers for each state's GHSR:
Alabama - P.0. Box 5690, 401 Adams Avenue, Montgomery, 36103-5690, (205) 242 8672.
Alaska - P.0. Box N, 450 Whittier Street, Juneau, 99811, (907) 465 4322.
Arizona - 3010 N. Second Street, Suite 105, Phoenix, 85012, (602) 223 2359.
Arkansas - 10324 Interstate 30, Little Rock 72203, (501) 569 2211
California - 700 Franklin Blvd., Suite 440, Sacramento, 95823, (916) 445 0527
Colorado - 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver 80222, (303) 757 9201.
Connecticut - P.O. Box Drawer A, 24 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield 06109-0801, (203) 666 4343.
Delaware - P.O. Box 430, Dover 19901, (302) 739 5911.
District of Columbia - Frank D. Reeves Center, 2000 14th Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington 20009, (202)939 8000.
Florida - 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57, Tallahassee 32399-0405, (904) 922 5820.
Georgia - Equitable Building, 100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2000, Atlanta, 30303, (404) 656 6996.
Hawaii - 869 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu 96813, (808) 587 2150.
Idaho - State House Mail, Boise, 83720, (208) 344 2100
Illinois - P.O. Box 19245, 3215 Executive Drive, Springfield 62794-9245,(217) 782 4972.
Indiana - Room 206, State House, Indianapolis 46204, (317) 232 2588.
Iowa - Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, 50319, (515) 281 5104.
Kansas - Docking State Office Building, 7th Floor, Topeka 66612, (913) 296 3461.
Kentucky - KSP Headquarters, 919 Versailles Road, Frankfort 40601-9980,(502) 695 6300.
Louisianna - P.O. Box 66336, Baton Rouge 70896, (504) 925 6991.
Maine - 36 Hospital Street, State House Station #42, Augusta 04333, (207) 582 8776.
Maryland - P.O. Box 8755, BWI Airport, Baltimore 21240-0755, (410) 859 7397.
Massachusetts - 100 Cambridge Street, Room 2104, Saltonstall State Office Building, Boston 02202, (617) 727 5073.
Michigan - 300 South Washington Square, Knapps Center, Suite 300, Lansing, 48913, (517) 334 5210.
Minnesota - 211 Transportation Building, St Paul 55155, (612) 296 6642.
Mississippi - 301 West Pearl Street, Jackson 39203-3085, (601) 949 2225.
Missouri - 311 Ellis Blvd., P.O. Box 104808, Jefferson City,65101-4808, (314) 751 7643.
Montana - 1310 East Lockey, Helena, 59620, (406) 444 3412.
Nebraska - P.O. Box 94612, Lincoln, 68509, (402) 471 3900.
Nevada - 555 Wright Way, Carson City, 89711-0090, (702) 687 5375.
New Hampshire - Pine Inn Plaza, 117 Manchester Street, Concord, 03301, (603) 271 2131.
New Jersey - Department of Law and Public Safety, CN 048, Trenton, 08625, (609) 588 3750.
New Mexico - P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, 87504-01149, (505) 827 5109.
New York - Swan Street Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, 12228, (518) 474 0841.
North Carolina - 215 East Lane Street, Raleigh, 27601, (919) 733 3083.
North Dakota - 608 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, 58505-0700, (701) 224 2581.
Ohio - P.O. Box 7167, 240 Parsons Avenue, Columbus, 43266-0563, (714) 466 3383 or 2550.
Oklahoma - Ward Transportation Building, 3A6, 200 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, 73105, (405) 521 3314.
Oregon - Troy Costales, Governor's Highway Safety Representative / Transportation Safety Division / Oregon Department of Transportation / 555 13th St. NE, Suite 3 / Salem, OR 97301-4179 / 503/986-4190 / fax: 503/986-4189
Pennsylvania - 1200 Transportation and Safety Building, Harrisburg 17120, (717) 787 3928.
Rhode Island - State Office Building, Smith Street, Providence, 02903, (401) 277 2481.
South Carolina - Division of Public Safety, 1205 Pendelton Street, Room 412, Columbia, 29201, (803) 734 0421.
South Dakota - 910 East Sioux, State Capitol Building, Pierre, 57501, (605) 773 3178.
Tennessee - 505 Deaderick Street, Suite 700, James K. Polk State Office Building, Nashville, 37243-0341,(615) 741 2848.
Texas - 125 East 11th Street, Austin, 78701-2483,(512) 465 6751.
Utah - 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, 84119, (801) 965 4463.
Vermont - 120 State Street, Montpelier, 05603-001, (802) 828 2011.
Virgina - P.O. Box 27412, 2300 West Broad Street, Richmond, 23269, (804) 367 6602.
Washington - 1000 South Cherry Street, MS/PD-11, Olympia, 98504, (206) 753 6197.
West Virginia - 1204 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Charleston, 25301, (304) 348 8814.
Wisconsin - 4802 Sheboygan Avenus, Suite 120B, Madison, 53707-7910, (608) 266 1113.
Wyoming - P.O. Box 1708, Cheyenne, 82002-9019, (307) 777 4450.
Puerto Rico - P.O. Box 41269, Minillas Station, Santurce, 00940, (809) 726 6670.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA EXPERIENCE. Enclosed for reader information are data compiled by the South Carolina Office
of Highway Safety from the counties which participated in this two-year
project. Although this data shows diminishing trends in crash, injury and
fatality incidents (in most of the counties) caution is advised in any
interpretation of this information since it does not meet statistically
acceptable guidelines and is inconclusive at this time.
The Guide, although intended for rural sheriffs, can be a valuable
instrument for any law enforcement administrator (resident deputy and/or any
contract law enforcement programmer) genuinely interested and/or concerned
about reducing crashes and the related trauma associated with those crashes
on their rural or local roadways. The information presented in each chapter is
designed to "walk" the reader through each process identification,decision
making and implementation in a reasonable and practical way. The Guide
should help law enforcement personnel confront the issues and resolve the problems
associated with crashes on rural highways. In addition, we hope the Guide
will contribute toward changing attitudes currently found in many rural communities about
traffic enforcement.
CHARGE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS IN RURAL AMERICA
safety: