C O N T E N T S

NHTSA and Law Enforcement Mobilize to Buckle Up America!

Always Expect a Train

Aggressive Driving and Road Rage: They Aren’t the Same

Community Oriented Policing Services: A Partnership That Works

Attitudes Are Contagious... Is Your’s Worth Catching?

Changing Times

Recipe for Aggressive Patrol

NHTSA and Law Enforcement
Mobilize To Buckle Up America
by Sgt. Scott Hunter, North Carolina Highway Patrol

The goals of the national campaign to Buckle Up America! are to reach an 85 percent national seat belt use rate and a 15 percent reduction in fatalities involving child passengers, less than 5 years of age, by the year 2000. The Buckle Up America! program incorporates four focus areas: partnerships, legislation, enforcement, and education.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has identified enforcement as a key element of the strategic plan and the success of the Buckle Up America! campaign. NHTSA concludes that enforcement will create a perception of risk which will ultimately result in a change in driver behavior.

The enforcement of occupant protection laws requires extreme commitment and a nationwide law enforcement mobilization effort. To facilitate a nationwide mobilization, NHTSA employed 12 active or recently retired law enforcement officers from agencies throughout the country. The officers, referred to as Law Enforcement Liaisons, market the Buckle Up America! campaign to the law enforcement community and act as liaisons between NHTSA and law enforcement agencies.

Through this liaison program, officers nationwide have become increasingly aware of the urgency of children, 12 years old and younger, being properly restrained in the back seat of vehicles. NHTSA’s research reveals that the leading cause of death for children is motor vehicle crashes. It also indicates that 70 percent of the time when parents are unbuckled their children are unbuckled, too.

The law enforcement commitment to a successful Buckle Up America! program was evident during NHTSA’s Law Enforcement Summits. Over 2,000 officers, representing 85 percent of the American public, attended and participated in occupant protection and child safety seat training.

During the May 1998 Buckle Up America! Week, law enforcement officers from more than 4,000 agencies throughout the nation participated in the Operation ABC Mobilization effort. During this program, law enforcement officers conducted child safety seat and seat belt checkpoints and placed special emphasis on occupant protection enforcement. As a result of the mobilization efforts, motorists were also cited for numerous felony crimes and other illegal violations.

Each year, thousands of young men and women throughout the nation contemplate exciting careers in law enforcement. These new officers dream of the heinous criminal arrests they will make during their tour of duty. Soon it becomes evident that it is not the criminal activity that is largely claiming the lives of the citizens, but it is motor vehicle crashes. Quickly these officers learn that the primary defense against injury and the loss of lives is aggressive traffic enforcement.

In 1995, fatal crash statistics show that only 2 percent of the restrained passengers were ejected from vehicles, compared to 25 percent of unrestrained passengers. It is clear that the chances of surviving a crash are greater if people simply wear their seat belts and buckle their children properly in approved child safety seats.

Strong restraint enforcement is the greatest contribution law enforcement officers can make to society and their community. Each year motor vehicle crashes cost United States citizens about $150.5 billion in societal costs, $17 billion in medical care, $55 billion to employers, and $54.7 in lost productivity, not to mention insurance costs, legal costs, and pain and suffering.

Law enforcement officers need to realize that stopping a motorist for a restraint violation takes minutes but carries with it life saving capabilities. We know that at times motorists who have been cited for motor vehicle violations and told to buckle up were then involved in crashes hours or days later. Many of these people survive the crashes to tell about it. Did the enforcement contact make a difference? I think it did.

The enforcement of occupant protection laws yields other results. During these traffic stops, officers around the country have apprehended impaired drivers and wanted fugitives and recovered stolen vehicles. This technique of looking beyond the traffic ticket is an excellent way to help impact criminal activity in the community.

Law enforcement officers should realize that the leading cause of death for all people ages 6 to 27 is traffic crashes. If crimes against people were the leading cause of death for all people ages 6 to 27 would we not attack it with relentless vigor? Yes! It is imperative that we attack traffic enforcement with equal energy.

You can help make a difference.

Always Expect a Train
by Trooper Darren S. Hettinger, Washington State Patrol/Federal Railroad Administration

Annually, nearly 500 people die as a result of highway-rail grade crossing collisions. More than 50 percent of these collisions occur at crossings equipped with flashing lights, bells, and crossing arms. These statistics show that people quite often place their lives, the lives of their passengers, the train’s crew, and the communities they live in and travel through in peril.

The impact of crossing incidents is usually severe, and the chances of survival are slim. Occupants are 40 times more likely to die as a result of a collision with a train than with another automobile. Every collision involving a train and a motor vehicle carries with it the risk of derailing the train with understandably catastrophic results.

Recent studies involving the use of video monitoring at highway-rail crossings show that all kinds of motorists disregard the lights, bells, and crossing arms. Many drive around the crossing arms. This includes mothers and fathers transporting children, commercial truck drivers, school bus drivers, delivery and freight drivers, law enforcement officers, and emergency response personnel.

Two such fatal collisions occurred recently. In Louisiana, a mother disregarded the signs and signals at a highway-rail crossing and drove into the path of a train, killing herself and three of her children. In Michigan, a state trooper lost his life at a highway-rail crossing just miles from his home when he, too, drove into the path of a train.

Law enforcement agencies with traffic enforcement programs have a unique opportunity to be involved with and make a significant impact in reducing the number of deaths and injuries at railway crossings. Though law enforcement has not traditionally been involved in enforcement activities at rail crossings, proactive enforcement programs targeting high traffic grade crossings are highly successful. As the result of multiple fatalities, the Elmhurst (Illinois) Police Department initiated an enforcement program aimed at reducing crossing deaths. The program yielded a 100 percent reduction in fatalities within 1 year.

Innovative outreach efforts and partnering with community and professional groups will yield positive results as well. Statistics by the Federal Railroad Administration reveal the number of deaths and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings is continually declining, even though rail freight and passenger train service is at an all time high. This success is due to a combined team effort of dedicated professionals and volunteers. The Federal Railroad Administration, in cooperation with Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit public information group, is dedicated to reducing collisions, injuries, and fatalities at all crossings.

The reality is that these collisions are preventable. Our most important tools are awareness, education, and enforcement. The challenge is getting the message successfully delivered. Always Expect a Train!

Aggressive Driving and Road Rage: They Aren’t the Same
by Sgt. Robert L. Hohn, Arizona Department of Public Safety

Over the past several years, there appears to have been an increase in rude, obnoxious, self-centered drivers on our roadways. The media has dubbed this behavior “road rage.” Naturally this quickly grabs the public’s attention. The terms aggressive driving and road rage are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. There is a major difference between the two.

Aggressive driving is a traffic offense or combination of offenses such as following too closely, speeding, unsafe lane changes, failing to signal intent to change lanes, and other forms of negligent or inconsiderate driving. The trigger for the aggressive driver is usually traffic congestion coupled with a schedule that is almost impossible to meet. As a result, the aggressive driver generally commits multiple violations in an attempt to make up time. Unfortunately, these actions put the rest of us at risk. For example, an aggressive driver who resorts to using a roadway shoulder to pass may startle other drivers and cause them to take an evasive action that results in more risk or even a crash. Meanwhile, the offending aggressive driver continues on his or her way, perhaps oblivious of what he or she has caused. Rush hour crashes, which are frequently caused by aggressive drivers, are a major contributor to congestion and 10 percent of these rush hour crashes contribute to a second crash.

Road rage, on the other hand, is a criminal offense. This occurs when a traffic incident escalates into a far more serious situation. For example, a person may become so angry over an aggressive driving incident that he or she overreacts and retaliates with some type of violence. These violent acts may range from a physical confrontation to an assault with a motor vehicle or possibly a weapon. Often, the roadway incident that caused the person to become enraged may have been something quite simple and even trivial. Some incidents, by their very nature, are intentional acts, such as when a motorist switches from lane to lane in an effort to go around other vehicles. But others may have been committed unintentionally, such as when a motorist makes an abrupt exit from a roadway without properly signaling his or her intent. Perhaps you have seen this maneuver or even done it yourself when you suddenly realized you were at your exit.

Throughout the country, the public’s concern over aggressive driving continues to grow. Some studies indicate the public is actually more fearful of aggressive drivers than it is of impaired drivers. Aggressive driving is truly dangerous and cannot be tolerated. Several states are considering legislation to deal specifically with the aggressive driving issue.

The media should make a conscious effort to report traffic incidents as aggressive driving and not attempt to sensationalize them as road rage. Law enforcement officers also have a responsibility to educate the media on the differences in these two terms. The public will then begin to understand that the majority of reported road rage incidents are really examples of careless, negligent, or impudent vehicle operation and not violent criminal acts.

The public also plays a role in making roadways safer. The public should report aggressive driving incidents to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. In many parts of the country, motorists can easily report aggressive drivers, impaired drivers, or other unsafe highway incidents over their cellular telephone by using simple numbers, such as #77. If this is the case in your community, remind motorists that they should use their cellular phone safely and let a passenger make the call, use hands-free operation, or pull off the road when making the call. They should not be distracted from the task of driving.

Many road rage incidents have resulted from drivers overreacting and allowing their egos to stand in the way of common sense and good judgment rather than safely reporting aggressive driving incidents. A simple display of common courtesy will often be appreciated and may even become contagious. Try it! It might work.

In Summer 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will publish Strategies for Aggressive Driver Enforcement. This guide was developed to assist law enforcement agencies interested in developing, implementing, and managing aggressive driver programs. This brief, practical, easy-to-read guide is written by law enforcement officers for law enforcement officers. The ideas discussed in this guide were successfully implemented and tested by various agencies around the country. The strategies are easily modified to satisfy local requirements.

For a copy of Strategies for Aggressive Driver Enforcement write to:

Office of Media and Marketing

NHTSA

NTS-21

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Fax: (202) 493-2062

NHTSA Web site: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Community Oriented Policing Services: A Partnership That Works
by Lt. Leonard Zimmerer, Florida Highway Patrol

Community Oriented Policing Services (C.O.P.S.) is based on the premise that law enforcement, working in partnership with the community, can better solve the problems that face the public. The law enforcement agency, with input from the community, formulates an agenda to identify priority issues. Both partners can develop proactive strategies to correct or eliminate identified problems, and all partners benefit from a combined effort to identify and solve problems. The ultimate benefit is a safe community.

Law enforcement agencies have an overall mission of providing a safe community for each resident. Many law enforcement agencies have blended their C.O.P.S. program with their traffic law enforcement program. This is one way to combine the programs and give agencies a duplicate benefit. Communities benefit because both traffic safety issues and criminal issues are addressed.

C.O.P.S. programs are dependent on the policies and style of the law enforcement agency. Progressive agencies view the traffic law enforcement agenda, delivered to the public in the C.O.P.S. program format, as an opportunity to incorporate the C.O.P.S. program and basic traffic law enforcement-associated problems in an innovative manner.

Law enforcement agencies who adopt the C.O.P.S. concept and apply the initiatives that it proposes and suggests, develop closer relationships with community groups, social service agencies, corporate organizations, and other law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in the same area. Upon receiving input from these diverse groups, information is compiled, and goals and objectives that seek to create a safer traffic environment are prepared. These goals and objectives are then applied to traffic enforcement priorities to improve the safety of the motoring public and community.

The long-term goal of a C.O.P.S. program is to continually enlist input from the community and incorporate strategies to correct problems and reach identified goals. Using surveys, citizen input is collected by the law enforcement agency. Other methods to gain citizen input include holding town hall meetings, making the patrol officer more visible and accessible to the community with satellite law enforcement offices at malls and shopping centers, and conducting child safety seat clinics. The C.O.P.S. program only succeeds if the law enforcement agency views the community as a partner and acquaints its members with understanding the art of listening.

Law enforcement agencies that incorporate effective traffic-oriented C.O.P.S. programs into their policies and procedures have a mission to promote a safe and courteous driving environment through enforcement, public education, and safety awareness. A comprehensive traffic law enforcement C.O.P.S. program also emphasizes and conditions the patrol officer to take the extra step of looking beyond the traffic citation. The patrol officer not only sees benefits beyond higher traffic citation activity and a lower traffic crash rate, but he or she also realizes that criminal arrests can be a subsequent benefit of a proactive traffic enforcement program.

To have a successful traffic-related C.O.P.S. program, a law enforcement agency must maintain an agenda by incorporating the following plans:

• An aggressive law enforcement initiative to enforce hazardous moving violations and non-hazardous violations of traffic statutes

• Immediate rendering of assistance to the motoring public

• A performance-based initiative to reduce traffic crashes and traffic-related injury and fatality crashes in areas that experience high numbers of traffic crashes

• Accurate reporting and investigation of traffic crashes

• An intense, traffic-related education effort that addresses issues that concern the motoring public

• An aggressive plan to reduce incidences of highway violence

• An array of progressive programs that target stolen motor vehicles

• Partnering with the community to address local problems

• Participating in community-based traffic safety programs, such as Safe Communities

Law enforcement agencies adopting C.O.P.S. strategies have included traffic safety themes, in addition to other crime-related topics, when meeting with the community. Tips on motor vehicle safety, use of safety belts, correct installation of child safety seats, parking in lighted areas, and being aware of surroundings at all times when outside a vehicle are some of the topics that can be addressed. Neighborhood watch groups can also report to law enforcement agencies on traffic safety-related issues in their areas by acting as the eyes and ears of the community. Neighborhood watch groups can be established in areas where they do not exist.

Observations from the community on unsafe driving practices or unusual occurrences, such as aggressive driving or unfamiliar persons seated in cars during daytime hours in residential areas, will bring law enforcement agencies and communities together as partners who can solve problems. Bringing potential problems to the attention of the community and seeking input from that community can provide citizens with a sense of being able to correct and improve their personal lives.

Law enforcement agencies that have successfully integrated a C.O.P.S. program into comprehensive traffic safety initiatives are:

• Florida Highway Patrol
• Washington State Patrol
• Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department

These law enforcement agencies conducted in-depth, citizen traffic safety surveys and utilized traffic crash patterns to determine where the worst traffic problems were located. As a result, traffic-related problems were eliminated because citizens and law enforcement worked together.

In Orange County, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) initiated a C.O.P.S. program directed at traffic law enforcement for the Troop D, Orlando District. After surveying the community about traffic problems in Orange County, FHP learned that citizens were most concerned about traffic crashes at specific intersections. After an on-site study and a statistical check of traffic crash rates, these intersections were targeted for selective enforcement by the C.O.P.S. squad. The C.O.P.S. squad also held educational safety meetings, installed portable matrix safety message signs in the vicinity of the intersections, and used the media to produce stories that focused attention on the problems that motorists might face at the intersections. Safety tips on negotiating these intersections were also provided to the media. Recent traffic crash data and updated community surveys indicate that these crash rates have dropped from as little as 4 percent to as much as 40 percent. FHP operates C.O.P.S. squads in six cities in Florida, where each squad consists of a sergeant and six troopers.

The Washington State Patrol initiated a C.O.P.S. program with an emphasis on traffic law enforcement. The program began with 18 state troopers in July 1998. Candidate selection and training occur before the troopers are deployed in the field. Thirty-six additional state troopers will be added to this program in the future.

In Arizona, the City of Phoenix has initiated traffic-related solutions to community problems in its C.O.P.S. program, which initially dealt only with non-traffic-related crime. The law enforcement officers assigned to this C.O.P.S. squad now target underage youth alcohol offenses, aggressive driving violations, and speeding, as well as crime.

The community-oriented policing strategy application to traffic law enforcement can have an impact on traffic safety. The creation of a C.O.P.S. program designed to adhere to traffic law enforcement applications can reduce traffic crashes, bring traffic-related issues to light, educate the community, and enhance traffic safety. C.O.P.S. programs that include traffic safety problems are helpful in solving a variety of community problems. C.O.P.S. programs connect the community, facilitate the exchange of information, and give a voice to all involved. When establishing a C.O.P.S. agenda, law enforcement agencies should carefully weigh the added value of including traffic-oriented enforcement and education in the agenda.

Attitudes Are Contagious... Is Your’s Worth Catching?
by Investigator Yvonne Shull, Orange County Sheriff’s Office, California

For many officers on the street assigned to traffic enforcement, the enforcement of safety belt and child restraint violations is not a priority. The attitude seems to be that parents are responsible for buckling up their children and themselves when operating a vehicle on the roadway. In fact, as a new patrol deputy, I found myself with the same mind set. Can you remember the last time you drove down the street and saw a parent driving with their safety belt fastened and a child jumping up and down in the back seat? An incident similar to this changed my mind about the priority and responsibility of safety belt and child restraint enforcement.

One afternoon, I was working patrol along the coastal area of south Orange County, California. A mid-size vehicle drove past me with the mother buckled properly in the front seat and the child jumping up and down in the back seat waving at me in my patrol car. I did not give much thought to the child restraint violation. A few minutes later I was called to an injury traffic collision a short distance away. As I approached the collision scene, my heart sank. I recognized the child I had just waved to lying on the stretcher, having been seriously injured in the traffic collision. The mother who had been properly restrained stood by her vehicle, uninjured. In this collision, the child’s injuries resulted from being unrestrained and colliding with the interior of the vehicle during the rear-end collision. As I completed my investigation, I could not help but think, “If I had taken some type of action to correct the child restraint violation, that child may not have been injured in this collision.”

In fact, when used correctly, child passenger safety seats are 71 percent effective in reducing fatalities, 67 percent effective in reducing the need for hospitalization, and 50 percent effective in preventing minor injuries. With these high rates of effectiveness, it is evident that numerous lives can be saved and serious injuries prevented if everyone takes the responsibility to buckle up. Since October 1992, all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Territories have child passenger safety laws in effect. The enforcement of these laws, combined with public information and education, is critical to reduce the number of children killed and injured as a result of traffic crashes.

As sheriffs and deputies working the roadways across the country, you have the first opportunity to educate the public about child passenger safety laws and their importance. By strictly enforcing child passenger safety laws and conducting enforcement stops on all violations, you are providing both information and education to the occupants in the vehicle.

What Kind of Car Seats Should Parents Use?

• Infants less than 1 year old and up to 20 pounds should ride facing the rear of the vehicle in infant-only or convertible child safety seats (seats that convert from rear-facing for infants to forward-facing for toddlers).

• Children over 1 year old and weighing 20 to 40 pounds should ride facing forward in convertible child safety seats or harness systems.

• Children who have outgrown their convertible child safety seats or harnesses should ride in booster seats until adult safety belts fit them properly.

Additional Safety Tips

• Children 12 years old and under should ride in the back seat.

• Never allow children to place the shoulder belt under their arms.

• Booster seats may be either the small shield for children under 40 pounds or belt positioning type systems for children over 40 pounds.

• Older children may wear vehicle safety belts when the lap belt stays low and snug across the hips without riding up over the stomach, and the shoulder belt does not cross the face or front of the neck.

• Children with special needs, such as those who are physically challenged, may need special child safety restraints. Check with your child’s doctor, therapist, or local Easter Seal Society KARS/Specials KARS program to find out where you can obtain special restraints.

The next time you see that child jumping up and down in the back seat, waving to you as you drive your patrol car down the road, take the responsibility for those who have failed to, and stop the car. The few minutes it takes to make an educational or enforcement stop may prevent a lifetime of suffering to that child or parent and may just prevent you from having a memory like mine.

Changing Times
Sgt. Gary Foerster, Suffolk County Police Department, New York

In 1976, I was assigned to Highway Patrol, where I found my concentration on traffic safety during my prior 3-year assignment in precinct patrol was not only welcomed but also expected. During the mid 1970’s, I participated each December in the department’s holiday patrols for impaired driving enforcement. In 1982, the Suffolk County Police Department started our Selective Alcohol Fatality Enforcement - Task Force (SAFE-T) unit. This was a team of officers working full time to enforce impaired driving laws. I’m proud to have been a member of the original team in 1982 and proud to have had a part in the concept and inception of this task force. Since 1994, I have been that team’s supervisor.

In 1994, I was selected by the New York State Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee to intern as a traffic safety specialist at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, for a year. I was assigned to various traffic safety programs in the Traffic Law Enforcement Division, a division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). During my year on assignment, I visited police departments across the United States to assist with traffic safety programs. The positive attitude of the police officers I met is encouraging. Most today are aggressive, believe that what they do saves lives, and look to management and the political leaders to give them the tools to do the job.

A common practice of the patrol officer 20 years ago was to take the impaired driver to a diner, have them sleep it off in the car, bring them home, or have someone else drive. This non-arrest technique of dealing with impaired driving was not working, of course. I hate to admit it, but few gave the death rate much thought then, a fact I now find absolutely incredible. These deaths were a part of the cost of our motorized way of life and, quite frankly, not a surprise. Only when a senseless death hits home are we forced into awareness. Today, we know that we all paid too high a price for that attitude. The attitudes of patrol officers and superiors needed to be changed to give traffic safety the focus it deserves. Community leaders must continue this work and send a clear message to impaired drivers that the old way of dealing with them is over. Our courts must begin to make the impaired driver pay the price he or she costs society. The costs of public education, rehabilitation, incarceration, and enforcement all should be the millstone of the offender.

As a member of our Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) chapter on Long Island, I know personally those who have lived the horror of losing a loved one. Many reach out to tell their story. Others work quietly to make a better place for us all. They lobby lawmakers to change or make new laws that can save lives. I often think that they would like to grab society by the neck and shake sense into all of us.

Since 1980, Suffolk County has seen a 67 percent drop in the alcohol-related death rate. This is not common nationwide. Police today are better trained and motivated to make impaired driving arrests. In Suffolk County, our arrest rate for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) has risen dramatically since the late 1970’s. I now see officers race each other to find a reported DWI offender. We are often helped by motorists who report DWI offenders on CB radios or cellular phones. The average blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for those arrested is significantly lower than it was 20 years ago. We now have designated drivers and taxi cabs driving intoxicated people home. The impaired driver can no longer expect a ride home from the police, but he or she can expect a ride straight to jail. What is most promising is that this education and enforcement trend is nationwide.

In the past 30 years, New York State’s legal blood alcohol limit for a charge of DWI has gone from .15 to .10. Now several states have established .08 as the legal limit for a charge of DWI, and more are sure to follow. For operators of commercial trucks and passenger carriers, the limit is .04 BAC. New York State and others have adopted an alcohol “zero tolerance” law for underage drivers, set at .02. We now have officers trained as Drug Recognition Experts, and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing is a nationwide program.

Cooperative saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints in local communities and statewide are becoming commonplace and have been very successful. Judges in local criminal courts are becoming less lenient with impaired drivers. Do you see the direction in all this? Society is slowly waking up to the seriousness of impaired driving.

Our engineers have developed safer cars, better road surfaces, safer and longer lasting tires, and life saving passenger safety equipment. Years of hard work by officers, traffic engineers, and concerned citizens alike are making a difference and saving lives. The media also have a responsibility to send a clear message to the community about the effects of anti-impaired driving and anti-aggressive driving efforts. It is the media’s responsibility to send messages out to support the community they live and work in and to help save the lives of people in the community. The spark of newness can be developed when the media, police, and community leadership work together. Community leaders and police administrators should protect and promote the advances made over the past two decades. Government agencies such as NHTSA and citizen groups such as MADD, Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), and Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) that advocate strict enforcement have been catalysts in much of our success over the years.

It is encouraging to see efforts in traffic safety become an accepted priority in the community. In police work, some say that you do not see the results of your work like a machinist or a wood carver might when he or she holds a creation. It is true, most officers have not pulled a person from a burning house or saved someone from drowning. But I can say with certainty that they have saved countless lives as a direct result of their aggressive enforcement actions. I cannot hold the results in my hand, but many people out there can hold the results in their arms. We still have work ahead of us. I expect it will take decades of work in the future, but the result will be worth the effort. Saving lives threatened by impaired driving is a responsibility we all share. It is the responsibility of every citizen to protect life. When an impaired driver is ignored or when a citizen looks the other way, they become part of the problem that we all must overcome. When impaired drivers get into their cars, they are taking our lives and the lives of our children in their hands.

Recipe for Aggressive Patrol
To make the Aggressive Patrol work, follow the recipe below.

Preheat to a boiling point. By the time a decision is made to start an Aggressive Patrol, the public’s boiling point has already been reached. Public support for an aggressive program is usually easily won. Aggressive Patrols are also established to correct the public’s violations and behavior that costs lives.

Identify the reason for the Aggressive Patrols. (What is the problem?) The reason may be impaired driving, disregard for traffic signals, speeding, or aggressive driving.

Plan a solution. What can be done to help control the problem? In what way will Aggressive Patrols be used and implemented? This is your action plan. In other words, have the answers ready and a plan developed before asking for political support.

You will also need:

A bucket full of political support. Of course, any program needs the support of the people who are in a position to fund a program. They need to be convinced there is a problem. The communication of an idea must be understood and presented to the political sub-division by the department. Perhaps it is helpful to also invite citizens whom the problem behavior is affecting.

Gallons of department support. Any special law enforcement action requires the backing of the agency. Top managers within the department have to be convinced this is the best use of resources (people, equipment, and time). Their support is essential if all lines of supervision are to buy in to the program as well.

A pound of first-line supervision support. The first-line supervisor is the key to an effective patrol. With department participation and support, the first-line supervisor’s responsibilities are to administer and manage the operation and motivate officers to participate in the Aggressive Patrol.

Roll out thick belief in the patrols. In addition to support from the top and supervisory buy-in, an aggressive program must be accepted by the patrol officer who is expected to accomplish the Aggressive Patrol. If the officer on the street does not see the benefit of the action, the patrol will be less than aggressive. Therefore, it is crucial for managers and supervisors to communicate and motivate the street officer.

A sprinkle of equipment. Any planned special patrol requires equipment to accomplish the task. The Aggressive Patrol officer must be able to concentrate on the assignment, not try to cope with poor, malfunctioning equipment, or in the worst case, not have necessary equipment at all. Officers who are properly equipped and properly trained will be able to do their job. Otherwise, they are frustrated. How aggressive can an officer be if his or her cruiser is broken down on the side of the road, or if the preliminary breath test devices do not work? Find out what patrol officers need, and provide it.

Groups of steamed citizens. Much of the success of traffic safety programs has been with the help or insistence of citizen groups. Over the last 15 years, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), and Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) have been a driving force in the reductions in impaired driving fatalities. Groups like this provide support for the operation, and sometimes they help with resources.

A bunch of media coverage. Help with public service announcements, driver advisories, and traffic safety tips can be a valuable tool. Unfortunately, media coverage is usually difficult to obtain. Work with the local media to spread your message. Give them the tools they may need to present the traffic safety problem to the public. Cooperate; provide ride-alongs; help increase their knowledge about the problem; provide access so they can film the operation; and help them help you.

A mix of inter-agency participation. Coordinating the efforts of a group of law enforcement agencies is always more effective than one agency acting alone. This show of force sends a message and gives the perception of risk. It is also a point that may intrigue the media and cause them to give your operation positive coverage.