Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Target Zero

Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Target Zero
Washington State
Strategic Highway
Safety Plan
2013
Zero Deaths & Zero Serious Injuries
by 2030
Target Zero® is a registered mark of Washington State’s
Washington Traffic Safety Commission effective 2013.
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Governor Jay Inslee • Commission Chair
Lynn Peterson • Department of Transportation
Chief John Batiste • Washington State Patrol
Pat Kohler • Department of Licensing
John Wiesman • Department of Health
District & Municipal
Court Judges
Association
Judge James P Swanger • Clark County District Court
Randy Dorn • Superintendent of Public Instruction
Kevin Quigley • Department of Social and Health Services
Sharon Dillon • Washington State Association of Counties
Jon Snyder • Association of Washington Cities
Darrin T. Grondel • Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Table of Contents
Overview
About Target Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Target Zero Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Local Agencies and Target Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Target Zero Plan Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Traffic Safety Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Native American Tribes and Target Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Priority Level One
Impaired Driver Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Run-Off-the-Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Speeding Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Young Driver 16-25 Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Distracted Driver Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Intersection Related . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Traffic Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Priority Level Two
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Unlicensed Driver Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Opposite Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Motorcyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Priority Level Three
Older Driver 75+ Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Heavy Truck Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Drowsy Driver Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Work Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
School Bus Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Vehicle-Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Appendices
Appendix A: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Appendix B: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Appendix C: Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Appendix D: Data Sources for Target Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Appendix E: Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Appendix F: Strategic Effectiveness Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Appendix G: Virtual Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
FPO
Overview
Zero by 2030:
Ambitious…
yes!
Doable…
absolutely!
The federal Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
23 USC 148, requires each state to
have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
This document meets that federal
requirement for Washington State.
Overview • About Target Zero
About Target Zero®
Why a Goal of Zero?
Target Zero is intended to be incorporated into the plans
and programs of key state traffic safety agencies, as well
as Tribes, cities, counties and private organizations. State
agencies are required to follow Target Zero and it is strongly
recommended for all other organizations and individuals
involved in traffic safety.
The Target Zero plan reflects the collective, the “many.” It is
filled with data driven analysis, shining a light on the big picture
of where our limited resources of time, talent and treasure will
have the most impact.
But our goal – of zero deaths and serious injuries in 2030 – is
Target Zero identifies strategies for implementation over the
about the “one”… the individual. It’s about the Washington
next three to four years. The specific projects that implement
State Trooper struck by a truck. It’s about the child who went
Target Zero strategies and measures for their success are
through the front window of a car because she wasn’t buckled
formulated in each organization. They are documented in
in. It’s about the recent high school graduate who left the road
agencies and organizations’ strategic and operational plans
and hit a tree. It’s about our colleagues, friends and family. How
throughout the state, wherever the
many of them are we okay with being
strategies are being implemented.
killed or seriously injured in a crash? The
Target Zero is a high-level
In the process of evaluating the
answer is obvious: zero. So our goal, for
strategic plan which:
effectiveness of Target Zero, scheduled
every citizen in the state of Washington,
to begin in 2014, there will be an
•
Sets
statewide
priorities
for
all
is zero.
examination of individual organizations’
traffic safety partners over the next
projects and their measures.
three to four years
Ambitious…yes! Doable…absolutely!
Look at the data in this plan and see
• Provides a resource for potential
The first Target Zero plan was created
the progress that’s already been made,
strategies to address each of the
in 2000. It set this ambitious goal and
the areas that need more focus and our
we have made significant progress.
priority areas
strategies for reaching zero deaths and
Since the 2007 revision we have seen
• Monitors outcomes at a statewide
serious injuries by 2030.
positive trends in almost every area,
level for each of the priority areas with the strengthening of DUI laws,
increased enforcement of impaired
driving, improvements in automotive safety equipment,
significant roadway/engineering improvements, and
implementation of anti-texting and cell use laws.
Each state must have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
and Washington’s is called Target Zero. It is created through a
We must do everything in our power to eliminate traffic
collaboration of traffic safety professionals and activists from
deaths and serious injuries. However, if Washington State is
many different organizations and disciplines: engineers from
to reach Target Zero by 2030, we must have help from others
WSDOT and local public works; Tribal and city police, county
beyond our borders.
sheriffs’ deputies, and troopers from State Patrol; medical
professionals from hospitals and public health agencies; and
In the last several decades the auto industry has given us air
other people from every corner of the state dedicated to
bags, more crash resistant vehicles and roll-over protection
making our roads safer.
technology. Organizations such as the National Comprehensive
Highway Research Program, MADD, the United States
Target Zero is a “practitioner’s plan” intended to unite
Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Governor’s
the contributing organizations as well as traffic safety
Highway Safety Association, and the Insurance Institute for
organizations statewide. The plan will help us coordinate traffic
Highway Safety have provided tools to make our roads safer.
safety programs, better align priorities and strategies, and
have a common language and approach to traffic safety efforts
Reaching our Target Zero goal will only be accomplished
across Washington State. The plan is data driven, identifying
through partnerships leveraging innovation, research and
the factors contributing to fatal and serious injury collisions on
commitment to complement our state’s efforts. Together we
Washington roads, as well as listing proven and recommended
will realize zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030.
strategies for reducing traffic deaths and serious injuries.
What is the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan?
1
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Target Zero vision is:
Washington State will reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2030.
Every Person Counts
rate and total serious injuries) shall be defined and reported
identically, and coordinated through the state SHSP. The
role of our SHSP will be to support the State’s efforts to
achieve these targets by establishing appropriate goals and
objectives, emphasis areas and effective strategies. Once
federal rulemaking is complete we will review Target Zero
goals and may adjust or update the Target Zero Plan.
Each year from 2009 to 2011, an average of 469 people
died and 2,421 people were seriously injured on
Washington’s roadways.
To achieve Target Zero, Washington State must have
an average of 24 fewer fatalities and 120 fewer serious
injuries each year. From 2002 through 2011, Washington
averaged 22 fewer traffic fatalities and 80 fewer serious
injuries each year. While this is a great achievement, it is
not enough to reach the goal of zero fatalities and serious
injuries by 2030. Even one traffic fatality or serious injury
is one too many. We must do more.
National and Statewide Trends
For the past couple of years, national traffic safety trends
have shown significant improvement. Figures from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
show 29,757 people died in U.S. motor vehicle crashes in
2011, down 2% from 2010.
Target Zero Goals
Washington State fatalities are also dropping, down 1.3%
from 2010 to 2011 (from 460 to 454), with preliminary
figures for 2012 showing another 3.79% decline in
fatalities. Although far too many people are still dying on
U.S. and Washington State roads, these recent drops are
encouraging. The improvements made over time are
particularly telling in the chart on page 4.
We have identified near-term goals to achieve Target Zero
for fatalities and serious injuries, in total and for each
priority area of the plan. To reach the goal of zero by 2030,
we need to be aggressive, and strive to reach at least the
minimum annual reductions to stay on track. In some areas
Target Zero goals seem easy to achieve, and in
others the goals are incredibly aggressive.
Throughout the Target Zero plan, traffic fatality and
serious injury data are presented for each priority
emphasis area. Fatalities are represented with the color
green and serious injuries with purple.
In every area, as we get closer to 2030, the later years
of decline will be the most challenging, as the remaining
fatalities and serious injuries will likely be occurring among
the most high-risk populations. Therefore, setting these
ambitious, but achievable, Target Zero goals is crucial to
maintaining momentum toward achieving the vision of zero
deaths and serious injuries by 2030.
The fatality and
In 2010, Washington
serious injury graphs
had the 4th lowest
throughout this plan
traffic fatality rate in
display five-year and
ten-year trend lines,
the nation, up from
and the Target Zero
#11 in 2005.
line. The Target Zero
line is where we need
to be to achieve our vision of zero deaths by 2030. Many
of the five-year trends show an impressive decline.
However, most ten-year trends show we must push
harder in order to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries
by 2030. The area between the ten-year trend and the
Target Zero line is our “Performance Gap” (shaded in light
orange) and shows the improvement needed to achieve
Target Zero.
MAP-21 requires that our Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) is coordinated with the Highway Safety Plan (HSP),
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) and the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This coordination
will include harmonizing certain performance measures
and targets. Performance measures and targets will not
be required for the FHWA safety program until the FHWA
Transportation Performance Management (TPM) regulations
become effective. In the future, once the TPM regulations
are adopted, the performance measures and targets common
to the State’s HSP and the State HSIP (total fatalities, fatality
2
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Executive Summary
Washington Fatalities from Traffic Crashes 2002‐2011
Washington Fatalities from Traffic Collisions 2002-2011
658
600
649
633
600
567
571
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 24 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=500
521
492
460
400
454
404
357
309
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Washington Serious Injuries from Traffic Crashes 2002‐2011
Washington
Serious Injuries from Traffic Collisions 2002-2011
3000
3180
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 120 per year (from 5yr Avg).
2952
2760 2769
2867
2500
5YR AVG=2507
2646
2718
2551
2482
2136
2000
2029
1790
1500
1552
1000
500
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
3
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Note: Other factors have also had an impact on reducing
the fatality rate, including technological and engineering
improvements for roadways and vehicles.
Traffic fatalities per 100 million VMT
Key Washington State Traffic Safety Laws and Policies
Impacting Traffic Fatality Rates, 1966 - 2011
Overview • Executive Summary
4
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Executive Summary
quickly than in other areas. Currently, projections based
on the 10-year trend show zero fatalities in 2018 and zero
serious injuries in 2019. This success reflects the
effectiveness of the Click It or Ticket campaign’s combination
of education and enforcement, as well as several other
innovative efforts to encourage greater seat belt use.
Successful traffic safety education
programs, tougher legislation,
improved roadways, faster
emergency response times, and
strategically focused enforcement
efforts have contributed greatly
to the continuing decline in traffic
deaths. Washington State’s traffic
safety partners have worked in close collaboration to bring
about the changes that contributed to our state’s record low
2011 traffic fatality rate.
• Opposite Direction (Head-on) Collisions (see pages
106-111 for more information). Fatalities and serious
injuries resulting from head-on collisions have seen
dramatic reductions. Current 10-year trends show zero
head-on fatalities by 2027, and zero head-on serious
injuries by 2029. The reductions in head-on fatalities
and serious injuries in the most recent five years have
been dramatic and, if we continue on the current fiveyear decline, we will reach zero head-on fatalities in
2018, and zero serious in injuries in 2020. This success
is a reflection of various engineering improvements and
safety enhancements made to Washington roads.
However, we also acknowledge that there are factors
outside the control of the Target Zero partners. Trends in
the driving population, such as the number of people on
the road (and therefore exposed to the risk of traffic
collisions), can affect the number of traffic fatalities. In a
down economy, we may see few high-risk drivers on the
roadways. This could affect the number of traffic fatalities.
Meanwhile, technological improvements and medical
advances can reduce the risk of fatalities. All of these
factors and more will influence our ability to reach zero
fatalities and zero serious injuries by 2030.
Areas for Improvement
There are other areas where we are not seeing these
positive trends. We are not seeing the declines we need to
achieve Target Zero.
Achievements
• Pedestrians (see pages 120-127 for more information).
Despite numerous engineering improvements and
other strategies, current trends for pedestrian fatalities
and serious injuries indicate that they are on the rise.
Although the total fatal and serious injury numbers
are lower than other traffic safety priorities, the trends
show that more must be done to provide opportunities
to implement strategies that may inform other traffic
safety priorities as we near 2030.
Our state is proud of the safety improvements made in
areas where we have focused a great deal of time,
attention, and funding:
• Young Drivers Age 16-25 (see pages 51-66 for more
information). Fatalities involving younger drivers aged
16-25 have seen significant reductions since 2007.
Current projections based on the 10-year trend show
zero fatalities in 2023 and zero serious injuries in 2027.
The decline in young driver involved fatalities over the
last five years is even more promising, showing that if the
most recent five-year decline continues, we could reach
zero fatalities as early as 2020. This success reflects
effectiveness of the implementation of intermediate driver
licenses, high visibility enforcement and programs such as
the Party Intervention Patrol. Another factor may be youth
postponing getting their driver license.
• Motorcyclists (see pages 112-119 for more information).
The 10-year trends in motorcyclist fatalities indicate that
both fatalities and serious injuries are on the rise. The fiveyear trend for fatalities shows we are closing this gap and
reversing the upward trend to more of a neutral one, but still
not declining. The declines in motorcyclist serious injuries
are more promising, showing that if we can maintain our
current five-year decline, we could be on track to reach zero
serious injuries in 2024. Consistent helmet use is critical to
progress. Despite Washington’s primary law requiring all
motorcyclists wear helmets, nearly 25% of seriously injured
motorcycle riders are not wearing helmets.
• Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants (see pages 92-99 for
more information). Fatalities among vehicle passengers not
wearing appropriate safety restraints have dropped more
5
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Executive Summary
Most Common Factors Involved in 1,407
Washington Fatalities (2009-2011)
Total
Impairment Deaths
704 (50%)
Impairment
181 (13%)
116
(29%)
Speeding
99 (7%)
Total
Speeding Deaths
555 (39%)
237
(17%)
103
(7%)
170
(29%)
Run-Off-the-Road
105 (7%)
Total
Run-Off-the-Road Deaths
615 (44%)
Overlap for the top three contributing factors, 2009-2011.
Percentages are based on total traffic fatalities (1,407) during that time period.
Impaired driving was involved in 50% of fatalities between 2009-2011, run-off-the-road in 44% and speeding in 39%.
In 29% of fatalities, both impairment and run-off-the-road were factors. In another 29%, both impairment and speed
were involved. When combined, 17% of fatalities involved all three factors. Impairment was the only contributing
factor in 13% of fatalities. Run-off-the-road and speeding, each by themselves, were the only contributing factor in 7% of fatalities. In another 7% of fatalities, run-off-the-road and speeding were both involved.
Largest Contributing Factors
Target Zero sets statewide traffic safety priorities based upon the most frequently cited contributing factors.
During the 2009 to 2011 period, the top three factors were:
• Impaired Drivers – contributing to 50% of total traffic fatalities
• Run-Off-the-Road – indicated in 44% of fatal traffic fatalities
• Speeding – involved in 39% of fatal traffic fatalities
Overall, 72% of traffic fatalities involved at least one of these top three traffic safety priorities, and 17%
involved all three.
Significantly reducing impaired driving, controlling speeding, and keeping vehicles from leaving the roadway
(or reducing collision severity when vehicles do leave the roadway), is needed to make Washington State’s
vision of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries a reality.
To that end, the contribution of driver impairment and speeding is shown for each Priority Level One and
Priority Level Two factor in subsequent chapters. For impairment and speeding, the contributing factor of
run-off-the-road is displayed.
6
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Executive Summary
Target Zero Strategies
The majority of the Target Zero strategies focus on the
four Es. To make it easy to find the kind of strategies you
are looking for, we have indicated which area the strategies
fall into:
This plan includes specific strategies for further reducing
traffic fatalities and serious injuries. These strategies were
developed using national-level research, existing pilot
programs, and input from many statewide stakeholders.
Each of the strategies in Target Zero has been given one of
the following effectiveness ratings:
Education - Give drivers the information to make good
choices, such as not driving while impaired, wearing a
seatbelt, and avoiding distractions while in their vehicles.
• (P) Proven effective through professional evaluation in
Washington or in other states or countries
Enforcement - Use data-driven analysis to help lawenforcement officers pinpoint locations with a high
number of fatal and serious-injury collisions related to
driver behaviors, such as speeding and impairment.
• (R) Recommended based on documented best practices
or federal recommendations
• (U) Unknown strategies that are new or with limited
evaluations
Engineering - Design roads and roadsides using practical,
near term solutions to reduce collisions, or severity of
collisions if they do occur.
These effectiveness ratings are indicated by the initial –
P, R, or U – at the end of each strategy. The best strategies
are Proven or Recommended, but it’s also important to
experiment with some Unknown strategies. In those
cases, it’s critical to have a properly designed evaluation
component as part of the project.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) - Provide
high-quality and rapid medical and emergency response
to injury collisions.
When determining effectiveness of the strategies in this
document, three main sources were used:
Leadership/Policy – Not an “E”, these are strategies that
involve laws, agency rules, or policy changes.
• Countermeasures That Work (CTW), A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety
Offices by the Governors’ Highway Safety Association
for NHTSA and the USDOT
Even in an era of shrinking resources and economic
recession, our downward decline toward zero fatalities and
serious injuries has not only maintained momentum but
gained, making Washington roads some of the safest in
the nation.
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 500, Volumes 1-23
• Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse
7
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Priorities
Target Zero Priorities
Priority Level Three factors are associated with less
than 10% of fatalities and serious injuries. There is less
discussion of these areas in the Target Zero plan. However,
we believe if we address the more common factors in
Priority Levels One and Two ¬ such as impairment,
speeding, and run-off-the-road collisions ¬ Level Three
factors will see numbers go down as well. The roads will
be safer for all users.
In any endeavor, addressing the biggest issues first will
provide the most favorable results. Eliminating deaths
and serious injuries on our roadways is no different. To
focus efforts, the primary factors in fatal and serious traffic
collisions have been grouped into three Priority Levels.
The levels are based on the percentage of traffic fatalities
and serious injuries associated with each factor.
Priority Level One includes the factors associated with
the largest number of fatalities and serious injuries in the
state. Each of these factors was involved in at least 30%
of the traffic fatalities or serious injuries between 2009
and 2011. Traffic Data Systems, while not a cause of
fatalities, is considered a Level One priority because of
the potential for better data to significantly improve our
analysis of traffic fatalities and serious injuries.
In past editions of Target Zero, priorities have been set
based on fatalities only. For the first time, the priorities
have now been set considering both fatality and serious
injury numbers. The numbers are based on the
contributing circumstances identified by specially-trained
law enforcement personnel on collision reports. However,
as with any large-scale system, there is always the
opportunity to improve the accuracy of the data.
Priority Level Two factors while frequent, are not seen as
often as Priority Level One items. Level Two factors were
seen in at least 10% of traffic fatalities or serious injuries.
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is included here due
to the significant impact effective EMS response has on
preserving life and minimizing injury.
The Traffic Data Systems chapter details an important
project that brings together separate databases to improve
serious injury data. But even with the current limitations
of serious injury data, considering both fatalities and
serious injuries in setting priorities broadens the scope of
Target Zero to include serious injuries, while still giving
appropriate emphasis to fatalities.
8
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Priorities
Washington State 2009-2011
Fatalities
# of People
% of Total
Serious Injuries
# of People
% of Total
Priority Level One
Impaired Driver Involved
704
50.1%
1,519
21.0%
Run-Off-the-Road
615
43.7%
2,156
29.7%
Speeding Involved
555
39.5%
2,126
29.3%
Young Driver 16-25 Involved
487
34.6%
2,763
38.0%
Distracted Driver Involved
426
30.3%
868
11.9%
Intersection Related
290
20.6%
2,474
34.1%
Traffic Data Systems
**
**
**
**
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
348
24.8%
764
10.5%
Unlicensed Driver Involved
253
18.0%
n/a
n/a
Opposite Direction
221
15.7%
702
9.7%
Motorcyclists
206
14.7%
1,230
17.0%
Pedestrians
193
13.7%
869
12.0%
**
**
**
**
Older Driver 75+ Involved
126
9.0%
378
5.2%
Heavy Truck Involved 115
8.2%
341
4.7%
Drowsy Driver Involved
45
3.2%
258
3.6%
Bicyclists
26
1.8%
339
4.7%
Work Zone
9
0.6%
132
1.8%
Wildlife
8
0.6%
78
1.1%
School Bus Involved
3
0.2%
18
0.2%
Vehicle-Train
2
0.6%
3
0.0%
1,406
7,247
Priority Level Two
EMS and Trauma Care Systems
Priority Level Three
Total*
* More than one factor is commonly involved in fatalities and serious injuries. Therefore, each fatality and serious injury tallied in “Total” may be represented in multiple factors in the table.
This Target Zero update reflects data for 2009-2011, and the previous Target Zero plan was reflective of 2006-2008 data. Nearly all comparisons,
unless otherwise noted, will be between these two periods.
9
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Local Agencies and Target Zero
Local Agencies and Target Zero
An important component of the Target Zero plan is that
the information highlights which factors locally are
contributing to the most fatalities and serious injuries.
The success of the Target Zero plan is dependent on local
participation, both in creating the plan and using it.
Washington’s continued progress toward our goal of zero
deaths and serious injuries is due in large part to work by
local agencies and organizations.
This information is updated regularly and can be found
on the Research and Data page of the Washington Traffic
Safety Commission website (http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/
statistics-reports/), or can be requested from WSDOT’s
Highways and Local Programs division.
Assisting, working with, and sometimes being led by local
partners is most effective when guided by state and local
data. It is critical to get the message out about Target Zero
to share with:
The community specific data will help local and regional
agencies prioritize safety projects and programs, as well as
assist them in developing localized Target Zero plans.
Using data-driven approaches to problem identification
and prioritization provides local-level justification for
allocating funds and resources.
• Local Target Zero Managers
• Police Departments
• Public Works Departments
• Sheriffs’ Offices
• Community Organizations
• Emergency Medical Organizations
The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) will
consider local data-determined priority areas in evaluating
grant requests. Local priorities can vary significantly from
statewide priorities, based on the data, as illustrated below:
• Schools
• Anyone interested in traffic safety
Local Data Available
Target Zero Managers
The data presented in Target Zero is at the statewide level.
But comparison data broken down by local areas –
Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs),
counties and many cities’ data – is available. This can be
very useful for prioritizing resources and programs at the
local level using the same data-driven approach.
Statewide Priorities – Top 5
FAT
Washington State is known for strong state and local
partnerships in traffic safety efforts. For over 30 years
we have invested in a coordinated network of local traffic
safety professionals. This network has evolved over time
as the traffic safety picture has changed at the local, state
and national levels. Even the name of the network has
Okanogan County Priorities – Top 5
SI
City of Kent Priorities – Top 5
FAT SI
FAT
SI
Impaired Driver Involved 50% 21% Run-Off-the Road Involved 66% 45% Impaired Driver Involved 50% 20%
Run-Off-the-Road
44% 30% Impaired Driver Involved
55% 25% Intersection Related
45% 51%
Speeding Involved
40% 29% Speeding Involved
45% 32% Young Driver Age 16-25 Involved
45% 32%
Young Driver Age 16-25
Unrestrained Vehicle
Involved
35% 35% Occupants
Unrestrained Vehicle
45% 25% Occupants
Distracted Driver
Distracted Driver
Unlicensed Driver
Involved
30% 12% Involved
35% 10% Involved
FAT = Fatalities
SI = Serious Injuries
10
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
35%
5%
30% N/A
Overview • Local Agencies and Target Zero
adapted to reflect our goals. We now have Target Zero
Managers (TZMs) across Washington State.
Local Partnerships with Cities and
Counties
Each TZM guides a local task force represented ideally
by engineering, enforcement, education, emergency
medical services, as well as other community agencies and
organizations with an interest in traffic safety. The task
forces coordinate traffic safety local efforts and resources
at the local level by tracking data, trends, and issues in
their area. They provide a variety of programs, services and
public outreach throughout their communities by working
with local partners.
City and county government representatives are an
important part of our state’s traffic safety effort. The
Governor appoints a member of the Washington State
Association of Counties and the Association of
Washington Cities, and a local judge, to the WTSC so they
can work with state agency directors involved in traffic
safety. The WTSC commissioners oversee and approve
the work and grant funding recommendations of WTSC
staff.
Funding for Local Organizations
Funding is available for local
governments and organizations through
two statewide grant programs, one from
the Washington Traffic Safety Commission
and one from the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
The WTSC Federal Grant process funds
behavioral change projects.
The WTSC process now closely mirrors the
WSDOT Federal Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) funding program. The HSIP
program is managed by WSDOT’s Highways and
Local Programs division, and awards funding for local
traffic safety engineering improvements.
Target Zero managers
are located in the dark
blue counties and Tribal
reservation lands.
Target Zero Manager Network members
11
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Local Agencies and Target Zero
Local Program
Examples
Coordinated High Visibility
Enforcement Campaigns –
For Target Zero to remain
Currently, an important focus of
a
viable
program
at
the
local
Emergency Medical
the TZM network is coordination
Services (EMS) and
of statewide high visibility DUI
level, agencies need to:
Trauma Services – Local EMS
and seatbelt campaigns. These
and Trauma programs play a
managers work with city and
• Connect with their county’s Target
significant role in prevention
Tribal police departments,
Zero Manager
efforts. Examples include the
county sheriffs’ offices, and
Chelan-Douglas Safe Kids
the Washington State Patrol to
• Develop their own local Target
coalition with their distracted
ensure patrols happen in the
Zero
plan
pedestrian program, and the
right places, at the right times,
Okanogan/North Douglas EMS
and show drivers a united force
• Understand the benefit of Target
Council’s work on a child car seat
of all law enforcement agencies
Zero and the role they can play
distribution program.
working together. High visibility
enforcement involves educating
Target Zero Teams, Full-time
the public about the issue of
DUI Patrols – Target Zero Teams
upcoming patrol, and then
is a project highlighted in the impaired driving
coordinating multiple agencies to create a very visible
section of this document on page 32. TZMs provide
enforcement presence on the roads. Deterrence is the
mission-critical project coordination at the local level.
main goal, with swift and sure penalties when caught.
(http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/
downloads/2010/08/tztrackcard2010.pdf)
Corridor Traffic Safety Program – Through this locally-led
program, WSDOT and WTSC fund low-cost, near-term
projects to address engineering, education, enforcement
and emergency medical service needs. These projects
aim to improve safety on short stretches of roadway with
a higher than average number of fatalities and serious
injuries. (www.corridorssafetyprogram.com)
Local Target Zero plans – Development of a local Target
Zero plan, with priorities and strategies developed from
community-specific fatality and serious injury data, can be
an effective way to expand partnerships with area agencies
and develop a common vision. The city of Seattle was one
of the first local jurisdictions in Washington to adopt a
goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.
Their plan can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/
transportation/docs/SDOTRoadSafetyActionPlan.pdf
Additional Resources
Target Zero Manager Network: http://www.wtsc.
wa.gov/programs-priorities/task-forces/
Washington Traffic Safety Commissioners : http://
www.wtsc.wa.gov/about/overview/commissioners/
Local data at WTSC Research and Data web page:
http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/statistics-reports/
12
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Plan Development
Target Zero Plan Development
Vehicle Licensing (DOL), and EMS/Hospital/Trauma data
(DOH). This group coordinated updating of the fatality
and serious injury data and made recommendations –
based on the latest data – on what factors were the biggest
contributors to people dying and being seriously injured on
our roadways.
The partners who developed Washington State’s Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Target Zero, intend for it to
coordinate traffic safety programs across the state, align
priorities and strategies, and provide a common language
and approach to traffic safety efforts.
The 2013 update of Target Zero is the fourth update of
the plan since its inception in 2000. Although this is a
revision of an existing plan, we took a completely fresh
look at the data and strategies. This created extra work,
but has resulted in a plan that is effective and useful for a
wide range of Washington’s citizens, government policy
makers and traffic safety professionals.
With this latest data in hand, all of the key players were
brought together in a formal multi-organizational project
structure to create the Target Zero Project Team and
Steering Committee. Key players included representatives
from the agencies that form the WTSC, Tribal organizations, regional planning organizations and private traffic
safety organizations. There were engineers,
law enforcement officers, collision data managers,
epidemiologists, program managers and communication
specialists.
We started by bringing together the data experts from the
state agencies that hold the critical traffic safety data:
Collisions (WSDOT), Fatalities (WTSC), Driver and
Project
Team
Steering
Committee
WTSC
Commissioners
Governor
Pa
r
tn
er
s
Data
Analysts
Roles
To gather input from a broader stakeholder group, a Target
Zero Partners’ meeting was held in March 2013. There,
more than 150 additional people involved in traffic safety
across the state provided feedback and input on strategies
for addressing the priority areas. In August 2013, a draft of
the plan went out for external review by Tribes, partners,
and stakeholders.
There were three project groups that were instrumental in
re-writing the Target Zero plan.
• The Data Analyst Group consisted of data experts from
the agencies responsible for maintaining traffic safety
related data systems. They carefully analyzed 20092011 data for priority setting, calculated trends, and
developed charts and graphs.
Each project group provided recommendations to the next,
with the Steering Committee recommending the Plan to
the WTSC Commissioners (see page prior to the Table of
Contents), who ultimately recommended Governor Inslee
approve the plan.
• The Project Team consisted of manager-level
representatives. They coordinated the work, made
tactical level decisions, wrote the content and evaluated
strategies.
• The Steering Committee consisted of senior level
management. They provided strategic direction and
ensured appropriate resources.
13
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Plan Development
Target Zero Plan Project Members
Steering
Committee
Project
Team
Office of Financial
Management
Target Zero
Managers
Executive
Council
Tribal Transportation
Planning Organization
Plus all
Data Analyst
Organizations
Plus all
Project Team
Organizations
Data
Analysts
Target Zero Data Sources
these programs. The Traffic Data Systems process is itself
a priority area in Target Zero. To read more about the
system and strategies for its development, please visit
pages 85-91.
Many databases make up Washington’s Traffic Data
System, which contains data on collisions, citations and
adjudication, drivers and registered vehicles, motor
carriers, injury surveillance (including emergency medical
services, hospital emergency departments, trauma
centers, hospital inpatient and death records), and
roadway information (including traffic volume, features
inventory, and geometrics).
Most of the Washington State traffic data contained in
this plan comes from WSDOT Collision Location and
Analysis System (CLAS) and the WTSC’s Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS). The latest data available is from
the three-year span of 2009 to 2011. This 2009-2011 span
is generally compared to 2006-2008 (the three-year span
referenced in the 2010 Target Zero plan) when
determining changes in a specific measure or area.
These databases serve as the critical link in identifying
problems, selecting appropriate strategies and
countermeasures, and evaluating the performance of
14
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Plan Development
MAP-21
Next Steps
On July 6, 2012, the President signed into
law the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This law
created some specific requirements that
all states’ SHSPs must follow. During the
development of Washington’s 2013 SHSP,
Target Zero, some of the details of these
requirements were still uncertain. However,
the requirements that were clear have been
incorporated accordingly. Specifically:
The development of the Target Zero plan lays the foundation for
achieving the vision of zero fatalities and serious injuries. However, it
can only become a reality if intentional steps are taken to implement
and evaluate the plan on an ongoing basis.
1. The SHSP needs to coordinate with other
plans, including the Highway Safety
Improvement Plan (HSIP), Highway Safety
Plan (HSP) and Commercial Vehicle Safety
Plan (CVSP). Representatives from the
agencies that created these plans also
authored the associated sections in Target
Zero, ensuring coordination.
2. The Special Rule for Older Drivers
required there be continuing improvement
in the safety outcomes for older drivers
and pedestrians. To ensure our focus and
compliance with this, the Road Types and
Vulnerable Road Users section contains
a measure of combined fatalities and
serious injuries for road users over the
age of 65. This is different from the Older
Drivers section, which pertains to drivers
75 years old or older.
3. The Special Rule for High Risk Rural Roads
(HRRR) safety states: “If the fatality
rate on rural roads in a state increases
over the most recent 2-year period for
which data are available, that state shall
be required to obligate in the next fiscal
year for projects on high risk rural roads
an amount equal to at least 200% of the
amount of funds the state received for
fiscal year 2009 for high risk rural roads.”
The Washington State definition of High
Risk Rural Roads is included in the Road
Types and Vulnerable Road Users section.
SHSP Implementation
To successfully implement Target Zero, Priority Area Leadership Teams
should coordinate (at a minimum) all Priority Level One areas. These
teams meet regularly to develop and coordinate action plans. Action
plans provide a road map to give stakeholders and partners specific
direction and ensure continuous focus on implementation. They
contain measurable objectives, specific projects, action steps, tracking
measures and funding sources. Washington already has many of these teams established and actively
working. Groups such as the Washington Impaired Driving Advisory
Committee (WIDAC) and the Traffic Records Committee (TRC)
provide an excellent model for interagency coordination and project
prioritization and tracking.
SHSP Evaluation
Target Zero will be evaluated regularly. Safety improvements
depend on a program of data driven priorities and proven effective
strategies. Evaluation analyzes SHSP process and performance and
helps determine whether current activities deserve enhancement,
revision, or replacement. Evaluation will also help:
• Determine progress in meeting our SHSP safety goals and objectives
• Validate emphasis areas and strategies, or reveal the need to revise them
• Uncover challenges in prioritizing or implementing programs and
strategies
• Identify opportunities for greater efficiencies and improvements to
the SHSP
• Demonstrate our SHSP’s contribution to Washington’s
transportation safety
SHSP evaluation helps us answer: 1) what are we trying to do; 2) how
well are we doing it; and, 3) how can we improve?
We will develop an evaluation plan to guide our SHSP evaluation. It
will detail specific evaluation objectives (questions), outline the data
needed to address the objectives, and identify the resources needed
and the roles and responsibilities for the various evaluation tasks. The
plan will also highlight how we plan to use our evaluation results.
15
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Plan Development
Looking to the Future
Technological Enhancements and Safety
The Target Zero plan uses today’s circumstances to
develop strategies for reducing traffic deaths and serious
injuries.
Emerging technology has also impacted the broader
transportation system. At one time the primary safety
features of the roadway consisted of guardrails, rumble
strips and lane striping. Today technological advancements
are providing new roadway vehicle safety mechanisms
once thought impossible.
However there’s recognition of the need to consider future
developments. As deaths and serious injuries continue to
decline, meeting the challenge of achieving Target Zero
requires that we
look ahead and ask
key questions about
the next generation
of strategies as they
begin to emerge.
Vehicle Crash Avoidance Systems
Technology already exists in newer, high-end vehicles
that assist drivers by alerting or actually performing car
operations to ensure safe operations. Examples include:
1. Frontal Crash Avoidance Systems (FCAS) that warn
the driver if they are too close to an object in front
of the car, and even automatically apply brakes if the
driver does not, to avoid a collision
An expanding
multimodal
transportation
system and rapid
advancements in
technology are
two areas we are
watching closely.
2. Adaptive headlights that shift the headlights in the
direction the driver steers
3. Lane departure alert systems that sound an alarm or
flash to alert the driver that they are leaving the lane of
travel without a signal
Connected Vehicles
Mobile data technologies have introduced Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), including vehicle-tovehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)
communications. These are commonly referred to as
connected vehicles.
Increased Use of Alternative Modes of
Transportation
The transportation system of the future will include
expanded use of alternatives to single or low occupant
vehicle travel. Walking, biking, transit and rail have already
seen significant growth. Undoubtedly just over the horizon
are others as well.
Recognizing challenges to full utilization of an integrated
multimodal transportation system will likely be an
important consideration in reaching our Target Zero goal.
As agencies consider the best ways to overcome obstacles
to full utilization, additional data will be needed to develop
and test new strategies in the future.
16
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Target Zero Plan Development
Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
(DADSS)
The DADSS program was launched to research,
develop and demonstrate non-invasive invehicle alcohol detection technologies that can
quickly and accurately measure a driver’s blood
alcohol concentration (BAC). These advanced
technologies offer the potential for a system that
will prevent a vehicle from being driven when the
driver’s BAC exceeds the U.S. legal limit of 0.08.
Two methods at the forefront of research are
touch-based and breath-based approaches.
Road-Side Drug Testing
In the not-too-distant future, handheld devices could
be used to check for drug use in drivers. These devices
would allow officers to test for drug impairment on the
side of the road, much in the same manner as an officer
using a portable breath testing device to detect alcohol
and get a preliminary BAC reading. The handheld devices
may use saliva, breath or perspiration to test for the
presence of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, amphetamines,
methamphetamine and possibly other impairing drugs.
Connected vehicles are those with the ability to
communicate wirelessly with other connected vehicles
and roadway equipment in order to reduce collisions.
This technology is just beginning to make its way into the
marketplace, including in light, heavy and transit vehicles.
Connected vehicle technology is designed to alert drivers ¬
based on signals received from other vehicles and roadside
infrastructure ¬ when there is a risk of collision. Warnings
could be for potential danger when: changing lanes,
approaching an intersection, approaching a stationary
or parked vehicle, another driver loses control, or traffic
patterns are changing. Devices may send warning
messages to a driver and other nearby vehicles when
pedestrians or bicyclists are detected. Even head-on
collisions might be avoided if vehicles approaching from
opposite directions were communicating with each other,
and their drivers warned.
Over the Horizon…
What these advancements may mean related to new
safety strategies and approaches will take shape nationally
over the next several years. Washington State agencies
are tracking progress in this area, engaging in national
dialog, and considering opportunities to demonstrate and
apply new safety solutions as they develop.
The concept may also be applied to aftermarket devices.
Drivers may bring devices into their vehicles. They may
also be carried by vulnerable users like pedestrians,
motorcyclists, cyclists and transit users, making these
users more visible to surrounding traffic.
The enduring question for the traffic safety community,
regardless of the innovation, will be how or if it should be
applied to enhance the safety of the traveling public.
Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous vehicles ¬ also known as
self-driving or robotic cars ¬ sense their
environment through various methods
and navigate without human input. The
autonomous car provides an override
allowing a human driver, who sits in the
driver’s seat, to take control of the car
through such actions as stepping on the
brake or turning the wheel.
17
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Traffic Safety Partnership List
Traffic Safety Partnership List
The following organizations were consulted in the development of Washington State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), Target Zero, and are critical to achieving SHSP goals:
Washington State Government
Federal Government
Governor Jay Inslee
Governor’s Office
Administrative Office of the Courts
County Road Administration Board
Criminal Justice Training Commission
Department of Health
Department of Licensing
Department of Social and Health Services
Department of Transportation
Liquor Control Board
Office of Financial Management
Office of Indian Affairs
Office of Public Defense
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Results Washington
State House of Representatives Members & Staff
State Patrol
State Senate Members & Staff
Transportation Policy Office
Traffic Safety Commission
Transportation Commission
Transportation Improvement Board
Utilities and Transportation Commission
UW Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Region 10
Federal Highway Administration, Washington Division
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration, Region 8
Tribal Nations and Organizations
Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments
Lummi Nation
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Nooksack Indian Tribe
Quinault Indian Nation
Samish Indian Nation
Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Spokane Tribe of Indians
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Tulalip Tribes
Yakama Nation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Northwest Association of Tribal Enforcement Officers
Northwest Tribal Communications
Northwest Tribal Transportation Assistance Program Eastern Washington University
Tribal Transportation Planning Organization
Washington Indian Transportation Policy
Advisory Committee
18
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Traffic Safety Partnership List
Local Law Enforcement
Community, Local and Regional
Agencies/Organizations
Bellingham Police Department
Bonney Lake Police Department
Centralia Police Department
Clark County Sheriff’s Office
Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office
Ferndale Police Department
Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office
Island County Sheriff’s Office
Kent Police Department
Kirkland Police Department
Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office
Lewis County Sheriff’s Office
Lynnwood Police Department
Mason County Sheriff’s Office
Puyallup Police Department
Renton Police Department
Seattle Police Department, DUI Unit
Shelton Police Department
Skagit County Sheriff
Thurston County Sheriff’s Office
22 Target Zero Community Traffic Safety Task Forces
representing Counties, Cities, and Tribes
Association of Washington Cities
Bicycle Alliance of Washington
Cooper Jones Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee
City of Bellevue
City of Everett
City of Gig Harbor
City of Kirkland
City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Pasco
City of Spokane
City of Tacoma
Educational Service District #113
Institute of Transportation Engineers Washington State Section
King County Metro Transit
King County Public Health
Kitsap County Public Works
Lewis County Public Health & Social Services
Operation Lifesavers
Puget Sound Regional Council
Reduce Underage Drinking (RUaD) Coalition
Seattle Children’s/Safe Kids South King County
Seattle Department of Transportation
Spokane City Council
Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office
Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
Thurston County Public Works
Thurston Regional Planning Council
Traffic Records Committee
University of Washington Transportation Services
Washington Association of Counties
Washington Association of County Engineers
Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
Washington Impaired Driving Advisory Committee
Washington Traffic Incident Management Coalition
Washington Traffic Safety Education Association
Washington Trucking Association
Young Driver's Group
Yakima Police Department
Private and Non-Profit Organizations
AAA Washington
Affordable Ignition Interlock
American Traffic Safety Services Association
The Blairs
DKS Associates
DN Traffic Consultants
Driver Training Group
Driving 101
Eco Resource Management Systems
Feet First
Governor’s Highway Safety Association
HDJ Design Group
Ignition Interlock of Washington
IvS Analytics
Kittitas County Community Network
LifeSafer, Inc.
Margo’s Safety-1 & Arlington High School
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Progressions
Project Imprint
Tacoma Pierce County Community Connections
Washington Road Riders Association
Washington Trucking Association
Western Systems
19
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Native American Tribes and Target Zero
Native American Tribes and Target Zero
Photo credit: Portland Area Health Board, CCT Tribal Health and Native Cars Program
Tribal Involvement in the 2013
Target Zero Update
Representatives of the Tribes and state agencies have met a
number of times during the past two years to discuss traffic
safety concerns and partnership opportunities. Dedicated
forums included the annual Affiliated Tribes of Northwest
Indians (ATNI) and Northwest Tribal Technical Assistance
Program (NWTTAP) Transportation Symposium and the
2012 Tribal/State Transportation Conference.
Traffic safety discussions highlighted meetings of the Tribal
Transportation Planning Organization, Washington Indian
Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (WITPAC), and
Northwest Association of Tribal Enforcement
Officers (NATEO).
Tribes participated at all levels of the Target Zero update
structure: Steering Committee, Project Team and
Writing Team. Twelve Tribal members, representing six
Washington Tribes, participated in the 2013 Target Zero
Partners Meeting. A preliminary version of the Target Zero
plan was released for formal Tribal review before presenting
it to Governor Inslee for endorsement.
Twenty-nine federally recognized Tribes
are located within the borders of Washington
State. Through the Centennial Accord, the
state of Washington and Tribes have formally
committed to working together on a
government-to-government basis to address a
number of common problems, including traffic
safety issues.
Native American reservations in Washington
often include a mix of Tribal, state, county
and city roads, which creates jurisdictional
complexities with law enforcement, collision
reporting, road maintenance, and capital safety
projects.
Reservation roads are an important focus of
traffic safety in our state, and the Tribes are
partners in the Target Zero effort. The active,
professional and committed efforts by the Tribes
to improve the quality and usefulness of Target
Zero helps all of us move closer to zero traffic
deaths and serious injuries.
20
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Native American Tribes and Target Zero
Disproportionate Impacts to Native Americans
In Washington, the traffic fatality rate for Native Americans is 3.9 times higher
than for non-Native Americans.
Washington Pedestrian Fatality Rate 2002‐2011
FARS data from 2002 through
2011 shows Native American
fatalities are high across all
types of motor vehicle collisions.
One example is the pedestrian
fatality rate, which is 5.4 times
higher for Native Americans
than for non-Native Americans.
Washington Pedestrian Fatality Rate 2002-2011
Rate per 100,000 population
The FARS data shows two-thirds
(66.7%) of Native American
pedestrian fatalities within
Washington boundaries
occurred in rural areas. When all
pedestrian deaths are combined,
only 23.5% occur in rural areas.
Chronic underfunding of traffic
safety initiatives and related
programs plays a significant role
in these disproportionate
fatality rates. Inadequate or
non-existent bus systems
increase the number of
pedestrians on Tribal lands.
Some Tribes have
non-contiguous lands with
housing and services on
separate assets. Many
communities have few or no
sidewalks, marked crosswalks
or street lighting.
Additionally, many communities
lack driver education on
defensive driving and a high
number of unlicensed drivers
compounds the driver education
issue. There is also a lack of
pedestrian education covering
topics such as reflective clothing
and safe walking techniques.
4.97
1.29
0.89
White
African American
0.97
Hispanic
0.90
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Source: FARS, OFM Population Unit
Note: Classifications are per the U.S. Census Bureau and are mutually exclusive. Rates are based on average population 2000‐2010.
Washington Traffic Fatality Rate 2002‐2011
Washington Traffic Fatality Rate 2002-2011
35
Rate per 100,000 population
30
30.62
25
20
15
10
10.23
8.15
7.90
5
3.93
0
White
African American
Hispanic
Native American
Source: FARS, OFM Population Unit
Note: Classification are per the U.S. Census Bureau and are mutually exclusive. Rates based on average population 2000‐2010.
21
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Asian/Pacific Islander
Overview • Native American Tribes and Target Zero
Data Challenges and Improvements
The availability of accurate Tribal collision location
information will improve significantly with this
development. This will make it easier to identify the most
pressing safety problems, select the most appropriate
countermeasures and evaluate performance. For more
information about the ILT, see page 88.
Unfortunately, significant data gaps exist, making it
difficult to analyze information specific to reservations in
Washington. Data serves as the critical link in identifying
safety problems, selecting appropriate countermeasures
and evaluating performance. Without data, traffic safety
and roadway engineering-related statistical analysis is
difficult.
A Success Story
Incomplete data also makes it more difficult for Tribes to
compete for safety funding and justify need. Many of the
charts in Target Zero that display information by state, city,
or county roads do not include data for reservation roads,
unless those collisions were reported through a
Washington Police Traffic Collision Report or through data
outreach efforts. Given the disproportionate impact to
Tribal communities, it is critical that we close these data
gaps to help identify and address problems.
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have
experienced phenomenal traffic safety successes in recent
years by approaching traffic safety through the four Es:
Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency
Medical Service. Two key elements of the successes have
been:
• A collaborative approach in the community to leverage
resources
• The supportive leadership by Colville Business Council,
the elected legislative body
Geospatial Data
As mentioned previously, reservations in Washington
often include a mix of Tribal, state, county and city roads.
WSDOT has attempted to collect as many reservation
maps as possible to determine whether or not a collision
occurred within a reservation. More efforts are needed to
gather maps, as only 11 of 29 Tribes had submitted maps
as of July 2013.
Traffic deaths on the Colville Reservation have been
reduced from about 24 a year to two traffic deaths in 2011.
The documentary Traffic Safety Successes on the Colville
Reservation relates this remarkable feat. The story
received additional exposure from its official 2012
nominee selection for the American Indian Film Festival
in San Francisco, where it was screened and received
an award on the final evening of the festival. The video
is available for web-viewing through www.wtsc.wa.gov
(Resources > Videos > Tribal) or directly through this link:
http://vimeo.com/40528456.
As of this publication, a transformation is in progress.
WSDOT recently developed the Incident Location Tool (ILT)
to be implemented by the end of 2013. It is
replacing the less productive method of using hardcopy
map resources to associate collision locations with Tribal
reservations. In addition to capturing a
collision location’s latitude and longitude
information, the ILT is used to query map
layers and automatically populates several
database fields. This includes city, county,
Tribal reservation name, roadway name,
milepost, as well as the name, direction and
distance to the nearest cross street where
the collision occurred.
22
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users
Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users
This section brings together and
highlights several important traffic safety
issues including a brief discussion on
fatality rates, rural road safety, bicyclists,
motorcyclists, pedestrians, and older
road users. The fatality rate discussion
is important because it is one of the
ways our traffic safety progress will be
compared with other states.
Reasons for the decline are varied.
Decreased driving, due to the high
price of gasoline augmented by the
economic recession that began in
late 2008, has reduced people’s
exposure to the risk of traffic collisions.
Improvements in roadway engineering,
vehicle design and safety equipment
have all helped save lives as well.
Road Types
Safety issues surrounding rural roads,
bicyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians,
and older road users are areas that don’t
rise to a Priority One issue but do bear
monitoring. While some individual
strategies exist to address individual
transportation modes and population segments, these
issue areas are best addressed through the behavioral
and safety infrastructure strategies supporting higher
priority areas. For example, implementing run-off-theroad strategies addresses many of the collisions involved
with rural roads, motorcyclists and some older drivers.
Intersections strategies can be used to address collisions
involving pedestrians (including older pedestrians),
bicyclists and motorcyclists.
Fatality Rate Greater on Rural
Roads
Overall, Washington traffic fatality
and serious injury rates have declined steadily since 2005.
This decline is occurring in both urban and rural settings.
However between 2002 and 2011, 61% (858 Rural vs. 548
Urban) of traffic fatalities occurred on rural roads, even
though many more miles are traveled on urban roads. The
chart on this page indicates the need for special attention to
the rural road system.
Between urban and rural settings, differences in road design
and development play a significant role in collision rates.
Fifty percent (50%) of fatalities on rural roads involved runoff-the-road collisions, compared to 32% on urban roads;
23% of fatalities on rural roads were attributed to head-on
collisions, compared to 11% on urban roads. Furthermore
The Washington State traffic fatality rate is trending
in rural areas, medical response times are generally greater
downward, dropping from 4.91 deaths per 100
than in urban areas
million vehicle miles
and access to
Traffic Fatality and Serious Injury Rates* 2002‐2011
traveled (VMT) in
Traffic Fatality
and
Serious Injury Rates* 2002-2011
*per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled
emergency services
1966 to 0.80 deaths
*per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled
is more limited.
per 100 million VMT
Rates
in 2011, the state’s
lowest traffic fatality
rate on record. This
is well below the
2011 national rate of
1.10 traffic fatalities
per 100 million VMT
calculated by the
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
(NHTSA).
6.0
5.81
5.02
5.0
4.97
5.17
5.22
4.77
4.60
4.69
4.34
3.75
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.20
1.09
1.02
1.17
1.12
1.0
1.00
0.94
0.87
0.80
0.80
0.0
Rural Fatality Rate
Urban Fatality Rate
Traffic Fatality Rate
Traffic Serious Injury Rate
23
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
The greatest
challenge in
addressing fatalities
and serious injuries
on rural roads is
the geographic
randomness of
collisions scattered
over tens of
thousands of miles.
There are few
concentrations of
serious crashes,
Overview • Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users
unlike on urban roads, and the locations of crashes are not consistent from year to year. As a result, identifying the best locations
for behavioral and safety infrastructure improvements can be difficult. Thus the most effective strategies to reduce fatal and
serious rural crashes involve the use of widespread, low-cost engineering strategies to address as many miles of the rural road
system as possible (such as those in the Run-Off-the-Road chapter), and strategies for changing individual high risk behaviors.
High Risk Rural Roads
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), signed into federal law in 2012, requires each state
include its definition for High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) and created a Special Rule for improvements in safety for HRRR.
Washington State defined High
Risk Rural Roads as any road with a
functional classification of rural major
or minor collector or rural local road
that has a fatality and serious injury
crash rate above the statewide average
for similar functionally classed roads.
The HRRR Special Rule applies if “the
fatality rate on rural roads in a state
increases over the most recent two-year
period for which data are available.”
Five-year averages, rounded to one-tenth,
separated by a two-year period, are
compared in order to monitor HRRRs. In
Washington, the rural road fatality rate
from 2005-2009 was 2.1, compared
to the 2007-2011 rate of 1.8. This trend
mirrors the overall decline in fatalities
observed on all roads in the state. In the
case of Washington, the Special Rule
does not apply for fiscal year 2014.
Fatalities and Serious Injuries
by Jurisdiction
In 2010, there were 7,060 miles of state
highways, while county roads accounted
for more than five times that amount,
with 39,748 miles of road. Comparing
these two classes of roadways, state
routes carry more traffic volume and
county roads have narrower lanes and
shoulders, fixed objects closer to the
road, and steeper slopes beside the road.
The majority of fatalities have occurred
on state routes, followed by county
roads. The majority of serious injuries
have occurred on city streets, followed
by state routes.
Total Fatalities
by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Total Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
305 (46.4%)
2003
257 (42.8%)
2004
247 (43.6%)
2005
272 (41.9%)
2006
270 (42.7%)
2007
254 (44.5%)
2008
204 (39.2%)
121 (23.2%)
2009
215 (43.7%)
107 (21.7%)
2010
195 (42.4%)
122 (26.5%)
2011
203 (44.7%)
101 (22.2%)
125 (19.0%)
210 (31.9%)
149 (24.8%)
123 (21.7%)
185 (30.8%)
131 (22.9%)
14 (2.5%)
218 (33.6%)
165 (26.1%)
City Street
9 (1.5%)
183 (32.3%)
150 (23.1%)
State Route
18 (2.7%)
9 (1.4%)
190 (30.0%)
174 (30.5%)
178 (34.2%)
158 (32.1%)
130 (28.3%)
8 (1.3%)
12 (2.1%)
18 (3.5%)
12 (2.4%)
13 (2.8%)
138 (30.4%)
12 (2.6%)
County Road
Miscellaneous Trafficway
Total Serious
Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Total Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
1034 (32.5%)
2003
885 (32.1%)
2004
842 (30.4%)
2005
896 (31.3%)
2006
878 (29.7%)
2007
899 (33.1%)
2008
807 (31.6%)
1072 (42.0%)
2009
828 (31.3%)
1069 (40.4%)
2010
800 (32.2%)
2011
683 (32.0%)
1254 (39.4%)
829 (26.1%)
1150 (41.7%)
1183 (42.7%)
1192 (41.6%)
692 (25.1%)
33 (1.2%)
682 (24.6%)
62 (2.2%)
728 (25.4%)
1280 (43.4%)
870 (40.7%)
State Route
City Street
689 (25.3%)
635 (24.9%)
705 (26.6%)
1049 (42.3%)
594 (23.9%)
546 (25.6%)
County Road
24
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
51 (1.8%)
747 (25.3%)
1088 (40.0%)
63 (2.0%)
47 (1.6%)
42 (1.5%)
37 (1.5%)
44 (1.7%)
39 (1.6%)
37 (1.7%)
Miscellaneous Trafficway
Overview • Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users
Vulnerable Road Users
As shown in the chart on the next page, when a fatal or
serious injury collision involves a pedestrian, bicyclist or
motorcyclist, over 90% of these vulnerable road users are
the persons seriously injured or killed in that collision. This
compares to 45% of passenger vehicle occupants being
killed or seriously injured when they’re involved in a fatal
or serious injury collision.
Looking at the last 10 years (2002-2011), approximately
71% of traffic fatalities were occupants of passenger
vehicles, 12% were motorcyclists, 12% were pedestrians
and 2% were bicyclists (see figure below). Males
accounted for 73% of traffic deaths, while females
accounted for 27%.
Beyond this type of comparison, the actual risk of death
or injury among these vulnerable road users is unknown.
For motor vehicles, we calculate risk by deriving the rate of
death or injury per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (0.8
in 2011). Without similar measures for vulnerable road
users (i.e. miles traveled by motorcyclists or older drivers,
miles walked, and miles biked), a measure of overall risk
based on exposure to roadways is not possible.
Although the majority of fatalities involve passenger
vehicle occupants, certain road user groups are at much
greater risk of death and injury when they are involved
in traffic collisions. Vulnerable road users include
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and older road users.
Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Motorcyclists
Vulnerable road users are persons who are at greater risk
of death or injury when involved in traffic collisions.
Passenger vehicle occupants comprise the majority of
deaths and serious injuries overall because they are
involved in the most collisions. However pedestrians,
bicyclists and motorcyclists, when involved in collisions,
are more likely to be seriously injured or killed than an
occupant of a vehicle.
Current pedestrian, bicyclist and motorcyclist trends show
that death and serious injury among these vulnerable
road users is not declining like overall trends in our state.
In some instances, these deaths and serious injuries are
actually on the rise. Although the total numbers of deaths
and serious injuries among these vulnerable road users are
lower than other Target Zero priority areas, the flat or even
increasing trends show that we must do more.
Traffic
Fatalities by Person Type 2002-2011
Traffic Fatalities by Person Type 2002‐2011
Other/Unknown Vehicle Occupant*
177 (3.2%)
Bicyclist
97 (1.7%)
Pedestrian
672 (12.0%)
Passenger Vehicle Occupant
3,972 (70.9%)
Motorcyclist
687 (12.3%)
*Includes occupants of parked or non-
motorized vehicles (e.g., horse-drawn buggy),
scooters, ATVs, construction or farm
equipment, motorhomes, street sweepers, etc.
Compared to the overall fatality decline
from 2006-2008 to 2009-2011 (18.5%),
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and
older road users are not experiencing the
same declines. During this time period,
pedestrian deaths declined 2.5%, bicyclist
deaths 13.3%, motorcyclist deaths 8.4%
and older driver involved deaths 8%.
We must carefully monitor these
vulnerable road user groups to ensure the
limited past progress is not lost and new
progress is initiated in order to realize our
vision of zero. How we approach safety
among vulnerable road users may provide
some early insight into future challenges
and strategies to deal with flattening or
reversing trends in traffic deaths and
serious injuries.
25
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Overview • Rates, Road Types and Vulnerable Road Users
Older Road Users
may be revised for the next edition. The Special Rule for
older drivers applies if “traffic fatalities and serious injuries
per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of
65 in a state increases during the most recent two-year
period for which data are available.” Five-year average
population rates, rounded to one-tenth, separated by a
two-year period, are compared in order to monitor older
road users age 65 and older. Traffic fatalities and serious
injuries are combined for any road user (driver, passenger,
pedestrian, bicyclist, etc.) age 65 and older.
By 2030, the Washington population age 65 and older will
be double what it is today and will comprise the largest
vulnerable road user group. Physical vulnerability and
frailty among older drivers puts them at higher risk for
death and injury when involved in traffic collisions.
Improvements to the EMS and Trauma System have
improved survivability outcomes among older drivers
involved in collisions. However, with the dramatic growth
of this vulnerable road user group over the next several
decades, coupled with older drivers staying licensed longer
and driving more miles than in the past, we must carefully
monitor trends among older drivers to prepare for future
challenges.
In Washington, the older road user population fatal/
serious injury rate from 2005-2009 was 0.36 per 1,000
population, compared to the 2007-2011 rate of 0.34 per
1,000 population. In the case of Washington, the Special
Rule does not apply for fiscal year 2014. However, even
if it were to apply, Washington fulfills the requirement
by outlining strategies to address older road user traffic
fatalities and serious injuries in Target Zero.
Target Zero currently defines older road users as age
75 and older. With new MAP-21 requirements, and in
particular a Special Rule for older drivers, the definition
Comparison of Injury Severity of Vulnerable Road Users and Others
Injury Severity of Persons Involved in Fatal or Serious Injury Crashes Involved in Fatal or Serious Injury Collisions 2002-2011
2002‐2011
2.0%
4.8%
9.3%
54.7%
65.7%
80.5%
97.1%
95.2%
98.0%
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
90.7%
45.3%
34.3%
19.5%
2.9%
Passenger Auto
Pickup Truck
Heavy Truck
Bus
Fatality or Serious Injury
Motorcycle
Minor or No Injury
26
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
FPO
Priority
Level
One
Washington State 2009-2011
Fatalities
# of People
% of Total
Serious Injuries
# of People
% of Total
Priority Level One
Impaired Driver Involved
704
50.1%
1,519
21.0%
Run-Off-the-Road
615
43.7%
2,156
29.7%
Speeding Involved
555
39.5%
2,126
29.3%
Young Driver 16-25 Involved
487
34.6%
2,763
38.0%
Distracted Driver Involved
426
30.3%
868
11.9%
Intersection Related
290
20.6%
2,474
34.1%
Traffic Data Systems
**
**
**
**
1,406
7,247
Total*
* “Total” is for all fatalities and serious injuries in Levels One, Two and Three combined. More than
one factor is commonly involved in fatal and serious injury collisions. Therefore, each fatality and
serious injury in “Total” may be represented multiple times in the Level tables. For the Target Zero
Priorities Chart with all three priority levels, see page 9.
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Impaired Driver Involved
Executive Summary
decreased by 15% when compared to 2006-2008.
Washington’s system-wide approach to addressing
impaired driving has led to support for prevention
initiatives, comprehensive ignition interlock laws, better
law enforcement and prosecutor training, more Driving
Under the Influence (DUI) courts, and innovative, targeted,
full time DUI enforcement.
Impaired drivers were a factor in 50% of all traffic deaths
(704 of 1,406) and 21% of all serious injuries (1,519 of
7,264) between 2009 and 2011. Drivers in fatal crashes
were as likely to be impaired by drugs as by alcohol, with
almost 25% impaired by both. Fortunately, Washington is
experiencing declines in impaired driving. In 2009-2011,
impaired driver involved deaths and serious injuries both
Fifty percent of all traffic
deaths in the last three
years involved an alcohol
or drug impaired driver,
the most common factor
in roadway fatalities.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee signing the 2013 DUI Omnibus bill
(ESSB 5912) into law in Tacoma on July 18, 2013.
27
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Impaired
Driver Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Impaired Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
301
295
285
272
250
255 254
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 12 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=246
255
265
240
200
199
199
176
150
152
100
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Impaired Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Impaired Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 26 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
615
551
586 598
631 633
5YR AVG=536
570
527
470 479
400
434
383
332
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
28
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Background
The impacts of both Initiative 1183 (privatizing sales of
hard liquor in Washington) and Initiative 502 (legalizing
the sale and distribution of marijuana in Washington) have
presented us with new challenges. The number of stores
with hard liquor licenses has gone from 328 to 1,419, and
the number of hours during which liquor can be purchased
has nearly doubled – from 78 hours per week to 140,
according to the Washington State Division of Behavioral
Health and Recovery. Marijuana will become more easily
available as well.
Washington has been combating impaired driving for
decades and has made significant progress. While deaths
and serious injuries from impaired driving both declined
by 15% compared with 2006-2008, impaired driving
continues to be the main factor in fatal collisions in
Washington.
Much of the decline can be attributed to aggressive
campaigns to change the public perception of the
acceptability and consequences of drinking and driving.
These have been coupled with tougher laws, from the
1968 voter-passed implied consent law to the 1999 law
lowering blood alcohol concentration (BAC) per se limit
to 0.08.
Many other states are watching what the impacts of these
initiatives will be. We need to formulate new strategies
and policies to address these changes which have the
potential to slow our progress toward zero traffic deaths
and serious injuries by 2030.
The state has imposed ignition interlock requirements on
all DUI offenders and applied tougher sanctions for repeat
and high BAC offenders. This includes the 2007 felony
DUI law that applies to those offenders with four prior
DUI convictions within 10 years. Strict penalties are also
imposed for drivers under age 21 who drink and drive as
part of the “Zero Tolerance” statute.
If Washington is going to reach the goal of zero impaired
driving fatalities and serious injuries, we must continue
past successful endeavors while also pursuing new
approaches, proven strategies and best practices.
Despite these intensive efforts, impaired driving
remains a challenging issue for both Washington
and for the nation.
Current Washington law has a 0.08 BAC level at
which drivers in Washington are guilty per se of
the crime of DUI. However, a rigorous analysis by
Peck, et. al. (2009) found that drivers ages 21 and
above with a BAC of 0.07 are 39% more likely to be
involved in a traffic crash than drivers with a BAC
of 0.00. Furthermore, drivers under the age of 21
(who are not legally allowed to drink at all) with a
BAC of 0.07 are five times more likely to crash than
young drivers with a BAC of 0.00. Drivers at any
BAC level, even those below 0.08 can be arrested
for DUI if alcohol is impairing their ability to drive.
Recently, the National Traffic Safety Board has
recommended that the per se BAC limit be
lowered to 0.05 because most drivers begin to
have difficulties with depth perception and other
visual functions at that level. They believe if all 50
states adopted this standard, 1,000 lives could be saved
nationwide annually.
29
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Alcohol
Impaired Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Alcohol Impaired Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 8 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
215
200
203
180
5YR AVG=165
194
189
184
174
166
150
152
135
134
118
100
102
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Alcohol Impaired Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Alcohol Impaired Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 23 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
573
506
533 538
561
400
5YR AVG=482
554
527
477
417
436
390
344
299
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
30
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Drug
Impaired Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Drug Impaired Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 7 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
156
148
100
147 146
165
5YR AVG=147
153 152 154
119
119
110
105
91
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Impaired Driver Involved Fatalities
Total = 704
Speeding
Run-Offthe-Road
407
58%
237
34%
353
50%
Of the 704 impaired driver involved fatalities 2009-2011,
58% also involved run-off-the-road and 50% involved speeding. Combined, 34% of these fatalities involved both
run-off-the-road and speeding.
31
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Programs and Successes
Age and Gender
Impaired driving is a societal issue that pushes us beyond
traditional traffic safety partnerships. To that end, the
Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) chairs the
Washington Impaired Driving Advisory Council (WIDAC).
This council consists of representatives from law enforcement, health, injury prevention, treatment, prosecution,
judiciary, toxicology, training, private business, advocacy,
community task forces, probation, corrections, Tribal
nations, and liquor control. The council seeks to reduce
impaired driving statewide through coordinated planning,
training, programs and evaluation.
Integrated Systems Approach
• Just over half of people killed and seriously injured in
impairment-related crashes were ages 16-34
• Just over half (53%) of impaired drivers in fatal crashes
were ages 16-34
• Four out of five impaired drivers in fatal crashes were
male
Location
• Sixty-one percent of fatalities occurred on rural roads
• Five counties in Washington account for over 50% of
impaired driving fatalities: King, Pierce, Snohomish,
Yakima, and Spokane
Target Zero Teams
• Over half of fatalities occurred on the weekend
(between 7 p.m. Friday and 4:59 a.m. Monday)
A new program, Target Zero Teams (TZT) placed full-time
Washington State Patrol (WSP) DUI squads in King,
Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. The WSP teams were
joined by local law enforcement officers on the weekends
or other high DUI times. These multi-jurisdictional
squads focused their efforts on those locations with the
highest concentrations of DUI collisions. During the first
24 months of this project:
• The summer months of June through September
account for 42% of impairment related deaths
• TZT members contacted more than 34,000 motorists
and arrested 6,693 DUI offenders
• The most impaired driving involved deaths occurred in
August (13%) and the fewest in April (6%)
• TZT arrests for DUI and tickets for speeding and seat
belt violations have resulted in over $14 million in fines
and fees being levied
Time, Day, Month
• Nearly 60% of deaths occurred at nighttime
(7 p.m. - 4:59 a.m.)
Other
• Preliminary evaluation of the project showed that
alcohol and drug-impaired fatalities decreased by
34.4% in TZT counties during the first 10 months of the
project (compared to the five-year average for the same
10 month period), whereas
the control counties (Clark
and Spokane) experienced a
28.4% increase in the same
period (NHTSA, Nov. 2012).
• Sixty-three percent of those killed died in single-vehicle
crashes
• Forty-four percent of those impaired were the sole
occupants in their vehicles
• Twenty-six percent of
impaired drivers were also
distracted
• Motorcyclists are the only
person group in which drug
impairment, involved in 29%
of fatalities, exceeds alcohol
impairment
Based on the Federal Highway
Administration’s fatality cost
estimate, this project showed
a 115:1 return on investment for
the project funds. Following on
these successes, the project
has been expanded to include
Yakima and Spokane Counties.
• Impaired drivers are 38%
more likely to disobey traffic
signs, signals, officers or laws
32
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Reducing Excessive Drinking and Underage
Drinking
High Visibility DUI Enforcement Programs
WTSC funds quarterly statewide DUI Patrols called “Drive
Sober or Get Pulled Over.” Over 150 law enforcement
agencies participate in these campaigns. Paid media
messages are purchased to inform the public of the
increased enforcement. Information campaigns in
advance, paired with high visibility emphasis enforcement
patrols, and follow-up reporting of the results, have proven
to be an effective combination as documented in
Countermeasures That Work.
The Liquor Control Board’s
Enforcement and Education
Division identifies establishments
with the greatest number of
reported DUIs and focuses
resources on these establishments
through a program called
“Locations of Strategic Interest.”
Law Enforcement Training in Alcohol and Drug
Detection
Parental influence is an important factor in helping keep
children from drinking and drug use. WTSC partners with
the Liquor Control Board and MADD to educate parents
with the “Power of Parents” curriculum. This curriculum,
developed by MADD and Pennsylvania State University’s
Dr. Robert Turrisi, provides guidance for talking with teens
about the dangers of drinking before age 21, and is based
on research proven to reduce underage drinking by up to
30%.
The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program,
established in February 1996, trains law enforcement
officers to become Drug Recognition Experts (DREs).
Officers complete a rigorous training course and
certification process. This enables them to recognize the
symptoms of intoxication for seven different categories of
drugs using a 12-step standardized process to identify drug
impairment.
Prosecute, Sanction and Treat DUI Offenders
Washington implemented the Traffic Safety Resource
Prosecutor Program in August 2009. The program
provides training, technical and courtroom assistance, and
reference materials to prosecutors and law enforcement
officers in an effort to increase the vigorous and consistent
prosecution of impaired drivers. WTSC established the
Judicial Outreach Liaison program in 2013 to keep judges
apprised of new legal and technical issues surrounding
DUI cases.
The WSP provides DRE training to both WSP troopers,
as well as officers from local law enforcement agencies.
Since the program’s inception, the number of trained
DREs has risen from 16 to over 220, representing 73 law
enforcement agencies. The Statewide Standard Field
Sobriety Test (SFST) Coordinator Program provides
comprehensive, consistent, and timely impaired driving
training for all law enforcement agencies statewide.
In 2008 the new Ignition Interlock Program was created
to monitor ignition interlock providers, installers and the
offenders required to have them. The program serves as
the statewide expert on ignition interlock devices,
conducting manufacturer and installation site audits,
addressing offender compliance checks, and providing
educational training to law enforcement and the ignition
interlock community to ensure the continued effectiveness
of ignition interlocks.
There are currently DUI courts in Washington supported
by the WTSC. Each of these treatment based courts has
its own characteristics, but all use the DUI court principles
developed by the National Center for DWI Courts. More
information on those principles can be found at dwicourts.
org/learn/about-dwi-courts/-guiding-principles.
33
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Foster leadership to
facilitate impaired
driving system
improvements
2. Prevent excessive
drinking, underage
drinking,
and impaired driving
3. Encourage the
enactment of laws
when research
suggests such laws
will result in impaired
driving fatality and
serious injury
reductions
Strategies (How)
Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Continue to build partnerships designed to reduce impaired
driving. (P, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
1.2 Implement the corridor safety model in high-crash locations
where data suggests a high rate of impaired driving.
(P, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy,
Education, Engineering,
Enforcement
1.3 Utilize Target Zero Managers and community-based traffic
safety taskforces to address impaired driving issues.
(R, WTSC)
Leadership/Policy,
Education, Engineering,
Enforcement
2.1 Conduct well-publicized compliance checks of alcohol retailers
to reduce sales to underage persons. (R, CTW)
Enforcement
2.2 Conduct well-publicized enforcement aimed at underage
drinking parties. (R, CTW)
Enforcement
2.3 Encourage parents to talk with their children about the risks of
alcohol and other drugs. (R, DBHR)
Education
2.4 Continue mandatory alcohol server training, and explore
mandating training for people who sell alcohol in the retail
environment. (U)
Education
2.5 Support alternative transportation services such as transit
(especially at night), designated driver programs, and other
alternative ride programs to help eliminate need for impaired
individuals to drive. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.1 Encourage laws that will allow the state to utilize sobriety
checkpoints. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
3.2 Explore the implications to Washington for lowering the per se
BAC limit from .08 to .05 (R, META)
Leadership/Policy
3.3 Place limits on plea agreements. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
3.4 Increase the state excise tax on beer. (R, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
3.5 Encourage laws that use any money collected from DUI fines in
excess of $101 to support impaired driving efforts. (R, GHSA)
Leadership/Policy
3.6 Establish 24/7 sobriety program. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
3.7 Require ignition interlock installation as condition of pre-trial
release. (U)
Leadership/Policy
Continued on next page.
34
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Continued from previous page.
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
4. Discourage the
enactment of laws
when research suggests
such laws will result in
impaired driving
fatality and serious
injury increases.
4.1 Discourage expansion of access to alcohol, marijuana, and
other drugs. (U)
Leadership/Policy
5. Enforce and publicize
DUI laws
5.1 Continue statewide, high-visibility saturation enforcement and
media campaigns to reduce impaired driving. (R, CTW)
Enforcement, Education,
Communication
5.2 Expand full-time DUI squads targeting areas with high
numbers of DUI-related crashes. (R, DDACTS)
Enforcement, Education,
Communication
5.3 Enforce and publicize zero tolerance laws for drivers under age
21. (R, CTW)
Enforcement, Education,
Communication
6.1 Enhance law enforcement DUI training with Standard Field
Sobriety Test (SFST) training and refresher training. (P, NHTSA)
Education
6.2 Enhance law enforcement DUI training with Advance Roadside
Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training. (P, NHTSA)
Education
6.3 Expand the Drug Evaluation, Recognition, and Classification
Program. (R, CTW)
Education
7. Encourage consistent
and vigorous DUI
prosecution
7.1 Support DUI training for prosecutors and law enforcement
officers. (R, NHTSA)
Education
7.2 Provide prosecution of DUIs as part of the Target Zero Teams.
(U)
Education
8. Promote evidencebased and promising
court sentencing and
supervision practices
8.1 Incarcerate offenders who fail to comply with court-ordered
alternative sanctions. (P, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
8.2 Establish and support the Judicial Outreach Liaison program.
(R, NHTSA)
Education
8.3 Support and establish DUI Courts. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
8.4 Establish method for conducting home compliance checks on
DUI offenders. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
8.5 Conduct alcohol/drug assessments on all DUI offenders, and
enhance treatment and probation when warranted. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
8.6 Encourage attendance at DUI Victim’s Panels. (U)
Leadership/Policy
6. Enhance law
enforcement training
in alcohol and drug
detection
35
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
9. Use licensing
sanctions shown to be
effective at reducing
recidivism and
protecting the public
9.1 Suspend driver license administratively upon arrest. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
9.2 Require ignition interlock as a condition for license
reinstatement. (P, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
10. Expand the use of
Ignition Interlocks
10.1 Monitor ignition interlock manufacturers and installers to
ensure a continued viability and validity of program. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
10.2Monitor reports from ignition interlock manufacturers on
alcohol failures on ignition interlocks and conduct compliance
checks. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
10.3Investigate ignition interlock circumvention attempts.
(P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
11. Identify, intervene, and
refer individuals for
appropriate substance
abuse treatment
11.1 Continue and expand use of screening, brief intervention and
referral to treatment. (P, CTW)
Emergency Medical
Services
12. Establish and
maintain substance
abuse treatment
program availability
12.1 Match treatment and rehabilitation to the diagnosis. (P,NIH)
Leadership/Policy
13. Establish
programs to facilitate
close monitoring of
impaired drivers
13.1 Monitor DUI offenders closely. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
14. Provide timely,
accurate, integrated,
and accessible traffic
records data
14.1 Support efforts to simplify and streamline the DUI arrest
process including developing an electronic DUI arrest package,
utilizing the mobile impaired driving unit and BAC processors
for high-visibility campaigns. (R, NHTSA)
Leadership/Policy
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work DBHR = Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
GHSA = Governor’s Highway Safety Association
META = Meta Study
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIH = National Institute of Health
WTSC = Washington Traffic Safety Commission
36
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Definitions for Impaired Driving
Terms and Definitions
Washington State has focused on impaired driving for
many years and as a result, there is a great deal of data
on impairment. This gives us many ways of looking at the
problem. Here is a short list of impairment terms and their
definitions as used in this document:
Driving Under the Influence (legal definition): In
Washington State a person is guilty of driving while under
the influence ¬ of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any
drug ¬ if the person drives a vehicle within this state and:
• The person has, within two hours after driving, an
alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by
analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under
RCW 46.61.506; or
Impaired Driver Involved
Fatalities: Any driver with a Blood Alcohol Concentration
(BAC) of 0.08 or higher or a positive drug result as
confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory.
• The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC
concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of
the person’s blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or
Serious Injuries: Any collision in which the investigating
officer or Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) indicated that
the driver was impaired by drugs or alcohol and recorded
in contributing circumstances.
• The person is under the influence of or affected by
intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug; or
• The person is under the combined influence of or
affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, and any drug.
Drug Impaired Driver Involved
Fatalities: Any driver with a positive drug result as
confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory.
Drug: Any substance that, when taken into the human
body can impair the ability of the person to operate a
vehicle safely.
Serious Injuries: (Due to data limitations, including lack of
confirmation by toxicology, drug impaired driver involved
serious injuries are not reported.)
Per se Alcohol and Marijuana Limit: When a person is
found to have, within two hours after driving, an alcohol
concentration of 0.08 or higher or a THC concentration of
5.00 nanograms per milliliter of blood or higher as shown
by an analysis of the person’s breath or blood, that person
is guilty “per se” of driving under the influence. No further
proof is needed.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): The principal psychoactive
constituent of the cannabis plant. Marijuana consists
of the dried flowers and leaves of cannabis plants often
selectively bred to produce high levels of THC and other
psychoactive cannabinoids.
Alcohol Impaired Driver Involved
Fatalities: Any driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher as
confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory.
Serious Injuries: Any collision in which the officer or DRE
indicated that the driver was impaired by alcohol and
recorded in contributing circumstances.
Drinking Driver Involved
Fatalities: Any driver with a BAC of any value except 0
as confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory (also
includes alcohol impaired drivers).
Serious Injuries: Any collision in which the investigating
officer or DRE indicated that the driver was impaired by
alcohol and recorded in contributing circumstances or
driver sobriety is reported as “Had been drinking.”
37
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Impaired Driver Involved
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
7th Edition, Chapter 1 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 16: A Guide for Reducing Alcohol-Related Collisions (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v16.pdf
Washington’s Target Zero Teams Project: Reduction in Fatalities During Year One (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration), www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811687.pdf
NCHRP Report 501: Integrated Safety Management Process (National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_501.pdf
The Guiding Principles of DWI Courts (National Center for DWI Courts),
http://dwicourts.org/learn/about-dwi-courts/-guiding-principles
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to impaired drivers:
• RCW 46.61.502 – Driving under the influence.
• RCW 46.61.503 – Driver under twenty-one consuming alcohol or marijuana.
• RCW 46.61.504 – Physical control of vehicle under the influence.
38
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Run-Off-the-Road
Executive Summary
will need to be 10
fewer fatalities and
36 fewer serious
injuries each year
until 2030.
From 2009-2011, nearly half of all fatal collisions (44%),
and nearly one-third of all serious injury collisions (30%),
involved vehicles leaving the road. Speeding and
impairment remain the most frequent contributors in
run-off-the-road collisions, even though their numbers are
declining. Keeping vehicles on the road, and reducing the
impacts when they leave the road, are keys in reducing
run-off-the-road fatalities and serious injuries.
Nearly half of all
traffic fatalities were
run-off-the-road
collisions.
From 2009-2011, 36% of fatal and serious injury run-offthe-road collisions occurred on state routes. In
comparison, 39% occurred on county roads. Annual
breakouts of where these collisions are occurring are
presented in the graphs on page 41.
Over half (53%) of all fatal and serious injury run-off-theroad collisions (56% of fatal collisions, 52% of serious
injury collisions) occurred in horizontal curves. This
represented 1,277 of 2,418 run-off-the-road collisions.
Addressing driver behavior in curves, where curves
represent a small part of the overall roadway system, can
be one of the best ways to reduce run-off-the-road
collisions.
In 2010, there were 7,060 miles of state highways, while
county roads accounted for more than five times that
amount, with 39,748 miles of road. Comparing these two
classes of roadways, state routes carry more traffic volume
and had 881 run-off-the-road collisions (257 fatalities; 772
serious injuries). On the other hand, lower volume county
roads had 940 collisions (243 fatalities; 812 serious
injuries). This is due in part to county roads that include
narrower lanes and shoulders, fixed objects closer to the
road, and steeper slopes or ditches beside the road.
Background
In 2009-2011, run-off-the-road fatal and serious injury
collisions decreased by 14% when compared to 20062008 numbers. This decline rate is similar to the overall
decline rate for fatal and serious injury collisions. The top
contributing factors continue to be speeding and impaired
driving, which are also decreasing at a similar rate. To
achieve Target Zero for run-off-the-road collisions, there
For all roads, but especially county roads, run-off-the-road
collisions are dispersed over a large number of miles.
Systematic, low-cost improvements spread over a wide
area, in combination with enforcement of impaired driving
and speeding, is an efficient approach to reducing run-offthe road collisions.
39
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Run-Off-the-Road
Fatalities 2002-2011
Run‐Off‐the‐Road Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
286
278
250
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 10 per year (from 5yr Avg).
269
245 245
5YR AVG=213
243
200
227
208
200
188
173
150
152
132
100
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Run‐Off‐the‐Road Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Run-Off-the-Road Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
800
996
837
871
814
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 36 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=750
901
857
822
774
675
600
624
607
536
465
400
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
40
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Run-Off-the-Road
Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Run‐Off‐the‐Road Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
121 (42.3%)
2003
93 (38.0%)
2004
91 (37.1%)
2005
105 (37.8%)
53 (19.1%)
2006
108 (40.1%)
49 (18.2%)
2007
95 (39.1%)
2008
68 (32.7%)
2009
81 (35.7%)
2010
92 (46.0%)
2011
84 (44.7%)
27 (9.4%)
124 (43.4%)
42 (17.1%)
104 (42.4%)
32 (13.1%)
37 (17.8%)
14 (5.7%)
112 (40.3%)
8 (2.9%)
106 (39.4%)
6 (2.2%)
99 (40.7%)
11 (4.5%)
89 (42.8%)
40 (17.6%)
14 (6.7%)
98 (43.2%)
28 (14.0%)
State Route
6 (2.4%)
108 (44.1%)
38 (15.6%)
8 (3.5%)
71 (35.5%)
24 (12.8%)
14 (4.9%)
9 (4.5%)
74 (39.4%)
City Street
6 (3.2%)
County Road
Miscellaneous Trafficway
Run-Off-the-Road
Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Run‐Off‐the‐Road Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
348 (34.9%)
2003
299 (35.7%)
2004
276 (33.9%)
2005
314 (36.1%)
2006
280 (31.1%)
2007
294 (35.8%)
2008
261 (33.7%)
2009
280 (32.7%)
2010
243 (36.0%)
2011
249 (39.6%)
218 (21.9%)
388 (39.0%)
175 (20.9%)
343 (41.0%)
192 (23.6%)
36 (4.0%)
325 (39.5%)
181 (23.4%)
305 (39.4%)
200 (23.3%)
State Route
43 (4.9%)
345 (38.3%)
171 (20.8%)
138 (22.0%)
37 (4.5%)
321 (36.9%)
240 (26.6%)
165 (24.4%)
20 (2.4%)
309 (38.0%)
193 (22.2%)
42 (4.2%)
32 (3.9%)
27 (3.5%)
345 (40.3%)
247 (36.6%)
220 (35.0%)
City Street
County Road
32 (3.7%)
20 (3.0%)
21 (3.3%)
Miscellaneous Trafficway
41
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Programs and Successes
From 2009-2011, the most common contributing
factors in fatal or serious injury run-off-the-road collisions
were speeding (48%), impairment (41%), inattention
or distraction (18%), crossing the center line (16%) and
falling asleep/fatigued (8%). In fatal collisions, all of these
factors are present more often.
By implementing effective strategies to combat impaired
driving, speeding, and distracted driving, Washington
hopes to reduce the behaviors causing a vehicle to leave
the roadway. Strategies to address these behaviors are
listed in the respective chapters. In addition, applying
engineering strategies – such as installing rumble strips,
installing high friction surface treatments, and improving
signing and striping – can reduce the chance a vehicle will
leave the roadway.
Keeping Vehicles on the Road
Speeding was involved in 55% of run-off-the-road fatalities
and in 44% of serious injuries. Impairment contributed to
66% of fatalities and 33% of serious injuries. Impairment
is underreported in serious injury collisions, compared to
fatalities where impairment is confirmed by toxicology.
Inattention or distraction contributed to 32% of fatalities
and 13% of serious injuries.
Minimizing Consequences of Leaving the Road
Although preventing a vehicle from leaving the road in the
first place is the best solution, run-off-the-road collisions
still occur. The second line of defense for reducing
fatalities and serious injuries is minimizing the
consequences of leaving the road. By removing or
relocating roadside objects, creating more gentle roadside
slopes, and improving ditch design, engineers can reduce
deaths and serious injuries from a vehicle crashing or
overturning. In addition, installing guardrails and other
barriers can reduce the severity of impacts.
Young drivers age 16-25 were involved in over 35% of fatal
and serious injury run-off-the-road collisions.
Once a vehicle left the roadway, the most common
occurrences in fatal and serious injury collisions were:
overturn (18%), hit tree (15%), ran into ditch (8%), hit utility
pole (7%), ran over embankment (7%), hit earth bank (6%),
hit guardrail (6%), hit fence (5%) and hit parked car (4%).
Future Technology
Over 90% of fatal and serious injury run-off-the-road
collisions involve only one vehicle.
Run-Off-the-Road Fatalities
Total = 615
Impairment
407
66%
237
39%
Vehicle technology improvements also have the potential
to help reduce run-off-the-road collisions. For example,
some vehicles entering the
marketplace have lane departure
warning systems, alerting drivers
when they’re crossing over a road
edge line. These types of systems,
along with other future technology
developments, will assist with
keeping drivers on the road.
Speeding
340
55%
Of the 615 run-off-the-road fatalities 2009-2011, 66% also involved impairment and 55% involved speeding. Combined,
39% of these fatalities involved both impairment and speeding.
42
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce the number of
vehicles leaving the
roadway
2. Minimize the
consequences of
leaving the roadway
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Improve roadway signing and shoulder delineation, especially
in curves. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.2 Improve roadway geometry. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.3 Increase road surface skid resistance (higher friction factor)
using high friction surface treatments. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.4 Install center and/or edge line rumble strips. (P, WSDOT)
Engineering
1.5 Install/increase illumination at locations with night time
crashes. (R, FHWA)
Engineering
1.6 Install optical speed markings at curves. (R, LIT)
Engineering
1.7 Install delineation on fixed objects that cannot be removed
from the clear zone. (U)
Engineering
1.8 Install profiled center and edge lines. (U)
Engineering
1.9 Install wider edge lines. (U)
Engineering
1.10 Install dynamic curve warning signs. (U)
Engineering
2.1 Widen the clear zone. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.2 Install/maintain roadside safety hardware such as guardrail,
cable barrier, concrete barriers, crash cushions, etc.
(P, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.3 Design safer slopes and ditches to prevent rollovers.
(P, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.4 Remove/relocate objects, such as trees and utility poles, in
hazardous locations in the clear zone. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.5 Implement safe urban street designs. (P, NACTO)
Engineering
2.6 Remove or replace all non-standard guardrail. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.7 Install safety edge. (R, FHWA)
Engineering
2.8 Locate and inventory fixed objects inside the clear zone to
support development of programs and projects to reduce the
severity of run-off-the-road collisions. (R, WSDOT)
Leadership/Policy
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
NACTO = National Association of City Transportation Officials
WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation
LIT = Literature Review
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
43
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Run-Off-the-Road
Additional Resources
Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
Low Cost Local Road Safety Solutions (American Traffic Safety Services Association), http://safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09027/resources/Low%20Cost%20Local%20Road%20Safety%20
Solutions.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 3, A Guide for Addressing Collisions with Trees in Hazardous Locations (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v3.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6, A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v6.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 7, A Guide for Reducing Collisions on Horizontal Curves (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v7.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 8, A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Utility Poles (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v8.pdf
Roadway Departure Safety Resources (Federal Highway Administration),
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
44
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Speeding Involved
Executive
Summary
Speeding is the third-most
common factor contributing in
fatal and serious injury collisions.
From 2009-2011, speeding was
involved in nearly 40% of
fatalities and 30% of serious
injuries, right behind impaired
driving and run-off-the-road.
While speeding contributes to
a large percentage of collisions,
the number of speeding involved
crashes keeps going down.
Ongoing education of the public
about the dangers of speeding,
partnered with high visibility
patrols to enforce speed limits,
have proven to be effective
countermeasures.
Background
For pedestrians, the risk of
death is nine times higher
when struck at 30 mph than
at 20 mph. For both older
and child pedestrians, this
increase in risk is even greater
but occurs at lower speeds
(just over 20 mph). (see
Pedestrians chapter for more
information.)
From 2009-2011, speedinginvolved fatalities and
serious injuries declined
slightly faster than overall
statewide fatalities and
serious injuries. Compared
with 2006-2008, speedinginvolved fatalities have
declined 20% and serious
injuries have decreased
17%. Speeding continues to
frequently be coupled with
impairment and
run-off-the-road. In
Speeding was involved in
2009-2011, 64% of
nearly 40% of all traffic
speeding involved
fatalities in Washington
fatalities also included
impairment, and 61%
2009-2011.
resulted in a run-offthe-road collision.
Speeding involves drivers
traveling above the posted speed limit or too
fast for conditions. The risk of death and injury
increases substantially as collision speed
increases. As vehicle speed increases, the amount
of energy generated increases exponentially as a
result. For example, crashing into a wall at 80 mph
generates four times as much kinetic energy (the harmful
force in a crash) as hitting the same wall at 40 mph
(Department for Transport, London, September 2010).
Although the decline in speeding involved fatalities and
serious injuries is promising, much work remains to be
done. A statewide advisory council on reducing speeding
involved deaths and serious injuries is in the process of
being formed. The council is modeled after the successful
structure of the Traffic Records Committee (TRC) and the
Washington Impaired Driving Advisory Council (WIDAC).
This advisory body will meet to examine recent data and
research, and also to identify and recommend strategies
for reducing these crashes.
A review of 2009-2011 fatal and serious injury speed
related collisions shows the collisions almost equally split
on city streets, county roads and state highways. On state
highways, most of the collisions are on routes with a 60
mph speed limit. Most speed related fatal and serious
injury collisions on city streets and county roads are
occurring with posted speed limits of 35 mph.
45
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Speeding
Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Speeding Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 10 per year (from 5yr Avg).
260
250
247 253
234
226
227
200
5YR AVG=199
213
210
176
150
169
161
142
123
100
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Speeding Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Speeding Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000 1042
800
870
863
902
788
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 36 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=755
855
854
796
688
600
584
612
540
468
400
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
46
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
There are also trends with respect to when and where
speeding involved fatalities and serious injuries occur.
Speeding fatalities are highest
when the weather is warmer, on
weekends, and on rural roads.
More than half of speeding related
fatalities 2009-2011 were on rural
roads. Nearly one-third of both
speeding involved fatalities and
serious injuries occurred between
June and August. Almost half of
fatalities and 33% of serious
injuries involving speeding
occurred on weekends.
While speeding may be the only
contributing factor in some fatal
and serious injury crashes, it is
often combined with other
dangerous driving behaviors.
These include aggressive driving,
impairment by drugs or alcohol,
and not wearing a seat belt.
Impairment was involved in 64%
of speeding involved fatalities.
Sixty-one percent of speeding
involved fatalities resulted in run-off-the-road crashes. In
43% of speeding involved fatalities, both impairment and
run-off-the-road were factors.
Programs and Successes
Education, enforcement, and engineering all play a role in
getting drivers to slow down.
Speeding occurs more often among male drivers, young
drivers and motorcyclists. Males accounted for over 78%
of speeding-involved fatalities and over 66% of speedinginvolved serious injuries. Young drivers (ages 16-25)
represented 33% of speeding-involved fatalities and 35%
of speeding-involved serious injuries. Over half of all
motorcyclist fatalities involved speeding.
High Visibility Enforcement Campaigns, such as “Slow
Down or Pay Up,” are effective in changing and maintaining
safe driving behavior. They increase public awareness
about a particular issue, as well as educate about how to
reduce unsafe driving behaviors. The education is paired
with emphasis enforcement patrols, which deter targeted
behaviors by enforcing the moving violations with which
they are associated. These emphasis patrols are even more
effective when conducted in areas identified as having a
high number of speed related collisions.
Speeding Involved Fatalities
Total = 555
Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) cameras,
which have been installed in school zones and at
some railroad crossings across the state, are
another means of enforcement. The cities of
Seattle and Tacoma have piloted automated speed
enforcement cameras in other areas as well. (http://
www-stage.wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/
downloads/2013/01/ASEReport123112.pdf)
Run-Offthe-Road
Impairment
353
64%
237
43%
340
61%
On the engineering side, traffic calming techniques and speed
feedback signs help reduce speeds. Traffic calming measures
physically alter the road or layout to slow traffic. Examples
include speed bumps, narrowing roads by expanding
sidewalks, and even removing lanes. Speed feedback signs are
triggered when drivers exceed the speed limit, sending a visual
cue to slow down. These measures have been found most
effective in areas with posted speeds of 25-35 mph.
Of the 555 speeding involved fatalities 2009-2011, 64% also
involved impairment and 61% involved run-off-the-road.
Combined, 43% of these fatalities involved both impairment
and run-off-the-road.
47
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce speeding
through enforcement
activities
2. Use engineering
measures to
effectively manage
speed
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Increase use of speed enforcement. (P, CTW)
Enforcement
1.2 Conduct high visibility enforcement efforts at locations where
speeding-related crashes are more prevalent. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
1.3 Increase penalties for repeat and excessive speeding offenders.
(R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
1.4 Ensure law enforcement officers have appropriate equipment
for speeding enforcement. (R, WSP )
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
1.5 Establish and enforce lower speed limits for commercial
vehicles on higher-speed roads. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering, Enforcement
1.6 Increase use of aerial speed enforcement. (U)
Enforcement
2.1 Set speed limits which account for roadway design, traffic, and
environment, including traffic volume, modal mixed-use, and
local and regional function. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.2 Use traffic-calming and other design factors to influence driver
speed. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.3 Design and maintain speed limit and ensure warning signs are
visible and installed at appropriate intervals. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.4 Use electronic variable speed limit signs that change according
to conditions such as weather and congestion. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.5 Support the limited use of speed feedback signs to warn
motorists that they are exceeding the speed limit; continue
to research the most effective locations for these signs.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering, Education
2.6 Separate motorized traffic from non-motorized traffic using
shared-use paths, sidewalks, bridges, etc. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.7 Implement timed and coordinated traffic signals to improve
traffic flow, reduce red-light running, and manage speeds.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.8 Set consistent speed limits based on existing operation
considering for road design, traffic flows, traffic mix and other
environmental factors. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
Continued on next page.
48
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Continued from previous page
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 3. Build partnerships to
increase support for
speed reducing
measures
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
3.1 Expand corridor safety model to high-crash locations where
data suggests a high rate of speeding-related fatal or serious
injury crashes. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
Education, Engineering,
Enforcement
3.2 Educate the public about the dangers of excessive speed and
speed too fast for conditions, and its role in traffic fatalities.
(R, CTW)
Education
3.3 Encourage data sharing between local officers, Tribal police
and engineering agencies to identify and develop solutions for
areas where speeding is a problem. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
3.4 Educate prosecutors and judges to ensure speeding violations
are treated seriously and fairly. (R, NCHRP)
Education, Enforcement
3.5 Work with Washington Trucking Association and WSP’s
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division to encourage
company policies which, when backed with speed monitors or
speed regulators, can reduce speeding in commercial vehicles.
(R, WSP)
Leadership/Policy
3.6 Develop appropriate messages and methods to reach
segments of the population inclined to speeding or driving too
fast for conditions. (U)
Education
3.7 Develop education messages in multiple languages. (U)
Education
3.8 Educate about the effects of weather on appropriate speed.
(U)
Education
3.9 Collaborate with BIA, Indian Health Services, and NATEO to
support Tribal nations who seek to reduce speeding-related
collisions on Tribal lands. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.10 Implement neighborhood speed watch/traffic management
programs. (U)
Education, Enforcement
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
WSP = Washington State Patrol
49
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Speeding Involved
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure
Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th Edition, Chapter 3
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Guidelines for Developing a High-Visibility Enforcement
Campaign to Reduce Unsafe Driving Behaviors among Drivers of
Passenger and Commercial Vehicles (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2007),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/HS810851.pdf
“Literature review on vehicle travel speeds and pedestrian injuries among selected racial/ethnic groups,” Figure
1, Chapter III (W.A. Leaf and D.F. Preusser, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.html
“National Traffic Speeds Survey 1: 2007” (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012),
www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/traffic_tech/811644.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v23.pdf
Road Safety Web Publication No. 16: Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants (UK Department for Transport, 2010),
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to speeding:
• RCW 46.61.400 – Basic rule and maximum limits.
• RCW 46.61.410 – Increases by secretary of transportation – Maximum speed limit for trucks.
• RCW 46.61.440 – Maximum speed limit when passing school or playground crosswalks.
• RCW 46.61.465 – Exceeding speed limit evidence of reckless driving.
• RCW 46.61.470 – Speed traps defined, certain types permitted – Measured courses, speed measuring
devices, timing from aircraft.
• RCW 46.61.275 – Reporting of certain speed zone violations – Subsequent law enforcement investigation.
50
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Executive Summary
Nevertheless, we must press ahead with further
improvements to our young driver safety program. The
core problem comes down to poor choices and behaviors
greatly heightening their risk of crash involvement. The
reasons for this young driver pattern stems from brain
developmental processes, recently identified in research
studies. Further reductions in young driver involved
serious injury and fatality collisions will require us to
deepen our understanding of adolescent development
and alter our interventions accordingly.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for
young people ages 16 to 25 in Washington. Drivers in this
age group have the highest crash rate, and the highest
rates of speeding, impaired driving, and distracted driving
of any driver age group in the state.
From 2009-2011, 35% of traffic fatalities involved a young
driver age 16 to 25. In that same time frame, young drivers
were involved in 38% of all serious injury collisions.
Compared to 2006-2008, there has been a 26% decrease
in traffic fatalities involving a young driver and a 15%
decrease in serious injuries. These declines are greater
than declines in overall fatalities and serious injuries and
both the five- and ten-year trend lines predict zero young
driver involved fatalities and serious injuries before 2030.
Young drivers constituted 30% of
impaired drivers, 40% of speeding
drivers, and 27% of distracted
drivers in 2009-2011 fatal crashes.
51
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Driver
Age 16-25 Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Drivers Age 16‐25 Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 9 per year (from 5yr Avg).
271
250
254 250
226
234
223
200
5YR AVG=178
181 177
164
150
146
144
127
100
110
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2023!
50
0
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Drivers Age 16‐25 Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Driver Age 16-25 Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1400
1200
1409
1258
1228
1128
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 46 per year (from 5yr Avg).
1162
5YR AVG=950
1078
1019
908
941
769
800
803
678
588
600
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2027!
400
200
0
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
52
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Washington’s Intermediate Driver License Law
Between 2009 and 2011, young drivers
(ages 16-25) made up 14% of Washington
licensed drivers, but were involved in
crashes leading to 35% of traffic fatalities
and 38% of serious injuries.
In Washington, drivers who are 16 to 17 years old face
license restrictions designed to improve their safety, as
well as the safety of others. They are required to complete
a state certified driver training school curriculum and other
prerequisites to receive an Intermediate Driver License
(IDL). Following IDL licensure, those 16 to 17 years old have
restricted driving privileges (see box on page 54) which
can be lost with certain violations. After a third violation
the young driver’s IDL is suspended until age 18.
Background
Developmental Factors
Numerous research studies have shown young drivers
are more likely to crash for two principal reasons:
1) inexperience and 2) immaturity (see, e.g., Hedlund,
Shults, & Compton, 2003).
Young drivers are just learning to drive, so the “basics”
(e.g., staying centered in the traffic lane) require more
of their attention than that of experienced drivers. Their
inexperience also means that they have insufficient skill at
recognizing potential driving risks – or responding
appropriately to those risks.
However, new drivers of all ages are more likely to
crash. The difference is that young drivers are also
developmentally immature, sometimes seeking risks for
the thrills involved. They are also generally less able or
willing to think ahead to the potentially harmful
consequences of their risky actions. In fact, research on
adolescent development suggests key areas of the brain
(especially in the prefrontal cortex, the brain center for
judgment, decision-making, and deferring immediate
reward) are not fully developed until about age 25 (Dahl,
2008; Keating, 2007; Steinberg, 2007).
In the 12 years since implementation of Washington’s IDL
law, fatal and serious injury collisions involving
16- and 17-year-old drivers have declined an average of
9% per year.
During the same developmental period, the area of the
adolescent brain that mediates the anticipation of reward
becomes much more responsive to the presence and
influence of other teens than to that of adults.
Young drivers who wait until age 18 to apply for a driver
license are currently required only to pass the driving
knowledge and skill tests, the same as for new drivers of
any age in Washington.
These and other developmental changes combine to
render all young people much more vulnerable to the
dangers of driving (as well as other privileges associated
with adult life; see Van Leijenhorst, et. al, 2009; Chein, et.
al. 2010). Inexperience and immaturity combine to make
young drivers especially at-risk for crashing. Their risk is
especially heightened at night, after consuming alcohol or
drugs, with passengers in the car and when distracted.
53
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Impact of Waiting to Get a License Until
18 Years Old
Privatization of Knowledge and Skill Tests
In October 2012, DOL implemented legislation allowing
private and public driver training schools to administer the
knowledge and skills tests for licensure in Washington.
Formerly, this test was administered exclusively by DOL.
From October 2012 to May 2013, approximately 100,000
tests have been administered by over 280 approved driver
training schools, making the testing more available to the
public. Prior to October 2012, there were only 54 licensing
services offices across the state providing testing.
Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) data
shows that a significant number of teens wait until age 18
to get a driver license. This is of concern because newly
licensed drivers at age 18 may begin driving without
any driver training, road experience, or any of the IDL
restrictions imposed on 16- and 17-year-old drivers.
Approximately 35,000 16-year-olds, 10,000 17-year-olds
and 15,000 18-year-olds obtain a first time license
annually. About 5,000 19- to 25-year-olds obtain first
time licenses each year. Not all of the reasons some
adolescents are waiting for licensure until 18 years old
have been identified, though possible causes include the
high cost of driver education programs, a desire to avoid
IDL restrictions, and economic burdens related to the
recent recession.
All driving schools providing testing will be audited
annually to ensure compliance with rules and regulations.
DOL is collecting data to identify and address any issues
or concerns regarding this transition. The impact on
competency in driving skills has not been assessed, as
time must pass to determine needed changes, if any.
Intermediate Driver License Requirements
• Get the consent of a parent or guardian
• Hold an instruction permit for at least six months
• Complete a Driver Training School course
• Complete 50 hours of supervised driving, 10 of which are at night
• Commit no violations within six months of application
• Pass a knowledge test and driving test
• During the first six months of licensure, carry no passengers under
20 years old except members of the driver’s immediate family
• During the second six months of licensure, carry no more than three
passengers under 20 years old except members of the driver’s immediate
family
• Refrain from driving between 1-5 a.m. unless with a parent, a guardian, or a
licensed driver who is at least 25 years old
• Refrain from using wireless devices while driving, even hands-free. This
includes talking on cell phones and sending or receiving text messages.
Wireless devices may be used to report an emergency
54
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Impairment remains a critical issue for young drivers.
During 2009-2011, over 40% of 16- to 25-year-old drivers
in fatal collisions were impaired, a higher percentage than
for any other age group. The Venn diagram below (with
54% impairment) represents the percentage of fatalities
involving 16- to 25-year-olds regardless of who was
impaired: the young driver or an older driver in another
vehicle.
In fatal collisions 2009-2011, drivers age 16 to 25 were
about twice as likely to be speeding, and three times
more likely to be passing improperly, compared to drivers
ages 26 and older. Drivers ages 16 to 25 were also 20%
more likely to be impaired. Fatalities and serious injuries
involving 16- to 17-year-old drivers are decreasing twice
as fast as those involving 18- to 20-year-old drivers. The
reasons for this progress are unclear, though Washington’s
IDL restrictions may play a role.
Male 16- to 25-year-old drivers in particular are more than
twice as likely to be impaired in fatal crashes as 36- to
45-year-old males. Sixteen and 17-year-old male drivers
were twice as likely to be impaired by drugs as by alcohol.
Far and away, the drug of choice in this age and gender
group was marijuana. Conversely, 21- to 25-year-old male
drivers were twice as likely to be impaired by alcohol as by
drugs.
Young Driver 16-25 Involved Fatalities
Total = 487
Impairment
265
54%
162
33%
Both 16- and 17-year-old males and 18- to 20-year-old
males were over three times more likely to be impaired
in fatal crashes than their female counterparts. An even
greater disparity exists with 21- to 25-year-old males, who
are over five times more likely to be impaired than their
female counterparts. They are also nearly three times
more likely to be impaired than male drivers ages 36 to 45.
Speeding
246
51%
Young Driver 16-17 Involved Fatalities
Total = 60
Of the 487 young driver (age 16-25) involved fatalities from
2009-2011, 54% also involved impairment and 51% involved
speeding. Combined, 33% of these fatalities involved
Impairment
both impairment and speeding.
Speeding
21
35%
15
25%
31
52%
Of the 60 fatalities involving young drivers age 16-17 from
2009-2011, 35% also involved impairment and 52% involved
speeding. Combined, 25% of these fatalities involved both
impairment and speeding.
55
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Speeding is more frequent among drivers age 16 to 25
than any other age group. Drivers age 16 to 25 involved in
fatal collisions were nearly twice as likely to be speeding
as drivers ages 36 to 45. Overall, speeding contributed to
51% of fatalities involving a driver age 16 to 25. Males in
this age group were five times more likely to be speeding
as their female counterparts, and over six times more likely
to be speeding as 36- to 45-year-old males.
Looking at all ages, male drivers outnumber female drivers
in fatal crashes by roughly 3 to 1. However, female drivers
in fatal crashes drive distracted at a greater rate than
their male counterparts. In particular, 16- to 17-year-old
female drivers involved in fatal collisions were more
than twice as likely to have been driving distracted as
their male counterparts. Over 44% of 16- to 17-year-old
female drivers involved in fatal collisions were identified
by police as driving distracted, compared to 23% of
18- to 25-year-old females.
Young Driver 18-20 Involved Fatalities
Total = 171
Speeding
Impairment
92
54%
60
35%
92
54%
Young Driver 21-25 Involved Fatalities
Total = 279
Of the 171 fatalities involving young drivers age 18-20 from
2009-2011, 54% also involved impairment and 54% involved
speeding. Combined, 35% of these fatalities involved both
impairment and speeding.
Speeding
Impairment
160
57%
94
34%
136
49%
Of the 279 fatalities involving young drivers age 21-25 from
2009-2011, 57% also involved impairment and 49% involved
speeding. Combined, 34% of these fatalities involved both
impairment and speeding.
56
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Violation Rates of Younger Drivers
However, 16- to 17-year-olds were the only group whose
violation rates deteriorated in their second two-year
period. This outcome may result from the fact that at age
18 or 19 they were no longer driving under IDL restrictions,
less likely to receive parental supervision, and more likely
to increase their driving mileage, thus becoming more
exposed to opportunities for committing (and being cited
for) driving violations.
A 2013 DOL analysis compared violation rates among
newly licensed 16- to 25-year-old drivers during their first
four years of licensure. Violation figures for each driver
were grouped into an initial two-year period and the
following two-year period (after licensure).
The analysis showed 40% of newly licensed 18- to
19-year-olds received a violation in their first two years
of driving but then improved slightly in their second two
years, the violation rate dropping to 34%, still highest
among all age groups. It is important to note that the initial
violation rate among 18- to 19-year-olds was far worse
than the comparable rate for 16- to 17-year-olds (29.7%).
45%
The remaining newly licensed groups (ages 20 to 25) all
progressively improved during their second two-year
period of licensure.
Young Drivers Newly Licensed in 2007‐2008 with Violation(s) in the First Young
Driver Newly Licensed in 2007-2008 with Violation(s) in the First
Four Years Following Licensure
Four
Years Following Licensure
40%
40.8%
35%
34.2%
34.4%
32.0%
30%
29.7%
25%
25.7%
26.9%
23.9%
20%
19.3%
15%
17.6%
10%
5%
0%
Age 16‐17
Age 18‐19
Age 20‐21
Violated FIRST 2 Years After Licensure
Age 22‐23
Age 24‐25
Violated SECOND 2 Years After Licensure
57
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Programs and Successes
Driver Training Programs
Since traffic safety education funding was decreased
dramatically in 2001, a large majority of driver training
schools in Washington are now privately owned
businesses. Currently there are over 300 private businessbased and 82 public school-based driver training school
programs in place across the state. Regulation of private
driving schools is done by DOL. Regulation of programs
in high schools is handled by the Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction. Efforts are underway to align these
programs.
Young Driver Task Force
The Young Driver Task Force, comprising representatives
from both public and private organizations, is working to
improve young driver safety. They meet at least quarterly
to ensure a coherent policy and program approach to
reducing fatalities and serious injuries among young
drivers in Washington. The task force’s priorities include
working to increase compliance with the IDL by involving
parents and law enforcement, strengthening pre-licensure
driver education and recommending improvements to the
IDL law.
Washington State Coalition to Reduce
Underage Drinking (RUaD)
Department of Licensing Letters
The RUaD Coalition provides state-level leadership to
reduce underage drinking by leveraging resources and
strengthening communities in Washington State.
Reducing underage access to alcohol is one way to curb
young driver crashes involving impairment. The coalition
goals are to:
In March 2011, the DOL began sending letters to all
18- to 21-year-old drivers receiving their first moving
violation. DOL implemented this program because data
shows a driver’s chances of collision doubles after
receiving their first violation. Sixteen and 17-year-olds were
already receiving a similar letter while under the rules of
the IDL. About 2,000 letters per month have been sent
to young drivers since the start date. Review and analysis
began in the spring of 2013 to determine if the program
reduced recidivism among these first-time violators.
• Analyze and disseminate information and, as
appropriate, promote public or corporate policy changes
(includes information on laws, ordinances, advertising,
packaging, energy drink mixing, emerging issues, and
others)
• Monitor pertinent legislation and rule-making
Seat Belt and Impaired Driving Patrol Media
Outreach
• Support youth influencers such as parents, caregivers,
educators, coaches, religious leaders and other youth
For over 10 years, Washington State has been conducting
High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) patrols to decrease
impaired driving and increase seat belt use. Prior to
conducting these patrols, a media campaign is made to
warn citizens about the impending extra enforcement.
This model has been shown to change behavior over
time. Because young drivers are over-represented in fatal
and serious injury crashes, media campaigns are heavily
focused on the media outlets to which they pay attention.
RUaD’s StartTalkingNow.org program is based on research
showing parents are a significant influence in a child’s life.
The program supports parents and other youth influencers
such as coaches, religious leaders and educators by
providing information and resources that help youth make
healthy choices and lead substance-free lives. Its Let’s
Draw the Line between Youth and Alcohol (LDTL) program
helps support groups across the state, mostly comprised
of youth, carry out a variety of underage drinking
prevention activities in their communities. The range
of LDTL activities has included partnering with law
enforcement, assessing local alcohol advertising, and
promoting the positive, healthy norms most teens have.
58
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
High School Outreach
Party Intervention Patrol
The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
partnered with State Farm® Insurance to promote
awareness among high school students about distracted
and impaired driving, as well as seat belt use. Teens reach
a developmental stage where the influence of other teens
is much more powerful than that of parents and other
adults. Therefore peer-to-peer education programs
provide a valuable format for promoting healthy behaviors.
Pierce and Thurston Counties have implemented
Party Intervention Patrol (PIP) projects that use
multijurisdictional law enforcement teams to locate
underage drinking parties. This project uses the core
components of successful intervention programs: alcohol
screening and motivational interviewing.
Immediate volunteer and professional support is provided
to the kids and their parents through an alcohol screening
process known as “Brief Intervention.” Alcohol screenings
and brief interventions, at a location other than the party,
have been shown to successfully reduce future underage
drinking (D’Onofrio and Degutis, 2004). Youth have the
opportunity to meet one-on-one with chemical
dependency professionals and receive referrals to
relevant resources.
Through the program, teens are given a list of educational
action steps to guide them in the process of learning
about the dangers of distracted and impaired driving.
They learn ways to re-package the information and share
it with teens, as well as members of the community at
large. During one school calendar year (September 2012
– June 2013) 102 high school educational projects were
conducted on themes that included distracted driving,
teen alcohol use and impaired driving and the promotion
of seat belt use.
In advance of the PIP patrols, media campaigns and news
media outreach are used to publicize PIP patrols to both
teens and their parents in an effort to deter the behavior
before it happens. Mass media campaigns are a proven
countermeasure when combined with program activities.
Alcohol compliance checks using underage decoys,
citations and rechecks of offending stores are also a part
of the PIP program.
59
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Driver
Age 16-17 Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Drivers Age 16‐17 Involved Fatalities, 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 1 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
100
50
46
50 42
25 28
29
0
5YR AVG=22
18
16
14
23 21 18 21
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Drivers Age 16‐17 Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Driver Age 16-17 Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 8 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
400
301
200
224
199 186 223 185
5YR AVG=157
166 164
122
108
136
93
103
0
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
60
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Driver
Age 18-20 Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Drivers Age 18‐20 Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 3 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
100
103
94
95
83 87
5YR AVG=61
82
50
54
68
50
55
44
48
38
0
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Drivers Age 18‐20 Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Driver Age 18-20 Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 17 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
557
500
400
454
479
5YR AVG=356
459
385
394
316
370
314
288
200
254
220
0
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
61
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Driver
Age 21-25 Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Drivers Age 21‐25 Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 5 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
156
130
100
125
128 121
100
109
5YR AVG=102
82
100 98
73
81
63
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Drivers Age 21‐25 Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Driver Age 21-25 Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by an average of 24 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
660
651
590
573 574
578
5YR AVG=502
488 508 510
400
426
406
359
311
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
62
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Foster compliance
with the State’s IDL
laws
2. Strengthen
Intermediate Driver
License restrictions
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Encourage Tribes to pass IDL laws. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
1.2 Provide resources to Young Driver Task Force to improve
awareness of (especially for parents and teens) and compliance
with the IDL law. Highlight high-risk situations where clear
parental limit-setting will be most effective. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
1.3 Promote better enforcement of IDL by passing legislation
requiring a “sticker” program for marking vehicles used by IDL
license holders and by educating and encouraging officers to
enforce the law. (R, LIT)
Leadership/Policy
1.4 Provide local Target Zero Task Forces with information and
materials about IDL for teens, parents, law enforcement, and
driver education programs. (R, WTSC)
Education Leadership/
Policy
2.1 Adjust curfew to include 9 p.m. - 1 a.m., the hours when young
driver serious injury and fatality crashes are highest. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Lengthen permit holding period beyond six months. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
2.3 Extend passenger restriction to one full year after licensed.
(R, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
2.4 Strengthen requirements for parents around the
documentation and certification of the 50-hour behind-thewheel time young drivers are to complete before licensure. (U)
Leadership/Policy
2.5 Strengthen restrictions so penalties kick in with the first ticket
IDL driver gets. (U)
Leadership/Policy
Continued on next page.
63
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 3. Improve young
driver education and
intervention
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
3.1 Review and revise the Driver Guide, testing process, curriculum
guidelines, and training standards to construct an overall driver
training package focused more on hazard identification and
less on skill training. (R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
3.2 Conduct a recidivism study to assess the impact of the DOL
early warning letter program for 18- to 21-year-olds. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.3 Consider expanding driver restrictions and driver education
requirements to new drivers of all ages. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.4 Update model traffic safety education curriculum to match
NHTSA standards. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.5 Consider implementation of licensing standards used in
countries with superior driving statistics such as the United
Kingdom. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.6 Promote teen/parent safe driving contract. (U)
Education
4. Improve enforcement
of high risk behaviors
among young drivers
4.1 Conduct statewide high-visibility enforcement and media
campaigns focused on young drivers. (U)
Enforcement, Education
5. Enforce compliance
with the State’s
underage drinking law
5.1 Conduct well-publicized enforcement aimed at underage
drinking parties. (R, CTW)
Education Enforcement
5.2 Publicize and enforce underage drinking and driving laws.
(R, CTW)
Education
5.3 Track underage drinking violations pre- and post-liquor
privatization. (U)
Leadership/Policy
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
LIT = Literature (Although we could not locate a meta study, there is sufficient independent literature with favorable results to
justify as a recommended strategy)
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
WTSC = Washington Traffic Safety Commission
64
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Young Driver 16-25 Involved
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 6 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
OECD Young Drivers, The Road to Safety (2006)
www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/06YoungDrivers.pdf
Promoting Parent Involvement in Teen Driving: An In-Depth Look at the Importance and the Initiatives
(Governor’s Highway Safety Association, 2013), http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/sfteens13.pdf
RUaD Coalition Strategic Plan 2011-2013 (Washington State Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking),
http://www.starttalkingnow.org/our-efforts/strategic-plan-2011-2013
Screening and Brief Intervention in the Emergency Department (Gail D’Onofrio, MD, MS and Linda Degutis,
DrPH, in Alcohol Research & Health, 2004), http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh28-2/63-72.pdf
Teen Driver Safety (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety), https://www.aaafoundation.org/teen-drivers
Washington State Department of Licensing website,
http://www.dol.wa.gov/
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to young drivers:
• RCW 46.20.055 – Instruction permit.
• RCW 46.20.075 – Intermediate license.
• RCW 46.20.267 – Intermediate licensees.
65
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One
• Young
Priority
LevelDriver
One 16-25 Involved
AAA Parent-Teen Driving Agreement
Learning to drive can be both exciting and stressful for a teenager — and his or her parents. AAA has developed this parent-teen driving
agreement to help families work together to safely navigate the learning process. The agreement helps establish rules and consequences for
teens, but also places responsibilities on parents. Safe driving generally requires much more than what state laws call for, and signing an
agreement before the teen starts driving can be helpful in establishing expectations for the whole family. By working as a team, parents and
teens can accomplish their shared goal — a safe, successful teen driver. Note: Driver licensing requirements vary by state and should be
considered a minimum for teens. Find state-by-state requirements and a full-length driving agreement at AAA.com/publicaffairs.
Non-Negotiable Rules for Everyone
Parent(s) and teen will:
Parent(s) and teen will NOT:
•
•
•
•
•
• Drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs
or ride with an impaired driver
• Engage in racing, stunts, or other thrill-seeking
while behind the wheel
• Conceal tickets, warnings, or crashes
• Allow anyone else to drive the car
Wear seat belts and require all passengers to wear seat belts
Obey all traffic laws
Drive at safe speeds for road conditions — at or below the speed limit
Be a courteous driver
Agree to meet at least once per month to discuss the teen’s driving
performance and plans for the next month
Learner’s Permit
Parents and teens should practice a minimum of two hours each week for at least six months (several states require longer) to ensure the
teen gains ample experience in a range of driving conditions before solo driving.
Parent(s) will:
Teen will:
•
•
•
•
•
• Actively participate in driver training classes
• Make time for practice driving
• Not drive without parent(s)
Provide and maintain a safe vehicle
Pay for driver training classes and materials
Be available for practice driving above and beyond what is required by law
Provide practice on a variety of road types and driving conditions
Share observations and provide coaching in a calm, respectful manner
Intermediate License/Solo Driving
Driving without a parent poses new challenges for a teen. Crash rates are especially high during the first year of driving. Research shows
that teens have fewer crashes when there are limits on solo driving that gradually relax as they gain experience. The table below is based on
research and modeled after the National Institute of Health’s Checkpoints program. Suggestions are provided in the boxes below; check
that the rules you set meet requirements in your state. Breaking rules, at-fault crashes, and moving violations should result in reverting to
an earlier phase for a pre-determined time. Critical violations (racing, reckless driving, drinking and driving, etc.) should result in license
suspension for a pre-determined time.
Start date
No driving after
Passengers
First Two Months
Months 3-6
Months 7-12
___/___/____
8 p.m. or dark
No one under 25
___/___/____
9 p.m.
No other teens
___/___/____
10 p.m.
No more than one
Local
Dry
No highway
Moderate
Most
Most
Roads
Weather
Parent(s) will:
Teen will:
• Continue to provide practice on a range of road
types and in various driving conditions
• Consider appropriate exceptions when
asked in advance
•
•
•
•
Always tell parent(s) where he/she is going and with whom
Always call home if going to be late
Always call home if it’s not safe to drive or ride
Pull safely off the road before using a cell phone or other electronic device
Signatures
Teen: ________________________________
Parent/Guardian: ________________________________
66
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Date: _______________
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Distracted Driver Involved
Executive Summary
Distracted driving as a contributing factor in collisions is
difficult to estimate as crash investigators can identify it
only through actual evidence such as self-reporting,
witness testimony and evidence indicating distraction. It is
suspected to be underreported in fatal and serious injury
collisions because police investigators frequently have
difficulty confirming distraction as a factor.
Distracted driving includes any non-driving activity that
diverts a driver’s attention from the task of driving itself.
This includes general inattentiveness/carelessness, cell
phone use, eating, drinking, smoking, attending to objects
inside or outside of the vehicle, and manipulating vehicle
controls.
Furthermore, while cell phone involved distraction
currently gets a lot of attention, it is rarely reported as
a contributing factor in collisions when distractions are
noted. For instance in the 2009-2011 period, driver cell
phone use was noted as a contributing factor in only seven
fatality crash reports. Despite collision data limitations,
observation data suggests distracted driving is increasing.
From 2009 through 2011 distracted driving was a factor
in 426 fatalities (30%) and 868 serious injuries (11.9%).
During this period Washington saw a 6% decrease in
distracted driver involved fatalities and an 18% decrease
for distracted driver involved serious injuries compared to
2006-2008. While this decrease is encouraging, the
five- and 10-year trend lines point out where we appear to
be losing ground.
The data in this chapter reflects
only those collisions that police
are certain involved a distracted
driver. However, it is believed
distracted driving plays a larger
role in fatal and serious injury
collisions than these numbers
indicate.
Male drivers typically engage in high
risk behaviors, such as impairment
and speeding, more often than female
drivers. However, female drivers in
fatal collisions were slightly more
likely to be distracted than their
male counterparts, 23% versus 21%.
67
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Distracted
Driver Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Distracted Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 7 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
176 172
5YR AVG=140
176
168
150
161
148
139
128
134 131
114
100
100
87
50
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Distracted Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Distracted Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 16 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
400
331
200
365 359
5YR AVG=318
325
293
250
228 223
184
203
258
227
197
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
In 2006, the Police Traffic Collision Report was modified to more accurately capture driver distraction in traffic collisions, as directed by the Washington State Legislature (RCW 46.52.060). This change resulted in more detailed, accurate reporting of distracted driving but also in a ‘data
spike’ of distracted driving in collisions. The 10-year trend has been distorted by this change, so it appears as if we are losing ground. The five-year
trend line represents a more complete picture of distracted driving, including the downward trend in distraction involved serious-injury collisions.
68
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Background
Challenges Documenting Distracted Driving
Compared to 2006-2008, between 2009-2011
Washington saw a 6% decrease in traffic fatalities and an
18% decrease in serious injuries where distracted driving
was involved.
It’s hard to track collisions caused by distracted driving.
While distracted drivers are a common spectacle on our
roads, identifying distraction as a contributing factor of
a collision is not so easy to do. By the time investigators
arrive at the scene, the distraction has passed or been put
away. Drivers rarely volunteer the information they were
talking on their phone or distracted in some other way.
Additionally, independent witnesses or specific evidence
is rare.
Who’s Driving Distracted?
From 2009-2011, male drivers outnumbered female drivers
by roughly 3-to-1 in all fatal collisions statewide. However,
a greater proportion of those female drivers (23%) were
identified by investigators as distracted than their male
counterparts (21%).
Before selecting any of the 13 specific distraction codes
listed on the collision report, an officer or an involved party
needs to witness the distraction, a driver must self-report
the action, or cell phone records must be subpoenaed, as
sometimes happens in a serious injury or fatality collision
investigation.
Surveys of driver handheld cell phone use in Washington
reported 2-3% of daytime drivers were observed talking
on these devices (phone to ear, thus excluding hands-free
use). However, less than one-half of one percent of drivers
in crashes are identified by police as talking on handheld
cell phones. Therefore the conclusion is cell phone use is
underreported in both fatal and serious injury collisions.
Cell Phone Use
Cell phone use has increased dramatically in a short time.
The National Center for Health Statistics estimates in
2011, 55% of Washington households used cell phones
exclusively or mostly (versus landline phones). This is an
increase of 25% in one year, up from 44% of households
in 2010. This fast rise in mobile technology has allowed
us to stay connected to people and information no matter
where we are.
This gender gap is most distinct for 16- to 17-year-old
drivers. Law enforcement noted distraction as a
contributing factor for 47% of 16- to 17-year-old female
drivers involved in fatal collisions, but for only 20% of
same-age males. This is contrary to the more common
pattern of males being greater represented in other
contributing factors. For instance, 55% of male drivers 16
to 17 years old were cited for speeding, versus only 21% of
same-age females.
Unfortunately this connectivity also extends to our time
behind the wheel. Even so, there has not been a sharp rise
in collisions involving cell phone use, or even a rise in
“unknown distraction” collisions, which could be
attributable to cell phones. More detailed information
is needed on the role of cell phones in Washington
traffic collisions.
Inexperience and immaturity combine to make young
drivers especially at-risk for crashing. Their risk is
especially heightened at night, after consuming alcohol or
drugs, with passengers in the car and when distracted.
69
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Contributing Circumstances and Factors
Other high-risk behaviors are also often coupled with distracted driving. During the 2009-2011 period, impairment was
involved in 48% of distracted driver involved fatalities and speeding was involved in 36%. Twenty-one percent (21%)
of fatalities included both speeding and impairment. Not surprisingly, 47% of distracted driver involved fatalities also
included a run-off-the-road event.
Surprisingly, among all distracted drivers involved in 2009-2011 fatal collisions, 30% were drivers ages 66 and older.
These older drivers were followed by drivers age 16-25, who represented 23% of distracted driving involved fatalities.
Distracted Driver Involved Fatalities
Total = 426
Impairment
204
48%
89
21%
Speeding
152
36%
Of the 426 distracted driver involved fatalities 2009-2011,
48% also involved impairment and 36% involved speeding.
Combined, 21% of these fatalities involved both impairment
and speeding.
70
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Programs and Successes
Washington’s Cell Phone Law is Being Enforced
Enforcement of using a handheld wireless communications device or texting while operating a motor vehicle became a
primary enforcement law in Washington effective June 10, 2010. In the years preceding this change, handheld cell phone
citations averaged 700 per month. After the law changed, the average rose to 4,000 per month.
Washington
Case Filings for ‘Handheld Cell Phone Use’ Violation
Washington Case Filings for 'Hand Held Cell Phone Use' Violation
4,980
Number of Case Filings
5,000
4,182
4,000
3,728
3,000
Primary law effective June 10, 2010
2,817
2,561
2,000
1,000
642
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Data source: Adminstrative Offices of the Courts (AOC). Number of cases filed under RCW 46.61.667 (using wireless telecommunications device while driving) for violations identified by WSP and local law enforcement. Does not include cases filed in Seattle Municpal Court (SMC). Texting while driving is harder to enforce, as evidenced by
a lower number of citations both before and after the law
change. Texting citations prior to the change averaged
Preparedand
by Washington
Safety Commission
30 per month,
after, 130Traffic
per month
(source: 10/26/2011/kr
Administrative Office of the Courts). To combat this
enforcement challenge with texting, law enforcement
officers sometimes work in tandem. One will be posted at
a safe observation point and radio a downstream officer
after witnessing someone breaking the law.
During the 2013 fiscal year, the King County Target Zero
Task Force implemented a multijurisdictional high visibility
enforcement campaign to reduce distracted driving. Law
enforcement agencies conducted patrols. An educational
component informed motorists not only of the hazards of
distracted driving, but warned about extra patrols. This
reinforced the message that distracted driving carries
consequences.
Some city and county prosecutor’s offices have enjoyed
successes by dedicating “Rule 9 intern” prosecutors in
their district courts to distracted driving infractions.
The interns have paid for themselves through upheld
infractions with stiffer fines and gained valuable court
experience.
Click It or Ticket Mobilization Dual Messaging
and High Visibility Enforcement
Washington included a cell phone component in its media
messages for the 2013 Click It or Ticket (CIOT) campaign.
The sharp increase in cell phone citations referenced
above was also reflected in previous years’ annual CIOT
campaign statistics. Warning the public of their increased
chance of receiving both seat belt and cell phone violations
seemed like the right thing to do. A new radio ad was
developed to address this dual message.
71
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
High School Distracted Driving Project
Intervention Strategies for Implementation of
Distracted Driving Laws
The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
and State Farm® Insurance have partnered to promote
awareness about the dangers of distracted driving among
high school students. Many teens reach a developmental
stage where the influence of other teens is much more
powerful than that of parents and other adults. Therefore,
peer-to-peer education programs provide a valuable
format for promoting healthy behaviors.
The Intervention Strategies for Implementation of
Distracted Driving Laws project grew from a statewide
collaboration in Washington State between the
Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center,
Public Health – Seattle & King County, and King County
prosecutorial leadership. The project’s overarching goal
is to reduce cell phone use among Washington drivers by
identifying effective strategies to improve implementation,
enforcement and prosecution of distracted driving
legislation.
As part of this program, teens are given a list of educational
action steps which guide them in the process of learning
about the dangers of distracted driving. They learn ways to
re-package the information and then share it (i.e. promote
anti-distracted driving safety messages) with other teens,
members of the education community and the community
at-large. Students then document their efforts to qualify
for $500 grants. The program is funded by State Farm‰
and administered by the WTSC. It began in February 2012
and, as of June 2013, distracted driving and teen alcohol
projects have taken place in over 90 Washington high
schools.
Project components include law enforcement focus
groups, interviews with legal and judicial experts,
observations of cell phone use among Washington drivers
and development of a public health law database.
Tailored intervention strategies for law enforcement and
prosecutors are planned to be developed, conducted and
evaluated in six Washington counties. Results will be
shared to inform state policy makers and to provide
recommendations to other states.
Driving Expectations Contracts
Some insurance companies, schools and parents are
utilizing signed contracts with young drivers who promise
not to use cell phones or text while driving. Part of the
success of these contracts is also for the adults to lead by
example.
Distracted Driver Definition:
Any driver with the following attributes as recorded by the investigating officer:
• Looked but did not see
• Distracted by vehicle occupant or object
• While using a cell phone (talking, listening, dialing, etc.)
• Adjusting vehicle controls
• Distracted by object/person outside the vehicle
• Eating, drinking, or smoking; emotional or lost in thought; other or unknown distraction.
72
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Better understand
the distracted
driving problem in
Washington
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Explore options for gaining a measure of statewide cell phone
use while driving, such as expanding the annual seatbelt
observation survey to include observations of cell phone use,
including hands free use. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
1.2 Revise fields on the Police Traffic Collision Report to enhance
clarity for officers coding distraction in collision investigations.
(R, WSDOT)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
1.3 Encourage law enforcement to thoroughly investigate
distraction during crash investigation. (R, WTSC)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
1.4 Encourage all law enforcement agencies to adopt no tolerance
cell phone and driving policies in their agencies. Track citations
given by law enforcement agencies with/without strict cell
phone and driving policies. (U)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
2. Use roadway
engineering to reduce
the consequences of
distracted driving
2.1 Continue a targeted shoulder rumble strip program: centerline,
shoulder, horizontal curves. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
2.2 Implement corridor safety model at high-crash locations
where data indicates a high incidence of distracted crashes.
(R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy,
Education, Engineering,
Enforcement
3. Increase driver
awareness of the risks
of distracted driving
3.1 Conduct statewide distracted driving high-visibility
enforcement campaigns. (P, CTW)
Enforcement, Education
3.2 Add distracted driving information and questions to driver
license test and guide. (R, GHSA)
Leadership/Policy
3.3 Promote applications which shut off or limit phones while
driving. (U)
Education
3.4 Encourage large employers to implement employee bans/
agreements on cell phone use and other distracted driving
behaviors. (U)
Leadership/Policy
4.1 Classify distracted driving offenses as “moving violations” so
they affect insurance rates. (U)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
4.2 Visibly enforce existing statutes to deter distracted driving.
Consider increasing penalties for distracted driving collisions.
(U)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
4.3 Have Rule 9 interns appear in traffic infraction court. (U)
Enforcement
4. Increase/strengthen
fines and assist in
improved adjudication
of distracted driving
citations
Continued on next page.
73
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Distracted Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 5. Strengthen distracted
driving laws
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
5.1 Modify existing cell phone law to clarify “when a car is running
on a public roadway” to clear up ambiguity about use at traffic
lights, etc. (U)
Leadership/Policy
5.2 Align current cell phone law with commercial vehicle statute;
no device in hand at all. (U)
Leadership/Policy
5.3 Encourage cities/counties to pass ordinances that are tougher
than the state law. (U)
Leadership/Policy
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
GHSA = Governor’s Highway Safety Association
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation
WTSC = Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 4 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 14: A Guide for Reducing Crashes Involving Drowsy and Distracted Drivers
(National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v14.pdf
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to distracted drivers:
• RCW 46.61.667 – Holding a wireless communications device to ear while driving.
• RCW 46.61.668 – Sending, reading, or writing a text message while driving.
• RCW 46.20.055 – Using a wireless device of any kind during permit phase of licensure.
• RCW 46.20.075 – Using a wireless device of any kind while in intermediate driver license status.
• RCW 46.52.060 – Tabulation and analysis of reports – Availability for use.
74
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Intersection Related
Executive Summary
Forty-four percent of fatal and serious injury collisions at
intersections came from “T-bone” and “left turn” angle
collisions. Nineteen percent were from pedestrians being
hit. Implementing current intersection safety technologies,
including roundabouts and flashing yellow arrows, while also
focusing more on pedestrians, will help to achieve Target Zero
for intersection related collisions.
While declining at a rate similar to overall fatalities and
serious injuries, intersection related collisions have been
elevated to the Priority One Level. This is primarily due to
the number of serious injuries occurring at intersections.
From 2009-2011 more than one-fifth of fatalities and
one-third of all serious injuries were intersection related.
Over one-fifth of all
Washington traffic
fatalities, and one-third
of serious injuries, were
intersection related.
75
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Intersection
Related Fatalities 2002-2011
Intersection Related Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 5 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
131 135
100
122
131
116
108
5YR AVG=103
107
96
105
89
83
73
50
64
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Intersection Related Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Intersection Related Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1104
1047
1000
970 958
1007
897 908
850
800
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 41 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=856
866
758
693
600
611
530
400
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
76
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Background
For intersection related collisions there was a combined 13% decrease in fatal
and serious injury collisions (20% decrease in fatal collisions and 12% decrease
in serious injury collisions), when comparing 2009-2011 to 2006-2008. This
is similar to the overall decline rate for fatalities and serious
injuries. To achieve Target Zero for intersection related
Protected Left Turn = At a traffic signal,
collisions, there needs to be five fewer fatalities and 41 fewer
serious injuries each year until 2030.
left turns that have a green arrow are
protected (no other conflicting vehicles or
pedestrians are being allowed to go).
There are many kinds of intersection related collisions.
From 2009-2011, the top types of fatal or serious injury
intersection related collisions were:
Permitted Left Turn = At a traffic signal,
left turns that do not have a green arrow
are permitted (other conflicting vehicles or
pedestrians are also being allowed to go).
• Angle (T-bone) - 29%
• Hit pedestrians - 19%
• Angle (left turn) - 14%
• Rear-end with - 12%
• Hit bicyclists with - 8%
The greatest number of these collisions occurred on city streets. Looking at fatal
and serious injuries combined from 2009-2011, 60% of intersection related
collisions were on city streets, resulting in 130 fatalities and 1,492 serious
injuries. Another 22% (88 fatalities and 553 serious injuries) were on state
highways and 17% (70 fatalities and 419 serious injuries) were on county roads.
See the charts for intersection related collisions by jurisdiction (page 78) for
annual fatality and serious injury break outs.
Angle (T-bone) Collision
Angle (Left Turn) Collision
77
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Intersection
Related Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Intersection Related Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
38 (29.0%)
2003
42 (31.1%)
2004
27 (25.0%)
2005
38 (31.1%)
44 (36.1%)
2006
30 (22.9%)
62 (47.3%)
2007
35 (30.2%)
2008
33 (30.8%)
2009
33 (34.4%)
2010
28 (26.7%)
2011
27 (30.3%)
52 (39.7%)
39 (29.8%)
64 (47.4%)
29 (21.5%)
52 (48.1%)
29 (26.9%)
40 (32.8%)
38 (29.0%)
56 (48.3%)
1 (0.8%)
25 (21.6%)
35 (32.7%)
38 (35.5%)
42 (43.8%)
1 (0.9%)
21 (21.9%)
49 (46.7%)
27 (25.7%)
39 (43.8%)
State Route
2 (1.5%)
22 (24.7%)
City Street
County Road
1 (1.0%)
1 (1.1%)
Miscellaneous Trafficway
Intersection
Related Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Intersection Related Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
260 (23.6%)
2003
205 (21.1%)
2004
187 (19.5%)
624 (65.1%)
2005
188 (18.7%)
620 (61.6%)
2006
192 (18.3%)
2007
189 (21.1%)
555 (61.9%)
150 (16.7%) 3 (0.3%)
2008
210 (23.1%)
526 (57.9%)
168 (18.5%)
2009
194 (22.8%)
2010
195 (22.5%)
2011
164 (21.6%)
0
632 (57.2%)
205 (18.6%)
613 (63.2%)
150 (15.5%) 2 (0.2%)
142 (14.8%) 5 (0.5%)
198 (19.7%)
633 (60.5%)
4 (0.4%)
134 (15.5%) 2 (0.2%)
447 (59.0%)
144 (19.0%) 3 (0.4%)
400
City Street
4 (0.4%)
141 (16.6%) 5 (0.6%)
535 (61.8%)
State Route
1 (0.1%)
218 (20.8%)
510 (60.0%)
200
7 (0.6%)
600
County Road
800
1000
Miscellaneous Trafficway
78
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
1200
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
in serious injury collisions (although documented in 12%
of collisions) compared to fatalities, where impairment is
confirmed by toxicology.
From 2009-2011, the top contributing circumstances in
fatal or serious injury intersection related collisions were
failing to yield (39%), speeding (16%), impairment (14%),
driver inattention or distraction (13%) and running red
lights (11%).
Speeding was noted in 15% of serious injury intersection
collisions. For fatal and serious injury collisions combined,
impairment is involved in 14%, contributing to 16% of
fatalities, and speeding in 16%, contributing to 18% of
fatalities.
There are two major types of failure to yield. Failing to yield
to vehicles was involved in 26% of fatal and serious injury
collisions. Failing to yield to a pedestrian or bicyclist was
involved in another 13% of fatal and serious injury
collisions.
Driver inattention or distraction, involved in 13% of
collisions, is likely underreported yet still contributed
to 32% of intersection related fatalities and 11% of
serious injuries. A significant percentage of bicyclist
and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries occur at
intersections. From 2009-2011, 55% of bicyclist fatalities
and serious injuries occurred at intersections (54% of
fatalities and 55% of serious injuries). For pedestrians,
over 45% of fatalities and serious injuries occurred
at intersections (32% of fatalities and 55% of serious
injuries).
Impairment and speeding are more likely to be factors
in fatal intersection related collisions than in serious
injury collisions. Impairment was involved in 35% of fatal
collisions (contributing to 38% of intersection fatalities)
and speeding in 27% of collisions (contributing to 28%
of intersection fatalities). Impairment is underreported
Intersection Related Fatalities
Total = 290
Impairment
110
38%
51
18%
Speeding
81
28%
Of the 290 intersection related fatalities 2009-2011, 38% also involved impairment and 28% involved speeding. Combined, 18% of these fatalities involved both impairment
and speeding.
79
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Programs and Successes
Depending upon the location in the state, some agencies
have made complete conversions to the flashing yellow
arrow for all appropriate locations. Many other agencies
have begun to convert some of their locations to use this
display. While most installations of flashing yellow arrows
are new, one study of locations in Washington, Oregon
and North Carolina showed a 19% decrease in left turn
collisions when converting from protected and permitted
left turns to the flashing yellow arrow (Srinivasan et. al., 2011).
Several high- and low-cost strategies can reduce collisions
at intersections. Many low-cost strategies make changes
to existing traffic controls (signals or signs), such as
modifying signal timing or adding flashing beacons to
signs. Higher-cost strategies often involve changing
traffic control devices, such as converting signs to signals
or roundabouts, or converting signals to roundabouts.
A balanced approach of making systematic low-cost
improvements area-wide, in addition to addressing key
locations with higher-cost improvements, can have the
greatest impact in reducing collisions.
Pedestrians
Significant progress has yet to be made in reducing
pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries at intersections.
This is the only area out of the top collision types at
intersections that has not improved during 2009-2011
compared to 2006-2008. Rather than a decrease, the
total number of intersection related pedestrian fatal and
serious injury collisions has increased by 2%. Although
fatal collisions decreased from 69 to 61, the number of
serious injury collisions increased from 393 to 411.
Roundabouts
Converting intersections to roundabouts has been
shown to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions by
90% (Transportation Research Record 1751, 2001). In
Washington similar results – an 80% reduction – have
been found (WSDOT Gray Notebook 27, 2007). There
are currently 245 roundabouts installed across the state,
including both urban and rural locations.
Addressing pedestrian collisions at intersections has the
potential to have a significant impact on intersection and
pedestrian safety. (See section on Pedestrians on page 120
for programs being implemented to address pedestrian
safety.)
Left Turn Flashing Yellow Arrows
One of the most recently embraced low-cost
improvements is using flashing yellow arrows at
“permitted” (not protected with a green arrow) left turns.
This helps prevent drivers from seeing a green ball for the
permitted left turn, and assuming they can proceed even
when there is opposing traffic. The flashing yellow arrow
helps to more appropriately display that a left turn should
be made with caution.
80
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce motor
vehicle collisions at
intersections
2. Improve driver
compliance at
intersections
Strategies (How)
Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Install or convert intersections to roundabouts. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.2 Optimize traffic signal clearance intervals. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.3 Provide/improve left- and right-turn channelization.
(P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.4 Install illumination at locations with night time crashes.
(P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.5 Convert permitted left turns to protected left turns at signals.
(P, HSM)
Engineering
1.6 Remove unwarranted signals. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.7 Employ signal coordination. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.8 Employ flashing yellow arrows at signals. (P, CMF)
Engineering
1.9 Restrict or eliminate turning maneuvers at intersections.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.10 Implement restricted access to properties/driveways adjacent
to intersections using closures or turn restrictions. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering, Leadership/
Policy
1.11 Provide skid resistance in intersections and on approaches.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.12 Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced
signing and delineation. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.13 Provide dynamic intersection warning (real-time) to drivers
on mainline or side streets of conflicting vehicle traffic at rural
intersections. (U)
Engineering
2.1 Implement automated enforcement (photo red cameras) of
red-light running at locations with angle crashes. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement, Engineering,
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Provide targeted speed enforcement. (P, NCHRP).
Enforcement
2.3 Provide targeted conventional traffic law and stop sign/signal
enforcement at intersections and intersection approaches.
(R, NCHRP)
Enforcement
2.4 Implement automated enforcement (cameras) of approach
speeds. (R, NCHRP)
Enforcement, Engineering,
Leadership/Policy
Continued on next page.
81
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 3. Improve driver
awareness of
intersections
4. Reduce vehicle
collisions involving
pedestrians and
bicyclists at
intersections
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
3.1 Redesign intersection approaches to improve sight distances.
(P, NCHRP)
Engineering
3.2 Add back plates with retro-reflective borders to signals.
(P, CMF)
Engineering
3.3 Provide advance warning of intersections using dynamic signal
warning flashers or actuated advance warning dilemma zone
protection systems at high-speed signalized intersections.
(P, CMF)
Engineering
3.4 Improve visibility of intersections on approaches. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
3.5 Improve visibility of signals and signs at intersections.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering
3.6 Install transverse rumble strips on intersection approaches.
(R, NCHRP)
Engineering
3.7 Provide targeted public information and education on safety
problems at specific intersections. (R, NCHRP)
Education
4.1 Improve safety at pedestrian crossings by installing refuge
islands, scale lighting, and shortening crossing distances.
(R, CMF)
Engineering
4.2 Expand targeted crosswalk enforcement and education for
both vehicles and pedestrians. (R, CTW)
Enforcement, Education
4.3 Improve sight distances and/or visibility between motor
vehicles and pedestrians at high risk and high volume
pedestrian crossings. Move the stop bar farther back from
the intersection, clear vegetation, extend crossing times, and
implement pedestrian lead intervals. (U)
Engineering
4.4 Upgrade pavement markings using high visibility crosswalks
and bicycle lanes. (U)
Engineering
4.5 Install bicycle lanes and bicycle boxes. (U)
Engineering
4.6 Implement Complete Streets to provide for all modes of
transportation. (R, NCSC)
Leadership/Policy,
Engineering
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
HSM = Highway Safety Manual
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
82
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
Additional Resources
Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
Intersection Safety Resources (Federal Highway Administration), http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 5, A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions, (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v5.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10, A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians, (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v10.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12, A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections, (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v12.pdf
Q&A: Roundabouts (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety),
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/roundabouts.aspx
The Gray Notebook, Edition 27 (Washington State Department of Transportation),
http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Sep07.pdf
83
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Intersection Related
This page intentionally left blank.
84
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Traffic Data Systems
As of July 2013,
70% of tickets and
collisions are processed
electronically statewide.
Executive Summary
Target Zero is a data-driven approach to reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. Timely, accurate, integrated, and
accessible data is the foundation for targeting resources and monitoring progress toward zero traffic fatalities and serious
injuries by 2030. Quality data is essential in the ever evolving need to diagnose the contributing factors to crashes and
assessment of implemented countermeasures. The data assists in identification of innovative and targeted strategies in
areas that will have the greatest impact on achieving our goal.
85
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Background
The Washington Traffic
Records Committee
Washington’s traffic information and support data systems are comprised
of hardware, software, and accompanying processes that capture, store,
transmit, and analyze a variety of data. The following information is used to
make up Washington’s Traffic Records System:
The Washington Traffic Records
Committee (TRC) is a partnership
of federal, state, local, and tribal
stakeholders from transportation,
law enforcement, criminal justice,
and health disciplines. The
statewide TRC was created to
foster collaboration and facilitate
the planning, coordination, and
implementation of projects
which will improve the state’s
traffic records system. The TRC
website may be accessed at
http://trafficrecords.wa.gov/ and
contains the TRC Strategic Plan
and current project portfolio.
• Traffic fatalities and serious injuries
• All statewide traffic collisions
• Driver citations
• Criminal history and judicial outcome data
• Driver licenses and registered vehicles
• Commercial motor vehicles
• Emergency Medical Systems
• Vital statistics
• Trauma and inpatient hospital records
• Roadway geometrics and features
• Traffic volumes, traffic mix and freight
• Location information via Geographic Information Systems
• Population estimates
Each component of Washington’s Traffic Records System provides key information for diagnosing the contributing factors
to collisions and decision support related to public and transportation safety. The information enhances management and
accountability in public service by gauging progress toward key measures of performance.
Washington’s Strategic Direction
National Agenda
Goals for Traffic Records
Standards
Technology
Leverage technology
and appropriate
government and industry
standards to improve the
collection, dissemination,
and analysis of traffic
records data.
Objec&ve #1
Objec&ve #2
Replace paper-­‐based
data collec&on
processes with
automated electronic
systems
Reduce paper
exchanges among
traffic records systems
and stakeholders
Integration
Coordination
Improve the
interoperability and
exchange of traffic records
data among stakeholders
for increased efficiency and
enhanced integration.
Appreciation
Training
Promote the value
of traffic records data
and encourage training
opportunities to maximize
its effectiveness as
decision support.
Provide an ongoing
statewide forum for traffic
records and support the
coordination of multijurisdictional initiatives.
Objec&ve #3
Objec&ve #4
Objec&ve #5
Objec&ve #6
Objec&ve #7
Develop integrated
pa&ent care
informa&on systems
for enhanced injury
surveillance
Create a more
accurate statewide
system for roadway
feature and event
loca&on
Improve the
&meliness, u&lity, and
accessibility of
statewide collision
data
Design a new Police
Traffic Collision Report
(PTCR) and ci&zen
report (VCR)
Enhance the structure
and ac&vi&es of the
Traffic Records
Workgroup and
Oversight Council
Washington’s strategic goals (shown in dark green) and the resulting objectives are driven by the National Agenda for the Improvement of
Highway Safety Information Systems (http://www.atsip.org/committees/documents/natagenda/National_Agenda.pdf)
86
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Programs and Successes
Electronic Ticketing and Collision Reporting Program (eTRIP)
The eTRIP Initiative is a series of projects coordinated by the TRC and implemented by various state and local agencies.
It’s designed to create a seamless and integrated system for collision reports and tickets, as well as a way for information
on subsequent activity on those events to be disseminated to agencies. This significantly reduces the inefficiencies of the
paper-based system. The following diagram provides a conceptual illustration of how the eTRIP Initiative functions:
There has been significant adoption of the
electronic records systems statewide since 2010.
As of July 2013, 202 or 73% of all law enforcement
agencies in Washington are using the Statewide
Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records
(SECTOR). Agencies have benefitted in many ways,
including:
• For law enforcement, use of SECTOR resulted in
a 15% reduction in the total time of a collision
response or traffic stop through reduced data
entry time
• Court staff have reported a reduction in ticket
errors and can process SECTOR infractions 80%
faster than paper-filed infractions
• The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) receives SECTOR collision reports approximately
85% faster than paper reports, usually within one day of the collision
• SECTOR collision reports are also processed 40% faster, and fewer than 1% are returned to officers for corrections,
compared to 11% for paper reports
• The Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) can completely automate creation of citizen reports for
Financial Responsibility cases with SECTOR collision reports and 98% of electronically submitted dispositions post to
the DOL driver database without any action by DOL staff
The functionality of the electronic system
continues to expand to benefit users. Tickets
and collision reports can now move seamlessly
to agencies’ Records Management Systems.
Prosecutors can now access tickets and
collisions reports directly.
Pictured from left: Assistant Chief Jim Lever, WSP; Marcus Bailey, DOL; Mike Martin,
DOL; Tom Wallace, WSP; Deputy Chief David Karnitz, WSP; Lowell Porter, WTSC
Director; Keri Sullivan, WTSC; Dirk Marler, AOC; Doug Mah, Office of the Chief
Information Officer; John Rosen, WSDOT and Warren Stanley, WSDOT.
This type of progress is attributable to the
group of operation managers from seven
agencies and organizations that meet weekly,
and the dedicated system support group
that works continually to address technical
problems and provide user enhancements.
The system has been so successful that
Washington State was nationally recognized
with the Council of State Governments’ 2011
Innovation Award.
87
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Data Integration
The TRC has a Data Integration
Subcommittee to promote the
integration of different data records
to create a population-based,
comprehensive and representative
crash outcome dataset. Data
integration enhances data’s value
beyond the limited, agency-specific
purpose for which it was initially
gathered. Linked together, data
provides a more complete picture
of crash causes and outcomes.
Furthermore, utilizing health care provider assessments
of injury severity will significantly enhance the quality
and accuracy of collision data, which guides the state’s
public safety investments in both behavioral and roadway
improvement programs. This comprehensive information
is needed to develop best practice traffic safety strategies
and countermeasures, and evaluate their effectiveness.
Incident Location Tool
WSDOT recently developed the Incident Location Tool
(ILT) which could be implemented as early as 2014. The
ILT will greatly increase WSDOT’s efficiency and accuracy
in processing collision records by replacing the less
productive method of using online map resources to verify
collision locations. The tool is used to query map layers
and automatically populate several database fields such
as city, county, Tribal reservation name, roadway name,
milepost, and the direction and distance to the cross street
nearest to the collision location.
Since the last edition of Target Zero, the data integration
subcommittee supported two proof of concept projects.
The first involved linking three years of collision data from
the Collision Location and Analysis System (CLAS) to
Washington Trauma Registry data. In the second, one year
of emergency department data from seven hospitals was
linked to collision data from CLAS.
The ILT also captures the latitude and longitude of the
collision, allowing collisions to be geocoded to map-based
software, such as ArcGIS. This provides advanced spatial
analysis opportunities for the traffic safety community.
WSDOT will share the tool with Washington State
Patrol and other local law enforcement officers to ensure
accurate data collection while in the field.
Both of these projects included analysis of the clinical
accuracy by on-the-scene officers in assessing injuries.
Both revealed serious injuries are both over and
underestimated by officers, resulting in about 40%
accuracy for serious injury assessment. Currently, data
collected by officers at the scene are the only source of
traffic serious injury data, and it’s highly relied upon for
problem identification, resource allocation and targeting.
The Data Integration Subcommittee is currently
proceeding with the development of linkage procedures for
the initial phase of developing an integrated traffic records
system. This initial phase will link collision and health
records. The second phase of the project will include
broad analysis to demonstrate the value of the linked
information. Throughout the project, the Data Integration
Subcommittee continuously informs the TRC and provides
recommendations for action outside the scope of the
subcommittee.
Emergency Department Data System
In 2011, the Washington State Department of Health
(DOH) completed a pilot study on the feasibility and utility
of establishing a statewide emergency department (ED)
data system using the existing CHARS (hospital inpatient
discharge billing records) infrastructure. While the pilot
was successful, the Health Information Exchange (HIE) is
being implemented in Washington and may fill the need
for ED data and be even more comprehensive and detailed
than an administrative data system would be. For this
reason an ED data system has been postponed to allow for
further development of the HIE.
88
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Expand the capabilities
and use of the eTRIP
system for electronic
data generation,
transfer, filing,
reporting, and analysis
2. Develop and expand
integrated traffic
information systems
and enhance injury
surveillance
Strategies (How)
Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Develop new features in SECTOR to address user needs,
including additional ticketing options and report types. Expand
SECTOR software edit checks to enhance reporting accuracy and
consistency. (R, eTRIP GT)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
1.2 Expand prosecutors’ use of SECTOR statewide to create, review,
amend, and electronically file criminal cases with the courts. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
1.3 Increase the number of electronic tickets and collision reports through
expanded adoption and agency-wide implementation of SECTOR. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
1.4 Incorporate the incident location tool (ILT) component into
SECTOR to enhance accurate reporting of location data. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement, Engineering
1.5 Provide officers with roadside access to driver and vehicle history
information through SECTOR. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
1.6 Expand the use of the Justice Information Network Data
Exchange (JINDEX) system to electronically disseminate
ticket, collision, and disposition data to state and local records
management systems. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
1.7 Create a maintenance and support model for SECTOR that
further that improves operations, speeds change request
implementation, and enhances user support. (R, eTRIP GT)
Leadership/Policy
1.8 Develop an electronic system for DUI reporting and tracking. (R, NHTSA)
Leadership/Policy, Enforcement
1.9 Enhance SECTOR functionality to allow violations bureaus (not
part of the state JIS system) to electronically process tickets from
SECTOR to DOL. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy
1.10 Expand Violation Bureaus use of JIS to electronically process
tickets (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy
2.1 Derive a more accurate classification of injury severity based
on clinical assessments from medical records to augment the
investigating officer’s assessment of traffic collision injury
severity. (P, CODES)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.2 Initiate a statewide Emergency Department Data System to
enhance Injury Surveillance capabilities. (P, CODES)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.3 Create a central repository for integrated, linked data records
including collision records, health (EMS, Trauma, CHARS)
records, court records, licensing records, and state toxicology
records. (P, CODES)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.4 Increase EMS reporting by first responders throughout the state
to the Washington Emergency Medical Services Information
System (WEMSIS). (R, DOH)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
Leadership/Policy,
2.5 Implement Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS)
model in local law enforcements agencies statewide. (R, DDACTS)
Enforcement
2.6 Make system changes necessary at WSDOT and DOL to enable analysts
to identify unlicensed drivers involved in serious injury collisions.(R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
89
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
Objectives & Strategies
Implementation Arena(s)
Objectives (What) Strategies (How) 3. Improve data quality
through reporting
timeliness, data
collection consistency,
and data accuracy
3.1 Develop a linear referencing system (LRS) for remaining public
roadways without a LRS to maintain geospatial location data, improve
location accuracy and advance overall integration. (P, NSDI EO12906)
Leadership/Policy
3.2 Educate data reporting agencies about state/federal timeliness reporting
statutes and increase enforcement of these statutes. (P, WTSC)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
3.3 Revise the Police Traffic Collision Report, including both SECTOR and
paper reports, to improve nomenclature and ensure business needs
are met with stakeholder involvement. (R, TRC)
Leadership/Policy,
Enforcement
3.4 Provide more frequent and enhanced traffic safety trend reporting.
Present data/trends in a manner that is easy to understand and is
actionable. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
4.1 Develop a meaningful and valid set of traffic records performance
measures to gauge the timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and
integration of traffic safety data. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
4.2 Support training opportunities to enhance traffic safety data analysis
and research skills. (U)
Leadership/Policy
4. Enhance the structure
and activities of the
TRC
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CODES = Crash Outcomes Data Evaluation System
DOH = Washington State Department of Health
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
TRC = Traffic Records Committee
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
eTRIP GT = eTRIP Governance Team
NSDI EO12906 = National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Executive Order 12906
Additional Resources
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals Website, www.atsip.org
Fatal Analysis Reporting System (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS
International Association of Chiefs of Police Technology Clearinghouse, www.iacptechnology.org
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (US Dept. of Transportation and Governors’ Highway Safety Association), www.mmucc.us
National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) Website, www.nemsis.org
NHTSA Traffic Records Website (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/
Traffic Records Assessment Program Advisory (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa-tsis.net/stateAssessments/docs/NHTSA_TRProgram_Assessment_Advisory_811644.pdf
Washington State Traffic Records Strategic Plan (Washington State Traffic Records Committee),
http://trafficrecords.wa.gov/AboutTRC/Docs/wa_trs_an_overview.pdf
Washington State Traffic Records Website (Washington State Traffic Records Committee), http://trafficrecords.wa.gov
Washington Traffic Records Committee Resource Manual (Washington Traffic Safety Commission, 2004),
www.trafficrecords.wa.gov/AboutTRC/Docs/trc_docs/traffic_records_resource_manual.pdf
90
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level One • Traffic Data Systems
91
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority
Level
Two
Washington State 2009-2011
Fatalities
Number
% of Total
Serious Injuries
Number
% of Total
Priority Level Two
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
348
24.8%
764
Unlicensed Driver Involved
253
18.0%
n/a
n/a
Opposite Direction
221
15.7%
702
9.7%
Motorcyclists
206
14.7%
1,230
17.0%
Pedestrians
193
13.7%
869
12.0%
**
**
**
**
1,406
7,247
EMS and Trauma Care Systems
Total*
10.5%
* “Total” is for all fatalities and serious injuries in Levels One, Two and Three combined. More than
one factor is commonly involved in fatal and serious injury collisions. Therefore, each fatality and
serious injury in “Total” may be represented multiple times in the Level tables. For the Target Zero
Priorities Chart with all three priority levels, see page 9.
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Executive Summary
Washington has consistently been a national leader on
seat belt use. Since the adoption of Click it or Ticket, and
the primary enforcement seat belt law in 2002, Washington
has had one of the highest rates of seat belt use in the
country. Strong support from the law enforcement
community, aggressive efforts to publicize seat belt patrols
and assistance from Target Zero Managers in 22 local
areas provide the backbone of this success. These efforts
have done more to reduce traffic fatalities and serious
injuries than any other behavioral project to date.
In Washington in 1986 seat belt
use was at 36%. In 2012 it was
at an astonishing 96.9%.
Unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities were reduced by
29.7% in 2009-2011. However, fatality reductions for
children in the 2009-2011 time period did not see the
same considerable improvement.
Car collisions are the number
one killer of children 1 to 12 years
old in the United States.
92
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Unrestrained
Vehicle Occupants Fatalities 2002-2011
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupant Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 7 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
251
215
200
202
180
166
150
5YR AVG=128
161
148
132
100
102 98
104
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2018!
92
79
50
0
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupant Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 13 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
538
400
352
371 373
355
5YR AVG=261
296
312
200
230
211
256
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2019!
187
212
162
0
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
93
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Background
that time the first survey was undertaken to measure and
document seat belt use in the state. It showed a 36% seat
belt use rate.
Fatalities and serious injuries resulting from unrestrained
vehicle occupants have been steadily declining. In 20092011, unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities decreased by
29.7% and serious injuries decreased by 14.8%, compared
with 2006-2008. These types of declines in unrestrained
vehicle passenger death and serious injury have been
consistently occurring since the primary seatbelt law was
passed in 2002, allowing an officer to stop a vehicle and
issue a citation when they observe an unbuckled driver or
passenger.
The observational survey has been repeated every year
since, following the same design and methodology. The
2012 results showed an astonishing seat belt use rate of
96.9%. This number represents 6,683,204 Washington
motorists buckled up. Despite these gains, the majority
of unrestrained vehicle occupant deaths are coupled
with other high risk behaviors, such as impairment and
speeding.
Washington’s first seat belt law was adopted in 1986. It
was a “secondary” law, meaning an officer couldn’t stop
a motorist for the offense, but could issue a citation if the
motorist was stopped for a primary infraction such as
speeding, a burned out tail light out or expired tabs. At
Children
In 1971, the federal government established minimum
standards for child safety seats and Washington adopted
a child passenger safety law in 1983. It has
since undergone numerous modifications
and upgrades. According to the current
Washington Child Restraint Law
law, children must ride in correct child
RCW 46.61.687 covers all passengers under 16 years of age
restraints up to age eight, unless the child
is 4’9" tall or taller. Children who are age
• A child must be restrained in a child restraint system: if the
eight or older, or 4'9" tall and taller, shall
passenger seating position equipped with a safety belt system
be properly restrained with the seatbelt
allows sufficient space for installation, until the child is 8 years
properly adjusted and fastened -ORold, unless the child is 4 feet 9 inches or taller. The child restraint
continue using a child restraint system.
system must comply with standards of the U.S. Department of
Children under age thirteen must ride in a
Transportation and must be secured in the vehicle in accordance
back seating position when practical to do
with instructions of the vehicle manufacturer and child restraint
so. (see inset box for further details).
manufacturer.
• A child who is 8 years of age or older or 4 feet 9 inches tall or
taller: shall be properly restrained with the motor vehicle safety
belt properly adjusted and fastened around the child body or an
appropriately fitted child restraint system.
• The driver of a vehicle transporting a child who is under 13 years
old: shall transport the child in the back seat positions in a vehicle
where it is practical to do so.
• Does not apply to: 1) for hire vehicles, 2) vehicles designed to
transport 16 or less passengers (including the driver) operated by
transportation companies as defined in RCW 81.68, 3) vehicles
providing shuttle service between parking, convention and hotel
facilities and airport terminals, and 4) school buses.
• Required to use a booster seat: does not apply to any seat position
where there is only a lap belt available and the child weighs more
than 40 pounds.
Child safety seats reduce the risk of death
in passenger vehicles by 71% for infants
and by 54% for toddlers. Washington
State collision data shows that children
who incur either minor injuries or none
at all in collisions are appropriately
restrained at least 86% of the time.
Despite the effectiveness of proper use
of child restraints and adherence to
Washington’s strong child restraint law,
many children are either not restrained or
are incorrectly restrained. These children
are at risk for injury or death.
94
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Contributing Circumstances and Factors
The majority of unrestrained vehicle occupant deaths are coupled with other high risk behaviors such as impairment
and speeding. In 2009-2011, impairment was a factor in 71% of unrestrained vehicle occupant deaths and speeding
contributed to 48%. Combined, speeding and impairment contributed to 38% of these deaths.
The collision death rate at night is at least three times
higher than during the day. Seat belt use typically declines
at night: it’s often 6 to 8 percentage points lower at night
than during the day. There are also more impaired driving
deaths at night. From 2009-2011, 64% of unrestrained
occupant deaths and 62% of unrestrained occupant
serious injuries occurred at night (6 p.m. - 5:59 a.m.).
Among unrestrained occupant deaths occurring at night,
over 80% also involved impairment.
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupant Fatalities
Total = 348
Speeding
Impairment
248
71%
Additionally, based on National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) evaluation of a Washington
nighttime seat belt project, people driving unbuckled at
night have worse driving and criminal histories, more
tickets and collisions on their driving records, and a greater
likelihood of having violent criminal histories. Night
unbelted drivers were found to be 2.7 times more likely
than day-belted drivers to have a felony arrest on their
criminal records and three times more likely to have an
alcohol citation on their driving records.
131
38%
168
48%
Of the 348 unrestrained vehicle occupant fatalities 20092011, 71% also involved impairment and 48% involved
speeding. Combined, 38% of these fatalities involved both
impairment and speeding.
Programs and Successes
Click It or Ticket
ride-alongs, press events to encourage media publicity,
rented and borrowed variable message road signs, and
other street level signage are
all samples of the kinds of
additional publicity the Target
Zero Managers have obtained to
increase exposure to the CIOT
message at the community level.
The Click it or Ticket (CIOT) program is a high visibility
enforcement model involving law enforcement and
publicity mobilizations. The effort
begins with aggressive publicity
to inform people that law
enforcement will be ticketing seat
belt law violators. This is followed
by enforcement patrols statewide.
Publicity efforts include public
service announcements, paid
advertising and encouragement
of news media to cover the issue.
The Washington Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) has
been an important partner in
this effort with road signs on 125
freeways and highways across
the state advertising CIOT during
the mobilization periods. They
also helped with the placement of 625 permanent signs
along highways, county roads and city streets.
Additional opportunities are
identified by the county level
traffic safety program managers
(called Target Zero Managers) located in 22 communities
statewide. Banners, posters, flyers, law enforcement
95
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Seat Belt Patrols during Nighttime Hours
Comprehensive Child Passenger Safety Program
In Washington, about the same number of traffic deaths
occur during the daytime hours as at night, even though
traffic volumes at night are only 12-15% of what they are
during the day.
Washington’s comprehensive child passenger safety
program is under the supervision of a project manager
housed at the Bonney Lake Police Department. Under the
new leadership, a grant process has been established and
utilized to support child passenger safety efforts at the
local level. The network of active members includes 22
Target Zero Traffic Safety Task Forces, 18 SafeKids
Coalitions, and seven community child passenger
safety teams. See the box on page 94 for Washington’s
Child Restraint Law (RCW 46.61.687) which covers all
passengers under 16 years of age.
In late 2005, the Washington State Patrol (WSP) developed a
plan to conduct a nighttime seatbelt emphasis patrol. Before
patrols began, baseline observational surveys were conducted
during the day and at night using special night vision goggles.
The findings were consistent with research conducted in
other areas of the USA: nighttime seat belt use was 5% lower.
The most pronounced difference was on Saturday night when
it was 9% lower than during the daytime hours.
Grant funding is available to a qualifying school, government
agency, or 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides child passenger
safety efforts intended to reduce the number of deaths and
serious injuries to children resulting from traffic collisions on
Washington roads. They must be able to demonstrate their
commitment to child passenger safety and ensure efficient
and effective management of funds.
The first nighttime seatbelt emphasis patrol (Vancouver,
WA) consisted of a stationary officer observing unbuckled
motorists and then notifying strategically parked officers
who made the stop. In just a four hour period, on a Wednesday
from 6 – 10 p.m., one WSP Sergeant (observer) and four
WSP Troopers (chase cars) generated the following activity:
This program also supports retention and recruitment of
nationally certified child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs)
and the statewide child restraint inspection stations. The
project manager provides consistent communication of
opportunities for Child Passenger Safety Technician courses,
continuing education unit (CEU) training opportunities,
available resources for conducting required seat sign-offs for
recertification and funding to accomplish these activities.
• 41 total contacts
• 29 seatbelt violations
• 1 DUI arrest
• 6 drug arrests
• 2 warrant arrests (1 felony/1 misdemeanor)
• 5 suspended driving arrests
• 6 uninsured motorist infractions
In support of the Child Restraint Law, visual inspections by
law enforcement help determine if the child restraint system
in use is appropriate for the child’s individual height, weight
and age; children under 13 years are in appropriate seating
positions; and restraints are being used in accordance with
the instructions of the vehicle and the child restraint system
manufacturers. A violation notice is issued for non-compliance.
• 2 stolen vehicle recoveries
In 2006, the WTSC received a pilot grant from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a seat
belt promotional program targeting motorists who travel at
night. The demonstration project involved two large-scale,
statewide CIOT style mobilizations, along with smaller
“sustained enforcement” projects: May 2007,
October 2007, and May 2008.
However, if proof of acquisition of an approved child
passenger restraint system or a child booster seat, as
appropriate, is presented within seven days, and the person
has not had a violation of this type previously dismissed, the
jurisdiction shall dismiss the notice of traffic infraction.
Results showed people driving unbuckled at night had more:
1) driving and criminal histories, 2) tickets and collisions
and 3) violent criminal histories. Notably, night unbelted
drivers were 2.7 times more likely than day-belted drivers
to have a felony arrest on their criminal records and three
times more likely to have an alcohol citation. Based on the
results of this program, the WTSC continues to promote
annual nighttime-focused seat belt patrols.
96
A CIOT-style child car seat program pioneered by WTSC
resulted in a significant increase in proper child restraint
use, increased education and awareness in relation to
child passengers, provided training of police officers and
increased enforcement of the child restraint law.
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Strengthen efforts to
increase compliance,
enforcement, and
adjudication of the
seat belt and child
restraint laws
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Identify population groups with lower than average restraint
use rates and provide enhanced public education targeted at
these groups. (P, NCHRP)
Education
1.2 Implement communications, outreach, and enforcement
campaigns directed at groups/areas where restraint use is
lowest, particularly rural areas. (P, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
1.3 Engage and collaborate with all levels of law enforcement to
effectively carry out high-visibility communications, outreach,
and enforcement of seat belt use, such as the Click It or Ticket
campaign. (P, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
1.4 Promote nighttime patrols during the May Click it or Ticket
statewide seat belt mobilization. Combine short-term,
high-visibility seat belt use enforcement with nighttime
enforcement programs. (P, CTW)
Enforcement
1.5 Implement “Click It or Ticket-style” child car seat short-term,
high-visibility enforcement campaigns. (P, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
1.6 Encourage law enforcement and other emergency responders
to adopt seat belt use policies for their employees. (R, NHTSA)
Education, Leadership/
Policy, EMS
1.7 Promote car seat awareness and instruction classes in diverse
community locations targeting child transport agencies,
hospitals, daycare centers, PTAs, parent workplace, and
counties with a Target Zero Task Force, SafeKids Coalition or
local CPS team. (R, NCHRP)
Education
1.8 Engage and educate prosecutors and judges about the
importance of restraint programs, enforcement, and
adjudication of these violations. (R, NHTSA)
Education, Enforcement
1.9 Collaborate with WA’s Criminal Justice Training Commission
and the WA State Patrol Academy to conduct trainings for
new law enforcement officers and seasoned officers on
Washington’s child restraint law, increasing comfort level for
spotting and citing violations. (R, NCHRP)
Education, Enforcement
1.10 Promote child restraint distribution programs including
redistribution of previously owned child restraints. (U)
Education
Continued on next page.
97
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Continued from previous page
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 2. Promote legislative
and policy efforts to
promote restraint use
3. Maintain and support
the statewide network
of child passenger
safety technicians
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
2.1 Undertake policy and educational efforts to require proper
restraint use by people who transport foster children and
Medicaid transports. (R, ABACCL)
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Enact law to make it illegal to transport unrestrained humans in
the back of pickup trucks. (R, IIHS)
Leadership/Policy
2.3 Explore the feasibility and effectiveness of using photo
enforcement to increase seat belt compliance. (U)
Enforcement
2.4 Strengthen CPS law with a legislative change to add $25
administrative fee for violators to fund CPS efforts, or allow
local governments to initiate the change. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.1 Establish CPS Team Leaders in every county/major city to
coordinate and lead local efforts. Work collectively with
Washington’s Target Zero Task Forces, SafeKids Coalitions, and
local child passenger safety teams. (R, WTSC)
Leadership/Policy
3.2 Explore options for gaining a measure of statewide child
restraint use, such as expanding the annual seatbelt
observation survey to include observations of child restraint
use. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
3.3 Continuously monitor fatality and serious injury collision
data involving unrestrained or improperly restrained child
passengers to help direct geographic/demographic areas of
focus. (R, DDACTS)
Education
3.4 Convene a group of CPS stakeholders from different disciplines
and areas of the state to participate in product review, media
efforts, trainings, and local project implementation. (U)
Leadership/Policy
3.5 Support opportunities for child car seat inspection events,
CPS Technician certification courses, and recertification of
technicians. (U)
Education
3.6 Establish a database to collect all of Washington’s car seat
inspection data. Analyze information received to determine
major misuse issues; share with statewide CPS network;
incorporate findings into media campaigns. (U)
Education
Continued on next page.
98
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 4. Increase visibility of
child passenger safety
issues in Washington
P = Proven
Implementation Arena(s)
Strategies (How) 4.1 Provide access to appropriate information, materials, and
guidelines for implementing media and programs to increase
child passenger safety. (U)
Education
4.2 Develop and implement media campaigns targeting major
misuse issues in Washington State; currently booster age
children and riding in the front seat. (U)
Education
4.3 Look for ways to offer positive reinforcement to parents
correctly transporting children. (U)
Education
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
ABACCL = American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
IIHS = Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
WTSC = Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Additional Resources
2011 Washington State Collision Data Summary (Washington State Department of Transportation),
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/collision/pdf/Washington_State_Collision_Data_Summary_2011.pdf
2012 Certification Program Accomplishments (National Child Passenger Safety Certification),
http://cert.safekids.org/
2012 Global Activity Report (SafeKids Worldwide),
http://www.safekids.org/worldwide/news/Safe-Kids-2012-Global-Activity-Report.html
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
7th Edition, Chapter 2 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Evaluation of the First Year of the Washington Nighttime Seat Belt Enforcement Program (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration), http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811295.pdf
99
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Unlicensed Driver Involved
Executive Summary
in fatal collisions had suspended licenses. In addition to
suspensions, unlicensed drivers also include those having
no license or an expired license, a revoked license, or
issuance of a license refused or canceled. License status of
unlicensed drivers involved in fatal crashes 2009-2011 were
as follows:
From 2009-2011, 18% of all fatalities involved a driver who
was unlicensed. Unlicensed driver involved fatalities are
showing a significant decline, as represented by the recent
five-year trend. Unlicensed drivers involved in fatalities
have declined 28% compared with 2006-2008.
• No license or expired license, 50 (21.4%)
• Suspended/revoked license, 184 (78%)
Background
From 2009-2011, 14.4% of all drivers
involved in fatal collisions were
unlicensed, contributing to 18% of total
fatalities. Among unlicensed drivers
involved in fatal collisions, 78% were
driving with a suspended license.
Seventy-five percent
of unlicensed drivers
involved in fatal
crashes were also
impaired.
Driving while suspended seems to
be on the rise. From 2006-2008,
62% of unlicensed drivers involved
Impairment and speed remain
problematic among unlicensed
drivers. Based on the prevalence
of these additional factors in fatal
crashes involving unlicensed drivers,
applying strategies aimed at those
contributing factors may reduce
unlicensed driver involved deaths
and serious injuries. However
more also needs to be done on
the challenging task of keeping
unlicensed drivers off the road.
Unlicensed
Driver Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Unlicensed Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 5 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
126
100
111 109
113
101
118
5YR AVG=96
108
93 91
69
50
78
68
59
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
100
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
From 2009-2011, 52% of unlicensed drivers involved in
fatal collisions were age 21-35. This age group also
comprised 50% of the impaired (BAC above 0.08)
unlicensed drivers involved in fatal collisions. Among
unlicensed drivers with a suspended license, 57% were
age 21-35.
Among all fatalities 2009-2011 involving an unlicensed
driver, 75% of these also included impairment as a
contributing factor. Unlicensed drivers involved in fatal
collisions have the highest rate of impairment
involvement of any driver group. In addition, speeding was
involved in 47% of these fatalities, and both impairment
and speeding were involved in 39%.
Statistically, an unlicensed driver is more likely to be
involved in a collision than a licensed driver. According to
Rand’s 2003 “Evaluation of the Impact of Seattle’s DWLS
Impound Law” prepared for the city of Seattle, people
charged with Driving While License Suspended (DWLS)
Unlicensed Driver Involved Fatalities
offenses “were more important predictors of involvement
Total = 253
[in collisions] than gender or age.” The summary reported
DWLS three drivers (charged with operating a motor
vehicle after their license was suspended, the most minor
of the suspension violations) were 2.9 times more likely to
be involved in a collision than a driver with no
suspensions.
Speeding
Impairment
118
98
191
47%
39%
75%
Of the 253 unlicensed driver involved fatalities 2009-2011,
75% also involved impairment and 47% involved speeding.
Combined, 39% of these fatalities involved both impairment
and speeding.
These trends are concerning, clearly suggesting unlicensed
drivers not only operate a vehicle knowing they do not
have the legal right to do so, they also engage in other
high-risk, deadly behaviors, putting themselves and
innocent others in harm’s way.
Unlicensed drivers are also more likely to drink excessively
and then drive than licensed drivers. Among all drivers
involved in fatal collisions 2009-2011, nearly 40% of
unlicensed drivers had a Blood Alcohol Concentration
(BAC) at twice the legal limit or higher, compared to only
13% of licensed drivers. Equally alarming, 3.5% of
unlicensed drivers involved in fatal collisions had a BAC
in excess of 0.3, compared to less than 1% of licensed
drivers.
101
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Challenges Tracking Unlicensed
Driver Data and Traffic Safety
Impact
their drivers so that if a driver is involved in a collision in
Washington while suspended in another state, authorities
in Washington will immediately know of the suspension.
This reciprocity agreement suspends driving privilege in
Washington if a driver is suspended in another state.
Data collection is problematic for unlicensed drivers. The
databases at the Department of Licensing (DOL) can
provide the current status of a citizen’s driving privileges,
but can only determine license status retrospectively via
an individual record manual review process.
The problem arises when a reciprocity agreement does not
exist, as is the case between the US and British Columbia
(BC). Canadian drivers from BC can get a ticket in
Washington and fail to pay it, but their driving privileges
remain in place in BC. Washington technically “suspends”
the Canadian’s driving privilege in Washington, but cannot
take any action unless the driver is again stopped while in
Washington State.
In the case of fatalities, the license status review is
conducted and recorded, but for the thousands of injury
and non-injury collisions, it is not. This limitation makes
serious injury data collection impossible, and therefore
this publication does not include serious injury data for
unlicensed drivers.
In a 2011 review of all out-of-state drivers who have been
suspended in Washington for failure to pay a ticket, 41%
were from BC and 21% were from a combination of our
Oregon and Idaho neighbors.
One area of concern that continues to grow and deserves
discussion is unlicensed drivers who are licensed in another
country. In the US, all states share the license status of
102
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Programs and Successes
require the person to partake in treatment programs,
remain infraction free, establish support group
participation, and have the ability to drive to and from
work without violating the law.
Ignition Interlock Licenses
In 2009, an interlock program was initiated to allow
persons who received a DUI to legally drive during their
suspension period. This is called the Ignition Interlock
License (IIL). A first time offender will have a mandatory
90 day suspension period following a DUI conviction.
Since January 2009 there have been over 35,000 IIL’s
issued, averaging about 7,800 per year. These people took
the steps to legally retain their driving privileges during
their suspension period while abiding by the rules of the
IIL. This program has contributed to the reduction of
unlicensed drivers on the road.
No Suspension for Failure to Appear on
Non-Moving Violations
In 2013, the Washington State Legislature revised
suspension criteria for Failure to Appear (FTA) violations.
The previous practice of suspending driving privileges for
failure to pay non-moving violations has been rescinded,
leaving suspensions for FTAs only applicable to moving
violations.
This change will have a two-pronged impact. The court
caseloads will be lessened by eliminating a large number
of DWLS 3 cases for FTA of a non-moving violation.
Additionally, the recipients of non-moving violations will
not run the risk of suspension for failure to pay. This will
likely contribute to a reduction in unlicensed drivers.
Data showed many people who received a DUI citation
continued driving, often resulting in additional citations for
driving with a suspended license. The intent of IIL is to
Unlicensed Driver Definition
An “unlicensed driver” is a person who does not have driving privileges in Washington State. These
include drivers who:
• Never obtained a license
• Had their license invalidated by a court of law, another state’s licensing agency, or the Washington
State Department of Licensing (suspension and revocation)
• Have an expired license
• Voluntarily surrendered their license
• Have a valid out of state license but had a driving incident in Washington, resulting in Washington
based restrictions
103
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Restrict mobility of
unlicensed drivers
through administrative
actions and vehicle
modifications
2. Educate public through
public awareness
initiatives
3. Enhance enforcement
4. Enhancement of
data gathering and
reporting ability
P = Proven
Strategies (How) 1.1 Mandatory incarceration period for repeat unlicensed driving
offenders. (P, NCHRP)
Implementation Arena(s)
Enforcement
1.2 Impose electronic monitoring of repeat unlicensed driving
offenders. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
1.3 Expand the use of ignition interlock for drivers suspended due
to a DUI. (P, CTW)
Enforcement
1.4 Impound or destroy license plates of vehicles registered to
repeat unlicensed driving offenders. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
1.5 Immobilize or impound vehicles registered to repeat
unlicensed driving offenders. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
1.6 Allow registrations of vehicles operated by unlicensed drivers
to be cancelled and license plates denoted with stickers.
(P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
2.1 Provide alternative transportation and encourage reduced fares
for persons without driving privileges. (P, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Emphasize administrative and criminal sanctions for
unlicensed driving offenders and re-offenders. (R, NCHRP)
Education
2.3 Expand public awareness of public transportation options. (U)
Education
3.1 Standardize vehicle actions against unlicensed drivers with
mandatory immobilization/impound. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
3.2 Perform enhanced selective enforcement during times and in
areas where unlicensed driving has been detected. (R, NCHRP)
Enforcement
3.3 Create and distribute “hot sheets,” a frequently updated list of
current unlicensed drivers who live in the vicinity and
distribute to area enforcement agencies. (R, NCHRP)
Enforcement, Education
3.4 Enact laws to allow for stopping a vehicle registered to an
unlicensed driver (without other cause for stop) to ensure
unlicensed driver is not at the wheel. (U)
Enforcement
3.5 Evaluate the impact of the removal of suspension for failure to
appear on non-moving citations. (U)
Leadership/Policy
4.1 Make system changes necessary at WSDOT and DOL to
enable analysts to identify unlicensed drivers involved in
serious injury collisions. (R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
4.2 Ensure routine linkage of citations to driver records so
appropriate citations may be added to the collision being
investigated. (R, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
104
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Unlicensed Driver Involved
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
7th Edition (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
“Evaluation of the Impact of Seattle’s DWLS Impound Law” (RAND Safety and Justice Program, 2003),
http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/docs/DWLSreport.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with
Suspended or Revoked Licenses (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v2.pdf
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to unlicensed drivers:
Restricting the Driving Privilege:
RCW 46.20.207 – Cancellation.
RCW 46.20.215 – Nonresidents – Suspension or revocation – Reporting offenders.
RCW 46.20.245 – Mandatory revocation – Notice – Administrative, judicial review – Rules – Application.
RCW 46.20.265 – Juvenile driving privileges – Revocation for alcohol or drug violations.
RCW 46.20.270 – Conviction of offense requiring withholding driving privilege – Procedures – Definitions.
RCW 46.20.285 – Offenses requiring revocation.
RCW 46.20.289 – Suspension for failure to respond, appear, etc.
RCW 46.20.300 – Extraterritorial convictions.
RCW 46.20.305 – Incompetent, unqualified driver – Reexamination – Physician’s certificate – Action by department.
RCW 46.20.3101 – Implied consent – License sanctions, length of.
RCW 46.20.311 – Duration of license sanctions – Reissuance or renewal.
RCW 46.20.315 – Surrender of license.
RCW 46.20.317 – Unlicensed drivers.
RCW 46.20.320 – Suspension, etc., effective although certificate not delivered.
Driving or Using License while Suspended or Revoked:
RCW 46.20.338 – Display or possession of invalidated license or identicard.
RCW 46.20.341 – Relicensing diversion programs – Program information to administrative office of the courts.
RCW 46.20.342 – Driving while license invalidated – Penalties – Extension of invalidation.
RCW 46.20.345 – Operation under other license or permit while license suspended or revoked – Penalty.
RCW 46.20.355 – Alcohol violator – Probationary license.
Ignition Interlock, Temporary Restricted, Occupational Licenses
RCW 46.20.385 – Ignition interlock driver’s license – Application – Eligibility – Cancellation – Costs – Rules.
RCW 46.20.391 – Temporary restricted, occupational license – Application – Eligibility – Restrictions – Cancellation.
RCW 46.20.394 – Detailed restrictions – Violation.
RCW 46.20.400 – Obtaining new driver’s license – Surrender of order and current license.
RCW 46.20.410 – Penalty – Violation.
105
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Opposite Direction
Executive Summary
The reduction of opposite direction collisions on state
highways is 2.5 times greater than the reduction on county
roads. There was a decrease of 30% on state routes (31%
for fatal collisions and 24% for serious injury collisions)
compared to a decrease of only 12% on county roads
(28% decrease in fatal collisions and a 2% increase in
serious injury collisions). These numbers are derived from
comparing 2009-2011 to 2006-2008. The greater decrease
on state routes is likely a factor of the comprehensive
coverage (more than 1,400 miles) of center line rumble
strips installed on these roads in the past decade.
From 2009-2011, 16% of all fatalities and 10% of all
serious injuries were from opposite direction collisions.
The numbers are declining at a rate (22%) which will
achieve our target of zero deaths or serious injuries by
2030.
Installation of rumble strips and median barriers are
reducing the frequency of these collisions. Continued
expansion of these efforts is needed to continue this trend.
Opposite direction collisions
are declining more quickly
on state routes (30%
decrease) than on county
roads (12% decrease).
106
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Opposite
Direction Fatalities 2002-2011
Opposite Direction Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 4 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
132
127
100
100
109
120
103
98
5YR AVG=84
79
50
68
71 71
60
52
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2024!
0
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Opposite Direction Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Opposite Direction Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 13 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
400
309
200
339
325 315
332
280
5YR AVG=256
248 241 248
208
183
213
159
No Performance Gap ‐ Zero in 2029!
0
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
107
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Opposite
Direction Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Opposite Direction Fatalities by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
92 (72.4%)
2003
67 (67.0%)
2004
75 (68.8%)
2005
84 (63.6%)
2006
75 (62.5%)
2007
75 (72.8%)
2008
61 (62.2%)
17 (17.3%)
2009
57 (72.2%)
6 (7.6%) 14 (17.7%)
2010
42 (59.2%)
2011
45 (63.4%)
22 (17.3%)
12 (9.4%)
9 (9.0%)
1 (0.8%)
24 (24.0%)
7 (6.4%)
27 (24.8%)
12 (9.1%)
36 (27.3%)
20 (16.7%)
9 (8.7%)
25 (20.8%)
19 (18.4%)
20 (20.4%)
2 (2.5%)
15 (21.1%) 13 (18.3%) 1 (1.4%)
6 (8.5%)
State Route
19 (26.8%)
City Street
1 (1.4%)
County Road
Miscellaneous Trafficway
Opposite
Direction Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002-2011
Opposite Direction Serious Injuries by Jurisdiction 2002‐2011
2002
165 (53.4%)
2003
164 (48.4%)
2004
139 (42.8%)
70 (21.5%)
105 (32.3%)
2005
133 (42.2%)
78 (24.8%)
100 (31.7%)
2006
143 (51.1%)
2007
164 (49.4%)
2008
113 (45.6%)
2009
100 (41.5%)
2010
125 (50.4%)
2011
100 (46.9%)
0
51 (16.5%)
90 (29.1%)
76 (22.4%)
66 (23.6%)
94 (27.7%)
69 (24.6%)
63 (19.0%)
78 (31.5%)
50 (20.7%)
87 (36.1%)
42 (19.7%)
50
100
State Route
150
City Street
11 (3.4%)
4 (1.3%)
2 (0.7%)
2 (0.6%)
2 (0.8%)
4 (1.7%)
74 (29.8%)
70 (32.9%)
5 (1.5%)
103 (31.0%)
55 (22.2%)
46 (18.5%)
3 (1.0%)
3 (1.2%)
1 (0.5%)
200
County Road
250
300
Miscellaneous Trafficway
108
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
350
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Background
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
While opposite direction collisions are less frequent than
collisions in some other areas, it is worth noting they
tend to be a severe type of crash. There is one opposite
direction fatality for every three serious injuries. By
comparison, when looking at fatalities across all Target
Zero priority areas, there is one fatality for every five
serious injuries.
From 2009-2011, the top contributing factors in fatal or
serious injury opposite direction collisions (not including
over center line) were impairment (35%), speeding
(30%), inattention or distraction (15%), falling asleep
(6%) and improper passing (5%). Impairment, and
inattention or distraction, are more frequent in fatal
collisions.
An Opposite
Direction Crash…
Impairment contributed to 49% of opposite direction
fatalities and 31% of serious injuries. Impairment is
underreported in serious injury collisions compared to
fatalities, where impairment is confirmed by toxicology.
Inattention or distraction contributed to 27% of fatalities
and 7% of serious injuries.
…typically occurs when one
vehicle crosses over a roadway
center line or a median and
collides into a vehicle traveling
in the opposite direction. It
does not include wrong way
drivers on freeways.
Younger drivers, age 16-25, were involved in 46% of the
fatal and serious injury opposite direction collisions.
The majority of opposite direction collisions are on
undivided two- and four-lane roadways, with a minority
involving crossover collisions on divided highways
(freeways).
Comparing 2009-2011 to 2006-2008, the decrease
(22%) in opposite direction fatalities and serious injuries
has been more significant than the decrease (13%) in
overall fatalities and serious injuries across all Target Zero
areas. There has been a 31% decrease in opposite
direction collision fatalities versus an overall decrease
of 18%. There has been an 18% decrease in opposite
direction serious injuries versus an overall decrease
of 12%.
Opposite Direction Fatalities
Total = 221
The majority (48%) of opposite direction collisions
occurred on state routes, resulting in 144 fatalities and
325 serious injuries. Smaller numbers occurred on county
roads (31%, 46 fatalities and 231 serious injuries) and
city streets (20%, 27 fatalities and 231 serious injuries).
To achieve Target Zero for opposite direction collisions,
there need to be four fewer fatalities and 13 fewer serious
injuries each year until 2030.
Impairment
108
49%
32
14%
Speeding
67
30%
Of the 221 opposite direction fatalities 2009-2011, 49% also involved impairment and 30% involved speeding. Combined, 14% of these fatalities involved both impairment
and speeding.
109
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Programs and Successes
Engineering
Driver Behavior
Engineering strategies can help reduce opposite direction
fatalities and serious injuries. Major initiatives in recent
years have included the use of more center line rumble
strips and the installation of barriers in the medians of
divided highways (freeways).
Occasionally, a driver’s actions (such as making an unsafe
pass on a two-lane road) can cause an opposite direction
collision. More frequently, this type of collision is caused
by a driver’s impairment, speed or distraction. By
implementing effective strategies to combat these driver
behaviors, Washington hopes to reduce opposite direction
collisions. Strategies to address these behaviors are listed
in their respective chapters.
Centerline rumble strips are especially effective when the
contributing factors of a crash include distracted, drowsy
or asleep drivers. An on-going analysis indicates that
centerline rumble strips are a cost-effective approach to
reducing cross-centerline collisions.
110
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Opposite Direction
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce opposite
direction collisions
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Install center line rumble strips. (P, WSDOT)
Engineering
1.2 Add raised medians or other access control on multi-lane
arterials. (P, CMF)
Engineering
1.3 Install median barriers for narrow-width medians on multilane
roads. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.4 Improve center line delineation by adding raised pavement
markers or profiled center lines. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.5 Increase the widths of center medians where possible. (U)
Engineering
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation
Additional Resources
Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 4, A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions (National Cooperative Highway
Research Program), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v4.pdf
Roadway Departure Safety Resources (Federal Highway Administration),
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/
The Gray Notebook, Edition 38 (Washington State Department of Transportation),
http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Jun10.pdf#page=20
111
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Motorcyclists
Executive Summary
Motorcycle fatalities have not been decreasing like
other traffic fatalities in Washington. This mirrors
a national trend and is alarming. In our state,
motorcycles make up just 4% of the registered
vehicles, but account for 14.7% of the traffic fatalities.
Impairment and speeding are major contributing
factors, and most fatalities are male. On a positive
note, endorsements have increased considerably
and motorcycle training prior to endorsement has
increased as well. However, with a growing numbers
of riders on the road, reducing the number of
motorcycle fatalities is an uphill challenge.
Background
There were 68 rider deaths in
Washington State in both 2009
and 2010. That number rose to
70 in 2011, comprising 14.7% of
the state’s total traffic fatalities.
Preliminary data for 2012 shows
83 motorcyclist fatalities, one of
the highest in our state’s history.
Motorcycles
represent only 4% of
registered vehicles,
and yet motorcyclists
represented nearly
15% of fatalities.
When we compare 2006-2008
to 2009-2011 data, there was
an 8.4% decrease in motorcyclist fatalities and a 14.8%
decrease in serious injuries. However, the 10-year trend
shows fatalities rising, taking us further from our goal of
zero deaths and injuries by 2030.
In 2007 legislation was passed to strengthen
the likelihood riders would be endorsed. The
law allows law enforcement to impound unendorsed
riders’ bikes when they’ve been pulled over for a routine
traffic stop. The result in 2007 was a dramatic increase
in new riders taking training courses on their path to
endorsement.
While motorcyclist fatalities are not trending downward,
there are areas in which progress is being made. Alcohol
and drug impairment is showing slight decreases, and
endorsements and motorcycle trainings are increasing.
Motorcycle helmets are highly effective in protecting
riders’ heads in a crash. State universal helmet laws are
effective at increasing helmet use, and are recommended
by NHTSA as a “countermeasure that works”. Yet year
after year, legislation is introduced to repeal Washington’s
helmet law. Washington must maintain its current helmet
law as we work toward Target Zero.
A license endorsement is required in Washington to ride a
motorcycle. Endorsed riders have fewer infractions and are
less likely to be involved in fatal collisions when compared
to unendorsed riders.
Additional legislation has been introduced to allow
motorcyclists to ride between lanes of traffic and to
stop and proceed through traffic signals under certain
conditions. So far these attempts have been unsuccessful.
Two methods are available to become an endorsed rider:
1.Successfully complete a motorcycle safety course at
an approved training school
2.Pass the knowledge and riding skills test (the traffic safety
community prefers riders complete a training course)
112
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Motorcyclists
Fatalities 2002-2011
Motorcyclist Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 4 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
100
5YR AVG=70
79
50
53
59
71 73
78
68
68 68 70
57
50
44
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Motorcyclist Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Motorcyclists Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 21 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
501
487
400
346 359
391
408
5YR AVG=437
478
456
388
364
354
312
271
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
113
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Motorcyclist Fatalities
Total = 206
Speeding and impairment continue to be major
contributing factors in motorcyclist crashes. Speeding
was involved in 57% of fatalities and 30% of serious
injuries among motorcyclists in 2009-2011. Alcohol
impairment was involved in 25% of fatalities
Impairment
and in 10% of serious injuries. Impairment is
underreported in serious injury collisions compared
to fatalities where impairment is confirmed by toxicology.
Motorcycle operators are the only group of drivers in
which drug impairment is more prevalent in fatal crashes
than is alcohol use. Currently 29% of fatal motorcycle
crashes involve drugs, down from 36% in 2006–2008.
While the reduction is encouraging, still more than one
in four motorcyclists killed on our roads was under the
influence of drugs.
101
49%
62
30%
Speeding
118
57%
Of the 206 motorcyclist fatalities 2009-2011, 49% also
involved impairment and 57% involved speeding. Combined,
30% of these fatalities involved both speeding and impairment.
114
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Young and middle aged riders are over-represented in
fatal crashes. Overwhelmingly younger riders choose
a “sport bike,” a lightweight, high-performance racereplica type motorcycle. Middle aged riders frequently
choose “cruisers” which are heavy, large, highway type
motorcycles designed for comfort and longer rides.
Of all endorsed riders in Washington, about 85% are
male and 15% are female. In 2009-2011, male riders
were involved in 92% of motorcyclist fatalities and 83%
of serious injury collisions. Alternatively, female riders
experience a higher rate of motorcyclist serious injuries
(14.6 per 10,000 endorsed females) than males do (10.8
per 10,000 endorsed males).
Compared to the number of endorsed riders by age group,
younger riders represent a higher proportion of fatalities,
but a much smaller proportion of endorsed riders.
Experience levels are predictive in fatal crashes. On
average, approximately 30-40% of motorcyclist fatalities
are untrained, unendorsed riders.
Prior violation history also sheds light on crash risk. The
average number for all endorsed motorcyclists is just
over one (1.1) violation. The average for endorsed riders
involved in fatal collisions is just over four (4.1) violations.
Around 75% of fatalities involve one or more of the
following:
1. Rider with less than two years’ experience
Motorcyclist Fatalities and Endorsed Riders By Age Group 2009‐2011 2.Unendorsed rider
3. Rider
with unknown experience level
20%
Motorcyclists Fatalities and Endorsed Riders By Age Group 2009-2011
16%
15%
14%
14%
13%
15%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
5%
10%
10%
9% 9%
8%
7%
8%
8%
7%
3%
2% 1%
0%
Percent Fatalities
Percent Endorsed
According the Department of Licensing, younger motorcyclists make up only a small portion of endorsed riders, yet account for a
larger proportion of motorcyclist fatalities.
115
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Programs and Successes
Media Campaigns and High Visibility
Enforcement
Motorcycle Taskforce
The “Look Twice¬Save a Life” media campaign involves
billboards, messaging on buses, and radio ads. Although
most motorcycle crashes in Washington are caused by rider
error (not by another motorist), this campaign was designed
to increase automobile driver
awareness of traffic safety
as it relates to motorcycles.
Usually motorcycle crashes
involve rider impairment,
speeding, run-off-the-road or
a combination of these factors.
To address these factors, High
Visibility Enforcement (HVE)
is a model that has proven
successful.
Beginning in 2006, a multi-agency Motorcycle Taskforce
began to research motorcycle fatalities. The collision reports
were studied and common factors determined. Speed,
lane changes and impairment were found to be the top
contributing factors. The most
unexpected revelation was the
contribution of rider related
factors in fatal collisions.
From 2009-2011, among
fatal collisions involving a
motorcyclist AND another
vehicle, 32% of motorcyclists
had driver related factors
contributing to the collision,
compared to 49% of drivers in
other motor vehicles.
However, 52% of motorcycle
involved fatalities did not
involve any other vehicles.
HVEs are statewide media
campaigns focused on
informing drivers of emphasis
enforcement efforts
regarding a targeted behavior,
accompanied by a large,
organized, law enforcement
effort. HVE summer DUI
campaigns target all impaired
motorists with a special emphasis on impaired motorcycle
riders.
Impound Law and
Endorsement Reminder
Mailings
The 2007 Impound Law, a
result of the Motorcycle
Taskforce, allows law enforcement officers to impound the
motorcycles of those motorcyclists operating without a
proper motorcycle endorsement. This has had the effect of
increasing rider training and rider endorsements.
Motorcycle Strategy Group
Currently a multi-agency Motorcycle Strategy Group is
studying ways to reduce motorcycle fatalities and serious
injuries. The entire traffic safety community is engaged in
this effort, including WTSC, DOL, WSP, WSDOT, Motorcycle
Dealers Association, representatives from several law
enforcement agencies and NHTSA Region 10. Each
motorcycle crash that resulted in a serious injury or fatality
for the last several years is being reviewed to determine the
best ways to utilize our resources to change rider behavior
and raise awareness of this increasing problem.
When the law first went into effect in 2007, the
Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) launched
a friendly reminder campaign where unendorsed owners
of registered motorcycles were mailed a reminder notice of
endorsement requirements. DOL service offices reported
an increase in customers coming in to get their motorcycle
endorsement after receiving the postcard. Many motorcycle
training schools reported an influx of new students who
claimed they were inspired to pursue endorsement because
of the DOL notice. In the summer of 2013, DOL repeated that
effort and expects to see a similar jump in endorsements.
116
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Impairment and Reckless Behavior Enforcement
Emphasis
Free Safety Clinics: Law Enforcement and
Dealership Partnerships
Three factors contribute to almost every fatal and serious
injury motorcycle crash: impairment, speed and operator
error or loss of control. Impairment is a contributing factor in
50% of all traffic fatalities. This includes motorcycle fatalities.
As of July 1, 2013, Target Zero Teams in five of the largest
counties in the state ¬ King, Pierce, Snohomish, Yakima, and
Spokane Counties ¬ are dedicated to finding and arresting
impaired drivers, including motorcycle riders.
There are various law enforcement partnerships with
motorcycle dealers and law enforcement officers, where free
safety tips and training are provided. These free clinics usually
occur on a Saturday or Sunday morning when large numbers
of riders are gathered at dealerships preparing for a weekend
ride. While these clinics are free, data isn’t collected on the
number of attendees. Anecdotally we know hundreds of
riders have participated in these safety training sessions.
In addition to the Target Zero Teams, law enforcement traffic
officers statewide receive special training to detect impaired
motorcycle riders. Many agencies also have taken a zero
tolerance stance on reckless motorcycle rider behaviors such
as speeding, recklessness and aggressive riding. Officers
are encouraged to give citations and no warnings for this
potentially deadly behavior.
117
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce numbers of
unendorsed and
untrained riders
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Collaborate with dealers and manufacturers to promote
motorcycle training and endorsement. (R, NCHRP)
Education
1.2 Increase number of riders participating in safety training. (U)
Education
1.3 Provide training tuition incentives for riders’ completion of
training. (U)
Education
1.4 Conduct targeted safety/endorsement media outreach and
education. (U)
Education
1.5 Outreach to motorcycle registration owners who are not
endorsed. (U)
Education
1.6 Emphasis on impoundment policy and education. (U)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
1.7 Increase opportunities for motorcyclist field training. (U )
Education
2.1 Lower the per se BAC limit for motorcycle riders from .08 to
.05 (P, META)
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Increase motorcyclist awareness of the risks of impaired
motorcycle operation. Promote self-policing within the
motorcycle community by expanding existing prevention
programs to include motorcycle riders and at specific
motorcycle events. (R, NCHRP)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
2.3 Target law enforcement to specific motorcycle rider
impairment behaviors that have been shown to contribute to
crashes. (R, NCHRP)
Enforcement
2.4 Re-establish endorsements by class size. Three-tier program
according to motorcycle engine size. (U)
Leadership/Policy
2.5 Re-testing for endorsement every five years. (U)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
3. Increase driver
awareness
3.1 Increase visibility of motorcyclists through use of bright
reflective clothing. (P, CTW)
Education
4. Increase rider safety
awareness
4.1 Promote use of owner’s actual motorcycle in training courses.
(R, DOL)
Education
5. Improve enforcement
5.1 Support specialized law enforcement training in motorcycle
DUI detection and motorcycle crash investigation. (R, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
5.2 Increase use of WSP aviation for enforcement of high risk
behaviors. (U)
Enforcement
5.3 Mandatory motorcycle impound if riding without an
endorsement. (U)
Enforcement
2. Reduce numbers of
impaired, unskilled,
and unsafe riders
Continued on next page.
118
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Motorcyclists
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
6. Continue convening
DOL’s Motorcycle
Advisory Committee
6.1 Promote public forums to share/receive feedback concerning
safety strategies and/or needs. (U)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
7. Work with Legislature/
Judicial System
7.1 Promote the option for motorcyclists to take a safety class in
lieu of a traffic ticket being added to his/her driving record.
Currently some county courts offer drivers of other vehicles
the option of traffic school to dismiss certain driving violations
from their record and insurance. (U)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
7.2 Require mandatory motorcycle insurance coverage—minimum
of liability just as automobiles require. (U)
Leadership/Policy
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work META = Meta Study
DOL = WA State Dept. of Licensing
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Additional Resources
An Examination of Washington State’s Vehicle Impound Law for Motorcycle Endorsements (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration), www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811698.pdf
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 5 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 22: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles (National
Cooperative Highway Research Program), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v22.pdf
Promising Practices in Motorcycle Rider Education and Licensing (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2005),
http://icsw.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/MotorcycleRider/pages/PromisingPractices.pdf
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to motorcyclists:
• RCW 46.37.530 – Motorcycles – Helmets, other equipment.
• RCW 46.81A – Motorcycle skills education program.
• RCW 46.61.608 – Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.
• RCW 46.61.610 – Riding on motorcycles.
• RCW 46.61.611 – Motorcycles – Maximum height for handlebars.
• RCW 46.61.612 – Riding on motorcycles – Position of feet.
• RCW 46.61.614 – Riding on motorcycles – Clinging.
119
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Pedestrians
Executive Summary
project in 2012. Volunteers counted more than 40,000
pedestrians and 20,000 bicyclists at 200 locations in 38
cities. According to WSDOT, counts at selected locations
showed walking and biking in Washington increased by
10% between 2008 and 2012.
In 2009-2011 there were 193 pedestrian fatalities and 869
serious injuries, accounting for 13.7% of traffic deaths and
12% of serious injuries. The rate of decrease for pedestrian
deaths and serious injury collisions has been slower than
that of overall fatalities and serious injuries.
Walking is an integral component of our transportation
system. Almost everyone is a pedestrian at one time or
another—going to school or work, running errands,
recreating and connecting with transit or other services.
For some without access to vehicles, particularly children
and older citizens, walking is a necessity.
Background
In 2009 through 2011, pedestrian fatalities decreased
by 2.5% compared to 2006-2008, while overall traffic
fatalities decreased by 18.5%. Likewise, serious injuries to
pedestrians decreased by 4.2% during the same period,
while serious injuries overall decreased by 11.4%.
According to WSDOT, most crosswalk locations are
unmarked. Approximately 10% of all legal crosswalk
locations are marked and 4% are signalized. A sampling
of city and county roads indicates a similar percentage of
marked legal crossings, and a higher percentage of
signalized locations.
Since pedestrians and bicyclists share common
characteristics, they are discussed together in some
instances. In order to better assess pedestrian and
bicycle collisions in Washington State, the traffic safety
community is trying to assess the number of people
walking and biking statewide to determine pedestrian or
bicycle exposure rates.
In 2008, Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) initiated the
Washington State Bicycle and Pedestrian
Documentation Project to collect
data on walking and biking. WSDOT
completed its fifth annual documentation
A joint research project between WSDOT and the
University of Washington identified a subset of state
highways that operate as city main streets in more than
180 cities. These city main street
highways account for 9% of the state
Pedestrian deaths
highway system (600 miles out of
7,044). In 2009-2011, these routes
account for 14% of
experienced 26% of pedestrian and
all traffic fatalities,
bicyclist fatalities occurring on state
up from 11%
highways.
in 2006-2008.
120
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Pedestrians
Fatalities 2002-2011
Pedestrian Fatalities 2002‐2011
300
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 3 per year (from 5yr Avg).
250
200
150
100
70
5YR AVG=64
77
50
60
74
72
68
62 64 62 63
52
46
39
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Pedestrian Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Pedestrians Serious Injuries 2002-2011
1000
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, serious injuries must be reduced by 14 per year (from 5yr Avg).
800
600
400
326
307
200
252
270 281
5YR AVG=290
293 288 289 292 288
235
207
180
0
Performance Gap
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
121
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Location of Pedestrian Collisions
From 2007-2011, almost half (46%) of pedestrian fatalities
occurred at or were related to an intersection. Statewide,
70% of pedestrian deaths occurred in urban areas.
However, when developing targeted countermeasures, it
is important to note that two-thirds of Native American
pedestrian deaths occurred in rural settings. Over half
(54.2%) of all pedestrian fatalities occurred in areas with
posted speeds of 25-35 mph, and 16.6% occurred on
roadways with 60-70 mph posted speeds.
The top contributing factors in pedestrian-vehicle
collisions are different from those in other types of vehicle
collisions.
In 2007-2011, vehicle driver actions were not a factor
in 57% of pedestrian fatalities. Among the 43% of
pedestrian fatalities involving driver contributing factors,
the following were most common:
1.Driver distraction (21%)
2.Failure to yield right-of-way (13.5%)
Programs and Successes
3.Driver impairment (12%)
High Visibility Enforcement
4.Speeding (6.9%)
A High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) campaign helped
reduce annual pedestrian deaths in Spokane County from
11 in 2009 to two in 2010. The campaign focused on both
drivers and pedestrians in cities. The locations were selected
based on crash and complaint data. Education and publicity
targeted drivers and pedestrians using a multi-pronged
approach with news coverage, television advertising,
rackcards, giveaways, and a presence at large events.
Consistent with all traffic fatalities, young drivers (age
16-25) were involved most frequently (21%). Drivers age
26-35 and 46-55 were both involved in 17% of pedestrian
fatalities.
Pedestrian contributing factors were not involved in 38%
of pedestrian fatalities. Of the 62% of fatal pedestrian
collisions involving a pedestrian factor, the following were
the most common:
1.Pedestrian impairment (50.8%)
2.Not visible to the driver (31%)
3.Crossing improperly (28.5%)
4.Improper action in the road, including standing,
lying, and playing (21%)
Nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of pedestrians killed were
male. Looking at age, the highest percent of pedestrian
fatalities occurred among those age 46-55 (17.9%),
followed by those age 56-65 (15.4%). Just over two
percent (2.2%) of pedestrian deaths involved those under
age 10, and 4.7% were age 11-15.
Enforcement used previously developed protocols for
three operational plans: vehicle driver/pedestrian sting,
pedestrian education/enforcement operation, and
pedestrian enforcement operation. Motorcycle police
were so successful that their usage was expanded during
the project. As motorcycle officers handed out rackcards,
giveaways and citations by shopping malls, hundreds of
people approached them to learn what was happening
(Spokane County Pedestrian Safety Project, Engineers
Office, March 2011).
Nearly one-third of pedestrian deaths occur in the winter
months of October – March, between the hours of 3-9 p.m.
This time period constitutes the deadliest time for
pedestrians, as do the months of April – September.
122
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Safe Routes to School Program
Nickerson Street Rechannelization
Washington’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is
designed to get more children walking and bicycling to
school safely, reduce congestion around schools and
improve air quality. The program provides technical
assistance and resources to cities, counties, schools,
school districts and state agencies. In the summer of 2008, Seattle removed three marked
crosswalks along Nickerson Street that no longer met
marked crosswalk guidelines. After analysis, Seattle
Department of Transportation (SDOT) determined
reconfiguring Nickerson Street from four lanes to three,
with a center turn lane, would accommodate traffic and
allow better pedestrian crossings. In addition to the
rechannelization, two new marked crosswalks were added.
The project improved traffic safety dramatically while
maintaining traffic volumes.
Through WSDOT’s SRTS Grant Program, between 2005
and 2012:
• A total of $32 million was made available for 96
projects from the over $137 million in requests
• Forty-one Safe Routes to School projects have been
completed, 51 are underway, three are pending
and one was cancelled.
There was a 27% reduction in total collisions compared to
the previous five-year average. In the 18 months following
the rechannelization, there was more than a 67% reduction
in vehicle-bicycle collisions and no vehicle-pedestrian
collisions (2011 Seattle Traffic Report, SDOT).
• Almost 70% of projects awarded in the
first three cycles have been completed
• A statewide bicycle and pedestrian safety
educating program had reached approximately
25 school districts and over 10,000 children in
5th through 8th grades by spring of 2012 Aurora Traffic Safety Project
Using short-term, low-cost engineering, education, and
enforcement tactics, collisions on Aurora Avenue North
in Seattle dropped more than 20%, with all fatal and
serious injury collisions down by 28%. The two-year
project (2009-2011) used education and enforcement
efforts to bring attention to behaviors like failure to yield to
pedestrians, speeding and inattention/distracted driving.
This focus paid off with the following reductions, according
to Seattle DOT:
According to WSDOT, SRTS projects that have provided
evaluation results show:
• An average increase of 20% in the number
of children walking and biking to school
• Completion of about 75,000 additional feet
of sidewalks near schools
• Failure to yield collisions down by 34%
• Inattention/distracted driving collisions down by 28%
• Speeding involved collisions down by 20%
• A reduction in motorist travel speeds and
traffic citations in school zones
• Increased student compliance with safe
crossing behaviors
• No collisions occurring at completed project locations
Longview Elementary – Moses Lake, WA
Before
After
123
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Improve pedestrian
safety awareness and
behaviors
2. Increase enforcement
of laws pertaining to
pedestrians
3. Expand and improve
pedestrian facilities
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Promote the use of reflective apparel among pedestrians
(conspicuity enhancement). (R, CTW)
Education
1.2 Educate pedestrians about the risks of distracted walking. (U)
Education
1.3 Develop and conduct communication and outreach efforts,
including the proven ‘brief intervention and screening’
approach to contact crash-involved impaired pedestrians, as
well as local law enforcement agencies, alcohol servers, social
and health service providers, and other involved parties for
reducing impairment as a factor in pedestrian crash-related
injuries and deaths. (U)
Education
2.1 Implement pedestrian safety zones, targeting geographic locations
and audiences with pedestrian crash concerns. (P, CTW)
Education, Enforcement,
Engineering
2.2 Expand targeted crosswalk enforcement and education for both
vehicles and pedestrians. (R, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
2.3 Reduce and enforce speed limits. Implement traffic calming
features to reduce speeds in locations with a high number of
pedestrians. (R, CTW)
Education, Enforcement,
Engineering
2.4 Improve pedestrian rights and responsibilities training for law
enforcement officers at state, Tribal, and local levels.
(R, WSDOT)
Education
3.1 Improve safety at pedestrian crossings by installing refuge
islands, scale lighting, and shortening crossing distances.
(R, CMF)
Engineering
3.2 Increase the use of rectangular rapid flashing beacons and
pedestrian hybrid beacons. (R, CMF)
Engineering
3.3 Follow national guidelines on the use of reflective markings and
sign materials. (R, FHWA)
Engineering
Education, Enforcement,
3.4 Implement programs that improve the built environment.
Solutions should focus on appropriate zoning, crossing treatments,
and pedestrian connections to public transit. (R, LIT)
Engineering
3.5 Improve sight distances and/or visibility between motor
vehicles and pedestrians at high risk and high volume
pedestrian crossings. Move the stop bar farther back from
the intersection, clear vegetation, extend crossing times, and
implement pedestrian lead intervals. (U)
Engineering
3.6 Implement Complete Streets to provide for all modes of
transportation. (R, NCSC)
Leadership/Policy,
Engineering
Continued on next page.
124
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 4. Improve safety for
children walking to
school
5. Improve data
and performance
measures
P = Proven
Strategies (How)
Implementation Arena(s)
4.1 Expand high visibility speed enforcement in school zones,
including automated speed photo enforcement. (R, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
4.2 Implement elementary and middle school pedestrian training
curricula in schools. (R, CTW)
Education
4.3 Apply consistent signing and other pedestrian crossing
features in school zones as appropriate (based on the number
of lanes, speeds, age of pedestrians, etc.). (R, FHWA)
Engineering
4.4 Distribute and encourage the use of “School Walk and Bike
Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to
School Options for Students” and assist schools in creating
school walk route maps. (R, WSDOT)
Education, Engineering
4.5 Encourage and support school districts to implement elements
in the Safe Routes to School program including Walking School
Buses, walking campaigns. (U)
Education, Engineering
5.1 Enhance the collection of a measure of ‘miles walked’ (similar
to VMT). Continue to track pedestrian counts through
Washington’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Documentation Project.
(R, DDACTS)
Leadership/Policy
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
LIT = Literature (Although we could not locate a meta study, there is sufficient independent literature with favorable results
to justify as a recommended strategy)
WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation
125
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Pedestrians
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 8 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Effectiveness of a Safe Routes to School Program in Preventing School Aged Pedestrian Injury (Charles
DiMaggio, PhD, MPH and Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, in Pediatrics journal)
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx?cid=29
Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants (UK Department for
Transport),
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf
State Highways as Main Streets: A Study of Community Design and Visioning (Washington State Department
of Transportation and University of Washington), http://www.wsdot.gov/research/reports/fullreports/733.1.pdf
The Gray Notebook, Edition 48, page 5-8 (Washington State Department of Transportation),
http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Dec12.pdf
Washington State Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (Washington State Department of
Transportation), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Count.htm
Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan (Washington State Department of
Transportation), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/bike_plan.htm
Washington State Laws (RCWs) relating to pedestrians:
• RCW 46.61.050 – Traffic signals. Pedestrians must obey traffic signals and traffic control devices unless
otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer. • RCW 46.61.235 – Crosswalks. No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb and move into traffic so
that the driver cannot stop. Vehicles shall stop at intersections to allow pedestrians and bicycles to cross the
road within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. See Washington’s Crosswalk Law for more information.
• RCW 46.61.240 – Yield to vehicles outside intersections. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point
other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right
of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
• RCW 46.61.245 – Drivers exercise due care. Every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding
with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary. • RCW 46.61.250 – Pedestrians on roadways. Pedestrians must use sidewalks when they are available. If
sidewalks are not available, pedestrians must walk on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic.
• RCW 46.61.261 – Sidewalks, crosswalks. Drivers and bicyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and in
crosswalks. • RCW 47.04.330 – Street projects – Consultation with local jurisdictions – Context sensitive design solutions.
126
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Level
Two
Priority Priority
Level Two
• Pedestrians
127
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and
Trauma Care System
Nearly 40% of all deaths
from trauma occur within
hours of injury. Washington’s
trauma care system strives to
assure the “right” patient
arrives at the “right” facility
in the “right” amount of time.
Executive Summary
Nearly 40% of all deaths from trauma ¬ defined as a major
injury requiring medical or surgical care to prevent death
or permanent disability ¬ occur within hours of injury.
Timely and appropriate emergency medical response to
collisions saves lives and reduces disability.
Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for young
people age 15-24. In Washington in 2011, there were 483
deaths in this age group, approximately 40% of them due
to unintentional injury. Almost half of those unintentional
injuries were from motor vehicle collisions. Many of these
types of deaths are preventable with access to an effective
trauma system.
Our comprehensive, statewide EMS and trauma system
provides a continuum of care for patients with severe
injuries, and in-hospital mortality rates are significantly
lower at trauma centers than at hospitals without trauma
centers. It gets the right patient to the right care in the
right amount of time.
128
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System
Background
In addition to the minutes immediately following an injury,
a patient’s outcome is dependent on other important facets
of trauma care. These include prevention activities, hospital
care and rehabilitation resources. These components work
together to reduce death and disability of injured people
throughout Washington.
Washington’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and
Trauma Care System is a coordinated system to assure
appropriate and adequate care with the goal of reducing
death and disability.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 By providing emergency care
as soon as possible, EMS helps reduce deaths and serious
injuries. The minutes directly following a traumatic injury
are often critical to saving lives or minimizing the long term
effects of serious injury. Timeliness and clinical expertise are
critical factors in the success of post trauma care.
Washington’s trauma care system strives to assure the “right”
patient arrives at the “right” facility in the “right” amount of
time. Nearly 40% of all trauma deaths occur within hours of
injury, and in-hospital mortality rates are significantly lower
at trauma centers than at hospitals without trauma centers.
Many of these deaths are preventable with access to an
effective, organized trauma system.
Mortality of Trauma Patients Involved in Traffic Crashes 2002‐2011
Mortality of Trauma Patients Involved in Traffic Crashes 2002-2013
7.7%
7.4%
6.7%
5.9%
5.7%
5.7%
5.1%
5.1%
5.4%
4.4%
Mortality Rate
10 Year Trend
There is a downward trend for inpatient death from trauma, defined as a major injury requiring medical or surgical
care to prevent death or permanent disability. During 2002-2011, similar downward trends were evident in most age
groups. Younger (ages 15-24) and older (age 65+) groups had the most significant decreases in hospital deaths.
1 Chiara, O. and S. Cimbanassi. “Organized trauma care: does
5 Mullins, R.J. and N.C. Mann. “Population-based research
volume matter and do trauma centers save lives?” Current
Opinion in Critical Care. 2003; 9(6):510-514.
assessing the effectiveness of trauma systems.” Journal of
Trauma. 1999; 47(suppl 3):S59-S66.
2 Miller, T.R. and D.R. Levy. “The effect of regional trauma care
6 Mackenzie, E.J. “Review of evidence regarding trauma system
effectiveness resulting from panel studies.” Journal of Trauma.
1999; 47(suppl 3):S34-S41.
system on costs.” Archives of Surgery. 1995; 130(2):188-193.
3 Celso, B., J. Tepas, B. Langland-Orban. “A systematic review and
7 MacKenzie, E.J., F.P. Rivara, et al. “A national evaluation of the
meta-analysis comparing outcomes of severely injured patients
treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma
systems.” Journal of Trauma. 2006; 60(2):371-378.
effect of trauma-center care on mortality.” New England Journal
of Medicine. 2006; 354(4):366-378.
4 Mann, N.C., R.J. Mullins, et al. “Systematic review of published
evidence regarding trauma system effectiveness.” Journal of
Trauma. 1999; 47(suppl 3):S25-S33.
129
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System
Data Driven
In a national evaluation of the effect of trauma center care
on mortality, MacKenzie et. al., discussed the importance
of triaging severely injured patients to the highest level
trauma center.4,6,7 Their results underscored the fact that
overall risk of death is “significantly lower when care is
provided in a trauma center than when it is provided in
a non-trauma center.” This highlights the importance
of a well-coordinated system that ensures severely
traumatized patients arrive at the most appropriate level
trauma center in the most optimum time span.
Developing forward thinking strategies and making
decisions based on empirical data is critical to the continued
success of Washington’s EMS and Trauma Care System. Any
goals and performance measures should incorporate the
gathering, analysis and archiving of data related to EMS and
trauma incidents. This evidence based focus will
ensure that EMS realizes its full potential and continues
to favorably impact the outcomes of injured people.
Data must be collected on the care provided by the EMS
and hospital-based providers treating the patient. This
includes the amount of time the patient remains on the
scene after the arrival of EMS, whether or not the patient
was transported to the appropriate level of trauma hospital,
and whether the patient survived or not. These three points
of analysis ¬ on scene time, patient destination and patient
outcome ¬ allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of prehospital EMS and trauma care.
The EMS and Trauma System currently consists of:
• 466 trauma verified pre-hospital (EMS) agencies
• 8 EMS and trauma regions
• 85 designated acute care trauma centers
• 14 trauma rehabilitation centers
This system has contributed to a steady decrease in the
number of motor vehicle related deaths. The death rate
for trauma patients involved in traffic collisions decreased
from 7.7% in 2002 to 4.4% in 2011. The Washington State
Department of Health (DOH) translates this downward
trend into 147 additional lives saved by Washington’s EMS
and Trauma Care system.
This data is collected through two sources: the Washington
EMS Information System (WEMSIS) and the Washington
Trauma Registry (WTR). WEMSIS is Washington’s version
of the national EMS database. As the number of EMS
agencies contributing data to WEMSIS increases, better
analysis will be possible. The WTR collects demographic
and clinical data only on trauma patients from EMS agencies
and trauma-designated acute care hospitals. These two data
sources together capture a comprehensive picture of EMS
and hospital care received by trauma patients.
The data integration subcommittee of the State’s Traffic
Records Committee is exploring linking data from the
WEMSIS and the WTR, as well as hospital inpatient
discharge records, with collision records. Linking these
datasets will provide insights on how to best deliver care to
those severely injured in collisions.
Partnerships
Washington’s EMS and Trauma Care System has been built
upon broad consensus amongst a diverse group of health
care professionals and industry experts. These groups
have continuously worked to address the complex political,
economic, logistical, legal and clinical issues associated
with trauma care in the state. Addressing the challenges in
a collaborative approach allows us to continue reducing the
number of collision related fatalities and serious injuries.
130
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Reduce injury deaths
and hospitalizations
through EMS response
and access to trauma
care
2. Increase
communication and
data capacity
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Ensure efficient and adequate distribution of Level 1 and Level
2 Designated Trauma Centers. Increase the number of Level 2
trauma centers in the state, especially in eastern Washington.
(P, META)
EMS
1.2 Ensure that all major trauma patients are transported to the
highest appropriate level of designated trauma center within a
30-minute transport. (R, DOH)
EMS
1.3 Identify funding strategies that assist air medical services in
filling gaps in coverage for emergency air medical response as
identified in the state EMS and Trauma System Plan. (R, DOH)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
1.4 Increase injury prevention programs that reduce traffic related
injuries and death. (R, LIT)
Education
1.5 Increase the percentage of EMS on-scene arrival responses
that are within state requirements. (R, DOH)
EMS
1.6 Ensure adequate and efficient distribution of pre-hospital EMS
resources at all levels (aid and ambulance) according to the
EMS and Trauma State and Regional Plans. (R, DOH)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
1.7 Improve enforcement and public understanding of ‘move-over’
law. (U)
Education, Enforcement
1.8 Consider EMS access in engineering development plans. (U)
EMS, Engineering
2.1 Assure that seamless communications capabilities among
EMS, law enforcement, and fire services agencies are achieved
through interoperability. (R, NCHRP)
EMS, Enforcement,
Leadership/Policy
2.2 Ensure that the Washington State EMS and Trauma Care
System has a statewide comprehensive, robust prehospital
data system utilizing the prehospital data set with standard
definitions - WEMSIS. (R, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.3 Increase the number of EMS agencies reporting to WEMSIS.
(R, NCHRP)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.4 Prioritize WEMSIS availability for linking to collision records.
(R, DOH)
Leadership/Policy, EMS
2.5 Ensure that the Washington State EMS and Trauma Care
System collects, integrates, links, and analyzes data from all
system components. (R, DOH)
EMS
R = Recommended
DOH = WA State Dept. of Health
META = Meta Study
U = Unknown
LIT = Literature (Sufficient independent literature with favorable results)
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
131
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Two • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Trauma Care System
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th Edition
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Death Data (Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics, 2012),
http://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/VitalStatisticsData/DeathData.aspx
EMS and Trauma (Washington State Department of Health),
http://www.doh.wa.gov/PublicHealthandHealthcareProviders/EmergencyMedicalServicesEMSSystems/EMSandTrauma.aspx
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 15: A Guide for Reducing Alcohol-Related Collisions (National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v15.pdf
Proposed National Unified Goal on Traffic Incident Management (National Traffic Incident Management Coalition),
http://downloads.transportation.org/Proposed_National_Unified_Goal.pdf
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to EMS and Trauma Care System:
• RCW 18.71 – Physicians.
• RCW 18.73 – Emergency medical care and transportation services.
• RCW 70.168 – Statewide trauma care system.
132
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority
Level
Three
Washington State 2009-2011
Fatalities
# of People
% of Total
Serious Injuries
# of People
% of Total
Priority Level Three
Older Driver 75+ Involved
126
9.0%
378
5.2%
Heavy Truck Involved 115
8.2%
341
4.7%
Drowsy Driver Involved
45
3.2%
258
3.6%
Bicyclists
26
1.8%
339
4.7%
Work Zone
9
0.6%
132
1.8%
Wildlife
8
0.6%
78
1.1%
School Bus Involved
3
0.2%
18
0.2%
Vehicle-Train
2
0.6%
3
0.0%
1,406
7,247
Total*
* “Total” is for all fatalities and serious injuries in Levels One, Two and Three combined. More than
one factor is commonly involved in fatal and serious injury collisions. Therefore, each fatality and
serious injury in “Total” may be represented multiple times in the Level tables. For the Target Zero
Priorities Chart with all three priority levels, see page 9.
A
Priority Level Three • Older Drivers 75+ Involved
Older Drivers 75+ Involved
Executive Summary
From 2009-2011, older road users were involved in 126
(9%) traffic fatalities. This is an 8% decrease when
compared with 2006-2008 numbers. On the other hand,
serious injuries involving drivers 75 and older increased by
1.3%. To achieve Target Zero for older driver involved
collisions, there will need to be two fewer fatalities and six
fewer serious injuries each year until 2030.
Between 2009-2011, older road users were involved in
9% (126) of all traffic fatalities. By 2040, people in
Washington 75 or older
will comprise 11.7% of
By 2040, over one
our state’s population,
compared to 5.5% in
million people in
2010. We will continue to
Washington will
monitor data pertaining to
older drivers and develop
be 75 or older –
strategies to plan for an
almost three times
aging population with
the number of
the goal of enabling older
drivers to retain as much
people in that age
mobility as possible for as
group today.
long as possible.
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Among older drivers age 75 and older involved in fatal
collisions, 27.8% had no driver related factors. In serious
injury collisions, 38.9% of older drivers involved had
no driver related factors. When older driver actions did
contribute to the collision, failure to grant right-of-way was
the most common driver related factor, contributing to
15.9% of fatalities and 26.4% of serious injuries.
Background
The number of older road users is increasing as the baby
boomer population ages. This group of 75 and older
Washington citizens will number over a million by 2040,
making up 11.7% of our state’s population. Although age
itself does not determine driving capabilities, older
drivers can experience declines in their sensory, cognitive
or physical functioning, increasing their risk of involvement
in traffic collisions.
In fatal collisions, 9.5% of older drivers were distracted
and 5.2% were distracted in serious injury collisions.
Older drivers are more vulnerable than younger drivers in
collisions. The skeletal structures of older persons
are more easily damaged and the consequences of a
collision are likely to be more serious. From 2009-2011,
133
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Older Drivers 75+ Involved
among all persons involved in fatal and serious injury collisions, persons age 75 and older were the highest risk age group
for death or injury. In fatal collisions, almost half (47.7%) of persons age 75 and older involved were the ones killed,
compared to the next highest age group of 45-54 at 10.8%.
Similarly in serious injury collisions, 65% of persons age 75 and older involved were the ones seriously injured, compared
to only 6.4% of persons age 18-24, 25-34 and 55-64. Compared to involved persons age 65-74, persons aged 75 and
older are 7.5 times more likely to be killed and over 20 times more likely to be seriously injured when involved in
these collisions.
Programs and Successes
Highway Design and Traffic Control Elements
Among other things, the Washington
State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) has been using enlarged
road signs and improved nighttime
reflectivity to increase readability. The
WSDOT design manual also promotes
intersections that meet at 90 degrees,
in part to improve safety for older
drivers.
Older Drivers Age 75+ Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
Older Drivers 75+ Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
65
65
5YR AVG=44
54
54
52
48
45
40
38
35
34
Education
31
27
Older drivers may enroll in educational
classes through programs such as
AAA’s “Senior Defensive Driving
Program.” These programs focus on
high-risk situations all drivers face, as
well as providing tips and techniques
for addressing factors more typical with
age. These include changing vision,
reduced response times, and effects of
various prescription medications.
Guidelines for Aging Population
Older drivers who can no longer drive
safely in some situations may need to
have their driver license restricted or
revoked. It may be helpful to establish
a State Medical Advisory Board to
develop guidelines to determine medical
conditions, regardless of age, when
driver license restrictions or revocation
might be needed.
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Older Drivers Age 75+ Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Older Drivers 75+ Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
177
5YR AVG=126
159
154
142
131
127 129 128
117
102
92
90
78
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
134
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Three • Older Drivers 75+ Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Identify older drivers
at an elevated crash
risk.
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Implement additional procedures for screening drivers’ abilities
and skills. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy
1.2 Provide training to law enforcement, medical professionals,
and community members for recognizing physical and
cognitive deficiencies affecting safe driving in older drivers,
including submitting reevaluation referrals to Department of
Licensing. (P, CTW)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy, Education
1.3 Implement Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program
Guidelines for Motor Vehicle Administrators for screening and
evaluating older drivers’ physical and cognitive abilities and
skills. (P, CTW)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
1.4 Continue to restrict drivers license online eligibility and
renewals for drivers age 70+
Leadership/Policy
2. Improve older driver
competency
2.1 Increase driver education opportunities for older drivers. (U)
Education
3. Reduce risk of serious
injury and fatalities
involving older drivers
3.1 Provide incentives for older drivers who use alternative modes
of transportation. (R, FTA)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
3.2 Involve caregivers and family members of older drivers in
discussions and education about aging and driving and provide
techniques they can use to help the older driver assess safe
driving, and, when necessary, transition from driving.
(R, NHTSA)
Education
3.3 Reduce the amount of information on road signs, making them
easier to read. (U)
Engineering
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
135
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Older Drivers 75+ Involved
Additional Resources
Attracting Senior Drivers to Public Transportation: Issues and Concerns (Federal Transit Administration),
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TRANSPO_Attracting_Seniors_Public_Transportation_Final_Report.pdf
Characteristics of Crash Injuries Among Young, Middle-aged, and Older Drivers (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 2007), http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810857.pdf
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 7 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Driving Transitions Education: Tools, Scripts, and Practice Exercises (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811152.pdf
Forecast of the State Population: November 2012 Forecast (Washington Office of Financial Management),
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/stfc/stfc2012/stfc_2012.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 9: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v9.pdf
136
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Heavy Truck Involved
Heavy Truck Involved
Executive Summary
Fatalities involving
a heavy truck
decreased 49%
over three years.
For this edition of Target Zero, the
data definition was revised to be more
inclusive of all types of commercial
motor vehicles in addition to heavy
trucks. The heavy truck numbers now
also include any commercial vehicle
classification for vehicles reported through a commercial
vehicle supplement to the Police Traffic Collision Report
(PTCR).
In 2009-2011, heavy truck involved fatalities
decreased by 49% (227 to 115) and serious
injuries by 26% (461 to 341) compared
to 2006-2008. Several heavy truck
enforcement campaigns, often paired with educational
efforts, have contributed to this impressive decline, which
also preserves our state’s road infrastructure.
Background
The critical and timely data used during roadside
inspections was enhanced with the implementation of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA)
Compliance Safety Analysis project. This process
improvement project provides officers with the ability to
inspect a greater number of high-risk carriers and drivers
while facilitating greater communication with the industry.
The new enforcement and compliance model allows
FMCSA and its state partners to address more safety
problems before crashes occur. Rolled out in December
2010, the program establishes a new nationwide system
for making the roads safer for motor carriers and the
public alike.
In 2009-2011, heavy trucks were involved in 115 (8.2%)
of Washington’s traffic fatalities and 341 (4.7%) of the
serious injuries. This is a significant decrease of 49% for
fatalities and 26% for serious injuries compared with
2006-2008. Collisions involving heavy trucks (over
10,000 gross vehicle weight rate) pose higher risk of death
and serious injury, particularly for other involved drivers,
mainly due to their size and weight.
137
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Heavy Truck Involved
Contributing Circumstances and Factors
From 2009-2011, over 70% of heavy truck involved collisions occur where posted speeds are 50 mph or greater. Nearly
75% of these collisions occurred on state routes. Less than 5% of heavy truck operators involved in fatal collisions were
impaired by drugs and less than 1% impaired by alcohol. Approximately 8% of heavy truck operators were speeding,
compared to 12% of other drivers involved in fatal collisions with heavy trucks. Less than 2% of heavy truck operators
involved in fatal collisions were drowsy, however nearly 20% were distracted (see pages 67-74). There were no improperly
endorsed or unlicensed heavy truck operators involved in fatal collisions.
Heavy Truck Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
Programs and Successes
Heavy Truck Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
Bureau Inspections
The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
Bureau (CVEB) is recognized as a national
leader in implementing technology to
reduce commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
collisions, as well as support freight mobility.
In 2012, Washington enforcement officers
inspected 107,823 vehicles, an increase
of 5,384 inspections compared to 2011.
This was 49% higher than the national
average of 72,018 inspections per state.
CVEB utilizes data to identify high-risk
carriers at roadside and fixed facilities and
prioritizes compliance reviews. The data is
also used to support resource deployment,
identify enforcement corridors, and plan
emphasis activities and strategies targeted
at reducing CMV collisions.
81
80
78
69
69
65
59
5YR AVG=53
43
37
43
38
35
33
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Heavy Truck Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Heavy Truck Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
209
198
Heavy Truck Definition:
173
1) Any vehicle that also has a vehicle
classification of trailer with GVWR of
10,001 lbs. or more, single vehicle with
GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more, or single
vehicle of 26,000 lbs. or less-CDL
required or a commercial vehicle
supplement to the collision report.
167
158
151
136
5YR AVG=127
114
125
102
103
91
79
2) A vehicle type of Truck and Trailer,
Truck Tractor, Truck Tractor and
Semi-Trailer, or Truck-Double Trailer
Combinations.
3) A vehicle usage classification
of Concrete Mixer, Dump Truck, Logging
Truck, Refuse/Recycle Truck, Van over
10,001 lbs, Tanker Truck, or Auto Carrier.
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
138
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Three • Heavy Truck Involved
Fatigue Driving Problem Oriented Public Safety
Project
Ticket Aggressive Cars and Trucks Program
The Ticket Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) program
is working to reduce CMV-related collisions, injuries and
fatalities, through education and enforcement related to
car and truck drivers sharing the road safely. The program
was created in 2002 under the leadership and funding
of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC),
working in cooperation with nearly a dozen public and
private organizations statewide. The successful program
has now been implemented nationwide. In 2012, the
nine assigned Washington State Patrol (WSP) CVD
TACT officers located around the state contacted 10,827
violators, 2,496 aggressive drivers, 6,238 speed violators,
363 seatbelt violators, seven reckless drivers, 38 negligent
drivers, and completed 1,280 CVSA inspections. The
officers also made 20 drug arrests and four DUI arrests.
Drowsiness makes drivers less attentive, slows
reaction time, and affects a driver’s ability to make
decisions. Cognitive impairment after approximately 18
hours awake is similar to that of someone with a blood
alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05%. After about 24 hours
awake, impairment is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10%, higher
than the legal limit in all states (http://www.cdc.gov/
features/dsdrowsydriving/).
The Washington State Patrol (WSP), in partnership with
Oregon Department of Transportation, initiated a Problem
Oriented Public Safety (POPS) project to combat fatigued
commercial drivers and reduce related collisions and
incidents. The POPS project was part of the WSP’s efforts
to reduce CMV collisions and fatalities.
In addition to the TACT program, WSP participates in
other national public awareness and enforcement
campaigns targeting commercial vehicles, such as
Operation Safe Driver, Roadcheck and Operation Air
Brake/Brake Safety Week.
During the year-long project (December 2011 – December
2012) the two-state alliance inspected 1,846 commercial
vehicles. Washington and Oregon shared information by
using new technology from Washington’s Automated
License Plate Readers (ALPR). The ALPR helped officers
in both states map the location of CMV in relation to time.
Throughout the POPS emphasis, all fixed scales on
Interstate 5 from southern Oregon to the Canadian
Border remained open 24 hours a day.
Weight Limits on Heavy Trucks
In 1975, federal laws were implemented to provide
protection and uniformity to the existing and future
national highway infrastructure. Having these defined
limits helps engineers to design pavements that will hold
up under anticipated truck volumes. The Washington State
Department of Transportation continuously monitors our
state’s highways and bridges for signs of repeated
overweight loads or volume in excess of what was
anticipated at the engineering design phases.
The information exchange between the states proved to be
an extremely valuable tool for inspectors in detecting and
confirming hours of service violations. Inspectors targeted
fatigued drivers through close examination of drivers’
logbooks. A total of 366 drivers found to be operating
in excess of allowable hours of service, or in possession
of falsified logbooks, were placed out of service for an
average of 10 hours. Top offenses were: false reporting
of driver’s duty status; driving over the 11/14 60/70 hour
rule, logbook not current, and disqualified driver.
139
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Heavy Truck Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Increase safety and
reduce collisions
through quality
driver and vehicle
inspections and
enforcement
2. Improve roadway
infrastructure to
reduce heavy truck/
commercial vehicle
collisions
P = Proven
Implementation Arena(s)
Strategies (How) 1.1 Increase and strengthen commercial vehicle safety and
performance inspections, including focus on the heavy truck/
commercial vehicle driver. (P, NCHRP)
Enforcement
1.2 Promote industry safety initiatives by performing safety
consultations with carrier safety management. (P, NCHRP)
Education
1.3 Provide ongoing education and outreach utilizing ‘Share the
Road’ information. (R, NCHRP)
Education
1.4 Establish commercial vehicle compliance checkpoints in areas
identified as high risk for collisions involving heavy trucks/
commercial vehicles. (R, DDACTS)
Enforcement
1.5 Increase commercial vehicle enforcement contacts targeting
the top five collision-causing moving violations. (R, DDACTS)
Enforcement
1.6 Increase enforcement personnel use of FMCSA’s PORTAL for
identifying high-risk carriers. (U)
Enforcement
1.7 Provide CMV training to enforcement officers at the state,
county, and local levels. (U)
Enforcement, Education
2.1 Install interactive truck rollover and curve warning signage. (P,
NCHRP)
Engineering
2.2 Incorporate rumble strips into new and existing roadways to
reduce fatigue-related collisions. (R, CMF)
Engineering
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Additional strategies applicable to reducing
Heavy Truck involved fatalities and serious
injuries can be found in the Distracted Driver
Involved section, pages 73-74.
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 13: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Heavy Trucks, (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v13.pdf
140
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Drowsy Driver Involved
Drowsy Driver Involved
Executive Summary
People underestimate the dangers of drowsy driving, yet
fighting the urge to sleep puts everyone on the road at
risk. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety conducted a
study in 2010 of National
Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
(NHTSA) crash data. Study
results estimate drowsy
driving is a factor in nearly
one in six fatal crashes,
and two out of five drivers
surveyed (41%) admitted
to falling asleep behind the
wheel at some point.
Between 2009-2011, statistics showed drowsy drivers
contributed to 45 traffic fatalities and 258 serious injuries
in Washington State. However, this contributing factor
may be significantly higher
because it’s difficult to prove
if or when a driver is drowsy.
It requires self- or witness
reporting, which is often
inconsistent. Education and
engineering efforts are the
most effective ways to keep
drivers awake and alert.
Background
Younger drivers are more
likely to drive while drowsy.
Based on a recent survey
conducted by the AAA
Foundation, one in seven
licensed drivers ages 16-24
admitted to having nodded
off at least once while
driving in the past year as
compared to one in 10 of
all licensed drivers who
confessed to falling
asleep during
Drowsiness or
the same period
fatigue can happen
(Washington, D.C.,
November 8, 2012).
to any driver and is
All drivers have experienced
the feeling of being drowsy
at one time or another.
Drowsy driving can result
from such things as lack
of sleep, too much time on
the road without stopping,
taking over-the-counter or
prescription medications, or
consuming drugs or alcohol.
Drowsiness makes drivers
less attentive, slows
reaction time and affects a driver’s ability to make
decisions. Cognitive impairment after approximately 18
hours awake is similar to that of someone with a blood
alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05%. After about 24 hours
awake, impairment is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10%, higher
than the legal limit in all states (http://www.cdc.gov/
features/dsdrowsydriving/).
likely under-reported
as a cause of
traffic crashes.
These new findings
echo data from the
AAA Foundation’s
NHTSA crash data
study which
estimates young
drivers age 16-24 were 78% more likely to be drowsy at
the time of a collision than drivers age 40-59. Washington
State data shows between 2002 and 2011, young drivers
age 16-24 were 55% more likely to be drowsy at the time
of a collision as drivers age 40-59.
Between 2009-2011, 73% of both fatalities and serious
injuries attributed to drowsy driving involved a single
vehicle. Of these collisions, 65% of fatalities and 69% of
serious injuries occurred between the hours of 5 a.m.-6 p.m.
(including standard daytime working hours), contrary to
the popular belief that most drowsy driving happens at
night. About half of fatalities (51%) and one-third (33%)
of serious injuries occurred on weekends (Saturday or
Sunday).
141
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Drowsy Driver Involved
Contributing Circumstances and Factors
Many circumstances can contribute to drowsy driving including lack of sleep, too much time on the road without stopping,
taking over-the-counter or prescription medications, or consuming drugs or alcohol. It’s difficult to prove if or when a
driver is drowsy, so the numbers are likely under reported. People traveling long distances often travel on highways or
interstates, which is where the majority of drowsy driver involved fatalities and serious injuries occur. From 2009-2011,
drowsy driver involved fatalities and serious injuries occurred most often on state routes. The majority of these crashes
(over 70%) are single vehicle and/or run-off-the-road events.
Sleep Apnea
According to the Center for Sleep Disorders up to 20% of collisions that occur on monotonous roads can be attributed
to sleepiness, and the most common medical cause of excessiveDrowsy Driver Involved Fatalities 2002‐2011
daytime sleepiness is obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
New guidelines have been drafted to
provide healthcare practitioners with
Drowsy Driver Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
a framework for the evaluation and
management of sleepy driving as it
39
36
relates to OSA. Center for Disease
Control (CDC) representatives report
32 32
31
that addressing the issue of drowsy
driving requires the combined effort of
23
physicians, patients and policy
5YR AVG=18
makers.
18
14
Specific to monotonous roads as a
contributing factor in Washington State
in drowsy driving collisions, 74% of
fatalities and 63% of serious injuries
occur on state routes. This is much
higher than the average for all combined
fatalities and serious injuries, 43% and
32% respectively. In contrast, drowsy
driving fatalities and serious injuries
occur less often on county roads
(18% fatalities; 22% serious injuries)
compared to the average for all fatalities
(30%) and serious injuries (25%).
13
15
13
11
6
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Drowsy Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Drowsy Driver Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
136
135
106
102
107
5YR AVG=88
98
87
74
75
85
71
63
54
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
142
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Priority Level Three • Drowsy Driver Involved
Programs and Successes
Drowsy Driving Prevention Week
Engineering
The National Sleep Foundation’s Drowsy Driving
Prevention Week® is observed in November each year,
just prior to the heavy Thanksgiving travel. This campaign
provides public education about the under-reported risks
of driving while drowsy and countermeasures to improve
safety on the road. Supporting this effort to combat
drowsy driving, former Washington State Governor
Christine Gregoire signed a proclamation in November
2012. In it, she urged all Washington State citizens to join
her in observing this week and raising awareness of the
dangers of fatigue behind the wheel. For more information
about drowsy driving, visit the National Sleep Foundation’s
drowsy driving website at www.DrowsyDriving.org.
The Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) is addressing drowsy driving collisions through
several engineering fixes including shoulder and centerline
rumble strips, cable guard rails, cable median barriers and
other roadside fixes.
Rest Areas
WSDOT owns and operates 48 rest areas within our state
to encourage drivers to stop and rest along their journey.
Most facilities are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week
and offer a free coffee program. According to Safety Rest
Areas Annual Safety and Preservation Reports, around
22.3 million travelers used WSDOT’s safety rest areas in
2010, up 8.6% from the previous year.
American Automobile Association
The American Automobile Association (AAA) and the
AAA Foundation support a variety of educational efforts
to reduce drowsy driving and improve traffic safety.
AAA offers some helpful tips through brochures, videos,
educational campaigns and training programs.
Keeping Commercial Vehicle Drivers Alert
Commercial vehicle drivers are on the road more than the
average commuter and finding ways to reduce their fatigue
is a focus for WSDOT. The department is working to
expand existing parking for heavy trucks and encouraging
drivers to pull over and rest when tired. On the
enforcement end, the Washington State Patrol’s
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Bureau requires heavy
truck operators to use log books and stop at weigh station
scales to perform equipment safety checks. This practice
provides accountability for limiting the number of miles
and hours a driver can be on the road in a 24 hour period.
143
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Drowsy Driver Involved
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Use roadway
engineering to reduce
the consequences of
drowsy driving
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Implement shoulder and centerline rumble strips. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.2 Implement roadway improvements to reduce the likelihood
and severity of drowsy driving collisions involving run-off-theroad and head-on. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
1.3 Implement corridor safety model on high-crash locations
where data indicates a high number of drowsy driving crashes.
(R, DDACTS)
Education, Enforcement,
Engineering
1.4 Improve rest area access, security, and services. (R, NCHRP)
Engineering
2. Increase driver
awareness of the risks
of drowsy driving
2.1 Encourage employers to offer fatigue management programs
to employees working nighttime or rotating shifts. (P, NCHRP)
Education, Leadership/
Policy
2.2 Conduct statewide education combined with targeted
enforcement targeted at drowsy drivers. (R, NCHRP)
Enforcement, Education
3. Enforce and
strengthen laws and
regulations aimed
at reducing drowsy
driving
3.1 Enhance enforcement of commercial motor vehicle hours of
service regulations. (P, NCHRP )
Enforcement
3.2 Visibly enforce existing statutes to deter drowsy driving.
Consider increasing penalties for drowsy driving collisions. (U)
Enforcement, Leadership/
Policy
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
144
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Drowsy Driver Involved
Additional Resources
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Website, www.aaafoundation.org/drowsy-driving
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 4 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
Drowsy Driving: Asleep at the Wheel (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention),
www.cdc.gov/features/dsdrowsydriving
Drowsy Driving Website (National Sleep Foundation), www.drowsydriving.org
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 14: A Guide for Reducing Crashes Involving Drowsy and Distracted Drivers
(National Cooperative Highway Research Program),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v14.pdf
Performance Analysis of Centerline Rumble Strips in Washington State (Washington State Department of
Transportation, 2011), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/768.1.pdf
Video: Drowsy Driving (American Automobile Association),
http://vimeo.com/aaapublicaffairs/review/53079717/cf11c2d33a
Video: Teens Driving while Drowsy (American Automobile Association),
https://www.aaafoundation.org/videos?field_category_tid%255B%255D=40&button=DDclips
145
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Bicyclists
Bicyclists
In fatal and serious injury
crashes, bicyclists suffer
a higher percentage
of deaths and serious
injuries than any other
road user group.
Executive Summary
Eleven bicyclists were killed on our roadways in 2011,
the majority in urban areas. This number is up from six
in 2010 and slightly more than the five-year average of
10 fatalities. In 2011, 112 bicyclists were seriously injured,
slightly below the five-year average of 116. To reach our
Target Zero goal in 2030, greater annual progress is
needed in reducing bicyclist traffic deaths and serious
injuries.
The 2008 Washington State Bicycle Facilities and
Pedestrian Walkways Plan established statewide
objectives and specific performance measures to be able
to achieve zero deaths and serious injuries by 2030. Many
strategies coincide with Target Zero’s strategies including
improving connections and bicycle facilities in urban areas,
increasing safe cycling training, decreasing arterial barriers
and increasing awareness about bicycle laws.
Background
From 2009 to 2011, there were 26 bicyclist fatalities (1.8%
of total traffic deaths) and 339 seriously injured bicyclists
(4.7% of all traffic-related serious injuries). When
bicyclists are involved in fatal and serious injury collisions
they are more frequently killed or seriously injured than
any other type of roadway users. (see chart on page 26).
146
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Bicyclists
Contributing Circumstances
and Factors
Intersections
The largest percentage of bicyclist fatalities (63%)
occurred at intersections. Strategies focusing on
improving conditions for bicyclists at intersections may
decrease fatal collisions. These strategies include the
use of green colored bike lane pavement approaching
intersections, bike boxes, revisions to curb angles, and
bicycle-specific signals and beacons.
Contributing factors in bicycle fatalities differ from vehiclevehicle collisions. In 48% of fatal bicyclist collisions,
vehicle driver factors did not contribute to the collision. In
37% of the collisions, bicyclist factors did not contribute to
the collision. When driver factors were involved, the most
prevalent factors were:
1.Distracted driving (27%)
Roadways
2.Driver impairment (9.6%)
In contrast to fatalities, the largest percentage of bicyclist
serious injuries (58%) occurred on the roadway. Almost
half of these serious injuries occurred while bicyclists were
riding with traffic. Building dedicated facilities can increase
bicycle safety and mobility. Examples include bike lanes,
bicycle boulevards, separated facilities like cycle tracks,
and redesign of thoroughfares using ‘road diets.’ Bike lanes
and road diets have the potential to reduce collisions
substantially between bicyclists and motor vehicle
collisions.
3.Speeding (3.8%)
The most frequent bicyclist-related factors included:
1.Failure to yield right of way (29%)
2.Impairment (25.4%)
3.Inattention (14%)
A recent research study, by foremost traffic-injury expert
Rune Elvik (Norway), shows that bicycle helmets:
• Reduce the risk of head injury by 42%
• Reduce the risk of injury to the head, face or neck by
15%
From 2009-2011, 38.4% of Washington bicyclists killed in
traffic collisions were not wearing a bike helmet. Over half
(51.4%) of seriously injured bicyclists were not wearing a
bike helmet.
147
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Bicyclists
Bicyclist Fatalities 2002‐2011
Bicyclists Involved Fatalities 2002-2011
14
13
5YR AVG=10
11
11
10
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
Actual Fatalities
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
Bicyclist Serious Injuries 2002‐2011
Bicyclists Involved Serious Injuries 2002-2011
133
5YR AVG=115
113
112
121 121
113
106
117
110
112
93
82
71
Actual Serious Injuries
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Programs and Successes
Linear (Last 10 Years)
24 jurisdictions where helmets are required by law, 90%
of observed bicyclists wore them, compared to 63% in
jurisdictions without helmet laws.
Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) initiated the Washington State Bicycle and
Pedestrian Documentation Project in 2008 and started
collecting data on biking and walking. WSDOT completed
its fifth annual documentation project in 2012, with
volunteers counting more than 40,000 pedestrians and
20,000 bicyclists at 200 locations in 38 cities.
Those working with the Washington State Bicycle Facilities
and Pedestrian Walkways Plans are focusing on efforts to
double the amount of biking and walking over the next two
decades. Bicyclists’ safety may be improved by increasing
the numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians on the road,
increasing the likelihood motorists expect to see a bicyclist
and being better prepared to respond appropriately.
According to WSDOT, this project found that walking
and biking in Washington increased by 10% between
2008 and 2012. The highest numbers of bicyclists were
observed on trails, bridges and in downtown areas. In the
148
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Bicyclists
Objectives & Strategies
Objectives (What) 1. Improve bicyclist
safety awareness and
behavior
2. Enact policies/laws to
improve bicycle safety
3. Improve bicyclist
facilities
4. Improve safety for
children bicycling to
school
5. Improve data
and performance
measures
P = Proven
Strategies (How) Implementation Arena(s)
1.1 Promote use of reflective apparel among bicyclists and bicycle
lights (rider conspicuity). (R, CTW)
Education
1.2 Increase the number of people bicycling to achieve safety in
numbers. (R, LIT)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
1.3 Promote bicycle helmet use with education. (U)
Education
2.1 Enact bicycle helmet laws for children (P, CTW) and adults.
(R, CTW)
Leadership/Policy,
Education
2.2 Improve bicyclist rights and responsibilities training for law
enforcement officers at state, Tribal, and local levels.
(R, WSDOT)
Education
3.1 Implement traffic calming techniques. (P, NCHRP)
Engineering
3.2 Follow national guidelines on the use of reflective markings
and sign materials. (R, FHWA)
Engineering
3.3 Construct more bike lanes, cycle tracks, and separated bicycle
facilities, especially in urban areas. (R, CMF)
Engineering
3.4 Create bicycle boulevards on low volume, low speed streets.
(R, CMF)
Engineering
3.5 Implement Complete Streets to provide for all modes of
transportation. (R, NCSC)
Leadership/Policy,
Engineering
3.6 Install colored bike boxes at intersections. (U)
Engineering
4.1 Expand high visibility speed enforcement in school zones,
including automated speed photo enforcement. (R, CTW)
Education, Enforcement
4.2 Distribute and encourage the use of “School Walk and Bike
Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to
School Options for Students” and assist schools in creating
school biking route maps. (R, WSDOT)
Education, Engineering
4.3 Encourage and support school districts to implement the Safe
Routes to School program. (U)
Education, Engineering
5.1 Enhance attempts to collect a measure of ‘miles biked’
(similar to VMT). Continue to track bicycle counts through
Washington’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Documentation Project.
(R, DDACTS)
Leadership/ Policy
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
DDACTS = Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
LIT = Literature (Although we could not locate a meta study, there is sufficient independent literature with favorable results to justify as a recommended strategy)
CTW = Countermeasures That Work
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
NCSC = National Complete Streets Coalition
NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program
WSDOT = WA State Dept. of Transportation
149
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Bicyclists
Additional Resources
Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices, 7th
Edition, Chapter 8 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration),
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811727.pdf
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles (National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board),
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v18.pdf
The Gray Notebook, Edition 48, pages 5-8 (Washington State Department of Transportation),
http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Dec12.pdf
Washington’s Complete Streets and Main Street Highways Case Study Resource (Washington State
Department of Transportation), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A49BBBE7-16BC-4ACE-AF2B3C14066674C9/0/CompleteStreets_110811.pdf
Washington State Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (Washington State Department of
Transportation), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Count.htm
Washington State Bicycle Facilities and Pedestrian Walkways Plan (Washington State Department of
Transportation), http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/bike_plan.htm
Washington State laws (RCWs) relating to bicyclists:
• RCW 47.04.330 – Street projects – Consultation with local jurisdictions – Context sensitive design solutions.
• RCW 47.36.025 – Vehicle-activated traffic control signals – Detection of motorcycles and bicycles.
• RCW 46.61.755 – Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. When riding on a roadway, a cyclist has all the
rights and responsibilities of a vehicle driver.
• RCW 46.61.750 – Effect of regulations – Penalty. Cyclists who violate traffic laws may be ticketed.
• RCW 46.61.700 – Children Bicycling. Parents or guardians may not knowingly permit bicycle traffic violations
by their ward.
• RCW 46.61.770 – Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. Cyclists may ride side by side, but not more than two
abreast. Cyclists may choose to ride on the path, bike lane, shoulder or travel lane as suits their safety needs.
• RCW 46.61.780 – Riding at Night. For night bicycle riding, a white front light (not a reflector) visible for 500
feet and a red rear reflector are required. A red rear light may be used in addition to the required reflector.
Municipal Rules relating to bicyclists:
• Bicycle Helmets – Currently, there is no state law requiring helmet use. However, some cities and counties do
require helmets. See bicycle helmet requirements in Washington by municipality
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/helmets.htm).
• Roads Closed to Bicycles – Some designated sections of the state’s limited access highway system may be
closed to bicycles for safety reasons. See state highway sections closed to bicycles
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/closed.htm) for more information. In addition, local governments may adopt
ordinances banning cycling on specific roads or on sidewalks within business districts.
150
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Work Zone Safety
Work Zone
Between 2009 and 2011,
9 (0.6%) fatalities and
132 (1.8%) serious injuries
resulted from crashes
occurring in or as a result of
Washington work zones.
Strategies
Collisions in
work zones resulted
in 9 fatalities and
132 serious injuries
in the last three
years of which only
one was a roadway
worker.
• Improve visibility of work zone traffic
control devices and ensure they are clean and in good
working condition (R, NCHRP)
• Improve work zone design practices (R, NCHRP)
• Provide safe and accessible conditions for emergency
responders in work zones (R, OSHA)
Efforts to reduce
collisions and increase
safety in work zone
operations are overseen
by the State’s Work
Zone Safety Task Force
(WZSTF). This statewide,
multi-disciplinary committee with representatives from
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT),
the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and contractors,
examines work zone issues and helps develop solutions.
Among the tools used by the Task Force are: training,
applying robust standards, encouraging best practices,
and using innovative products. The WZSTF emphasizes
education, enforcement and legislation.
• Require reflective apparel for all emergency
responders (R, FHWA)
• Improve worker safety planning through basic hazard
assessments and job classification requirements in
the work zone area (R, OSHA)
• Certify all workers who work in the boundaries of
work zones (R, OSHA)
• Use high visibility enforcement such as enhanced
patrols, photo enforcement and police-operated photo
radar enforcement vans in work zones (R, NCHRP)
• Ensure good public notification of conditions so
drivers are prepared or may choose alternative routes
(R, NCHRP)
WSDOT sponsors ongoing training for its employees and
local agencies in best practices, to increase safety and
mobility surrounding work zone projects. From 2009 to
2011, the agency proactively used the following strategies
on work zone safety:
• Updating guidance documents to
reflect new federal rules on work zone
safety and changes in WSDOT work
zone policy (R, WSDOT)
• Promoting the use of positive
protection methods such as temporary
concrete barriers, truck mounted
attenuators and detours for separating
workers from traffic (R, FHWA)
P = Proven
Work Zone
Year
Fatalities
Serious
Injuries
2002
15
31
2003
17
27
2004
7
24
2005
8
33
2006
16
49
2007
2
45
2008
3
29
• Adopting a new work zone speed limit
reduction policy (R, WSDOT)
2009
1
41
2010
1
53
• Conducting a self-assessment with
the Federal Highway Administration
(R, FHWA)
2011
7
38
Totals
77
370
• Evaluating new work zone safety
related products, devices and
technology such as automated flagger
assistance devices and portable
signals (R, WSDOT)
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
FHWA = Federal Highway
Administration
NCHRP = National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
OSHA = Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
WSDOT = Washington State
Department of Transportation
151
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Wildlife
Wildlife
Wildlife collisions accounted for eight
fatalities (0.6%) and 78 serious injuries
(1.1%) between 2009 and 2011 in
Washington State.
The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has adopted
a habitat connectivity policy mandating
consideration of habitat and wildlife in
all state transportation actions. Over the
last 30 years, WSDOT has invested in a
wide variety of infrastructure to benefit
wildlife and reduce wildlife-vehicle
collisions. Projects range from building
large mammal crossing structures to
installing wildlife barrier fencing.
Strategies
In 2005, WSDOT received funding to expand I-90 east of
Snoqualmie. For many species, this section of I-90 bisects
key migration corridors connecting the north and south
Cascades. Because of this, WSDOT and wildlife
advocates took the opportunity to create wildlife
crossings that would reconnect habitat on opposite sides
of the freeway. The project includes several state-of-theart bridges that allow wildlife to travel under and over the
freeway. Fences parallel to the road funnel animals into the
passageways, keeping them from the roadway. Remote
cameras will
monitor wildlife
Wildlife
movements to
ensure the new
Serious
crossings are
Year
Fatalities Injuries
being used.
2002
0
13
2003
0
12
2004
7
16
2005
0
18
2006
1
21
2007
3
22
2008
5
29
2009
4
34
2010
4
31
2011
0
13
Totals
24
209
• Employ engineering strategies
to decrease wildlife collisions
(P, CMF)
• Increase active and passive
roadway signage of wildlife
crossings (R, FHWA)
Keeping wildlife
off the road helps
save human
lives as well
as animals.
• Install animal detection systems to warn motorists of
wildlife (R, FHWA)
• Increase upfront funding for innovative wildlife
crossings in projects built in high wildlife population
areas (R, FHWA)
• Promote clear sight lines in areas with abundant
wildlife (U)
• Utilize public service announcements in areas with
high wildlife collision rates (U)
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
152
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • School Bus Involved
School Bus Involved
In Washington State between 2009 and 2011, school
bus involved collisions have accounted for three fatalities
(0.2% of state total) and 18 serious injuries (0.2%).
vehicles, not occupants of school buses. Five of the 12
fatalities were non-motorists (all occurring between 2003
and 2008), and none of them were school children.
Only one school bus occupant has been killed in a
collision in Washington State since 1994, a school
bus driver in 1996. Fatalities related to school bus
transportation tend to occur during loading or unloading
of the school bus and are counted as pedestrians, rather
than school bus occupants. The 12 fatalities represented
in the chart are either non-motorists or occupants of other
A one day statewide count on May 1, 2013, (required by
legislation) reported enough violations of the loading
flashing light system that would result (extrapolated) in
over 500,000 violations per year. With that level of
violations, students’ safety crossing the street before
getting on the bus or after disembarking is a major
concern.
School bus
travel remains
the safest way to
send children
to school.
School Bus Involved
Year
Fatalities
Serious
Injuries
2002
1
5
2003
2
9
2004
2
3
2005
3
5
2006
0
5
2007
0
4
2008
1
4
2009
0
8
2010
1
7
2011
2
3
12*
53
Totals
Strategies
The state will continue to ensure:
• Every school bus driver receives training modeled
after ‘The School Bus Driver In-Service Safety Series’
(R, NHTSA)
• School districts implement, enhance, or improve
student training in school bus safety (U)
• Enforcement of laws relating to overtaking or meeting
a school bus when stopped for the purpose of
receiving or discharging children and the bus’ hazard
warning lamps are activated (U)
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
*None of these fatalities were school
children.
153
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three • Vehicle-Train
Vehicle-Train
“Highway-rail grade crossings” are
intersections involving two very different
modes of transportation. The unique
character of these intersections is
enhanced by the fact they are also multijurisdictional. Highway authorities and
railroads have responsibility for different
aspects of design and maintenance,
while the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission has
regulatory authority over public safety.
Highway-rail crossings
are unique junctions
with responsibility
for safety crossing
multiple jurisdictions.
The data reporting scope of Target Zero
is limited to traffic-related fatalities and
injuries occurring at crossings accessible
to the public. However, the strategies
provided may also be applied at private crossings to reduce
the incidence of non-traffic fatalities and injuries.
Strategies
In Washington State, vehicle-train crashes occurring at grade
crossings accounted for two fatalities (0.1% of the state’s total)
and three serious injuries (0.04%) between 2009 and 2011.
• Upgrade crossings with only signs to flashing lights
and gates (P, CMF)
Nationally since the early 1970s, the majority of safety
improvements at public railroad grade crossings have been
implemented through grants from the Federal HighwayRail Grade Crossings Safety Program authorized in
successive federal transportation bills.
• Conduct periodic safety assessments to identify
crossings in need of improvements, including
upgrading warning devices, addressing hazards
related to highway/railroad geometry and removing
sight obstructions (R, CMF)
In the most recent
bill, MAP-21
provides a setaside for crossing
hazard elimination
and requires the
state to use the
funds for installing
protective devices
at railway-highway
intersections. This
effort is administered
by WSDOT program
management and
includes 40
potential crossings
for safety upgrades.
• Ensure existing warning devices are compliant with all
applicable regulatory requirements (P, FHWA)
• Partner with railroads and the Utilities and
Transportation Commission to address identified
safety issues, including taking advantage of available
federal and state hazard elimination grants (R, FHWA,
UTC)
Vehicle-Train Involved
Year
Fatalities
Serious
Injuries
2002
0
3
2003
0
2
2004
1
0
2005
4
2
2006
5
3
2007
2
2
2008
1
1
2009
0
1
2010
1
2
2011
1
0
15
16
Totals
• Improve railroad grade crossings within Intercity High
Speed Passenger Rail Program projects (R, FRA)
• Implement rail safety public education through
partnership with Washington Operation Lifesaver
(R, UTC)
• Include railroad crossing upgrades in corridor safety
planning (U)
P = Proven
R = Recommended
U = Unknown
CMF = Crash Modification Factors
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
FRA = Federal Railroad Administration
UTC = Utilities and Transportation Commission
154
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Priority Level Three
155
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices
Appendices • Appendix A: Acronyms
Appendix A: Acronyms
501(c)(3)
AAA
AADT
ABACCL
ALPR
AOC
ARIDE
ASE
ATNI
BAC
CDC
CEU
CHARS
CIOT
CLAS
CMF
CMV
CODES
CPST
CTW
CVEB
CVSA
CVSP
DADSS
DBHR
DDACTS
DOH
DOL
DRE
DUI
DWI
DWLS
DWLS 3
EMS
eTRIP GT
FARS
FHWA
FMCSA
FRA
FCAS
FTA
GHSA
HIE
HPMS
HRRR
HSIP
HSP
HVE
IDL
IIHS
IIL
ILT
ITS
LDTL
LIT
MAP-21
META
NACTO
NCSC
NCHRP
NIH
NHTSA
NWTTAP
OFM
PIP
POPS
PTCR
RCW
RTPO
RUaD
SDOT
SECTOR
SFST
SHSP
SRTS
TACT
TDO
THC
TRC
TZM
TZT
UTC
USDOT
V2I
V2V
VMT
WAC
WEMSIS
WIDAC
WITPAC
WSDOT
WSP
WTR
WTSC
WZSTF
US Internal Revenue Code for federal tax exemption of
nonprofit organizations
American Automobile Association
Average Annual Daily Traffic
American Bar Association Center on Children
and the Law
Automated License Plate Readers
Washington Administrative Office of the Courts
Advance Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
Automated Speed Enforcement
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Blood Alcohol Concentration
Centers for Disease Control
Continuing Education Unit
Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System
Click It or Ticket
Collision Location and Analysis System
Crash Modification Factor
Commercial Motor Vehicles
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System
Child Passenger Safety Technician
Countermeasures That Work
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Bureau
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan
Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery
Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety
Washington State Department of Health
Washington State Department of Licensing
Drug Recognition Expert
Driving Under the Influence
Driving While Intoxicated (term used in some other
states, but not in WA)
Driving While License is Suspended or Revoked
Driving While License is Suspended or Revoked
Third Degree
Emergency Medical Services
eTRIP Governance Team
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Frontal Crash Avoidance Systems
Failure to Appear
Governor’s Highway Safety Association
Health Information Exchange
Federal Highway Performance Monitoring System
High Risk Rural Roads
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Highway Safety Plan
High Visibility Enforcement
Intermediate Drivers License
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Ignition Interlock License
Incident Location Tool
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Let's Draw the Line Between Youth and Alcohol
Literature Review
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Meta Study
National Association of City Transportation Officials
National Complete Streets Coalition
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
National Institute of Health
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Northwest Tribal Technical Assistance Program
Office of Financial Management
Party Intervention Patrol
Problem Oriented Public Safety
Police Traffic Collision Report
Revised Code of Washington
Regional Transportation Planning Organization
Reducing Underage Drinking
Seattle Department of Transportation
Statewide Electronic Collision and Ticket Online Records
Standard Field Sobriety Tests
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Safe Routes to School
Ticket Aggressive Cars and Trucks
WSDOT Transportation Data Office
Tetrahydrocannabinol
Traffic Records Committee
Target Zero Manager
Target Zero Team
Utilities and Transportation Commission
United States Department of Transportation
Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Washington Administrative Code
Washington EMS Information System
Washington Impaired Driving Advisory Council
Washington Indian Transportation Policy
Advisory Committee
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Patrol
Washington Trauma Registry
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Work Zone Safety Task Force
156
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix B: Glossary
Alcohol-impaired Driver
Any driver with a BAC of .08 or higher.
Corridor Safety Model
The Corridor Safety Program engages communities in
custom-designing their own action plan to reduce the
number and severity of crashes. It focuses on stretches of
highway that have been identified as having the highest
crash and fatality rates. The program uses low-cost
engineering fixes and strong local partnerships to develop
plans that include elements of education, enforcement,
emergency services and engineering. Interested citizens
along with businesses and agencies that have a vested
interest in the safety of their roadways locally coordinate
the program in each community.
Bicycle Boulevard
Low-volume streets that have been optimized for bicycle
travel through traffic calming and diversion, signage and
pavement markings, and intersection crossing treatments.
Bicycle boulevards are shared roadway facilities that, when
correctly implemented, are comfortable and attractive to
cyclists with a wide range of abilities and ages but are
inconvenient as through routes for automobiles.
Bike Box
An intersection safety design to prevent bicycle/car
collisions. It is a painted green space on the road with a
white bicycle symbol inside. In some locations it includes
a green bicycle lane approaching the box. The box creates
space between motor vehicles and the crosswalk allowing
bicyclists to position themselves ahead of motor vehicle
traffic at an intersection.
Death Certificate Records
Department of Health manages all of Washington’s vital
statistics, including death events. Death certificates
include information about the primary and underlying
causes of death as determined by medical examiners and
coroners. This information is used to reconcile deaths
involving traffic collisions to determine if the death was
traffic-related (death as a result of injuries sustained
in a collision) or non-traffic (death occurs and then the
collision occurs, such as a heart attack while driving).
Blood Alcohol Concentration
The BAC is measured as a percentage by weight of alcohol
in the blood (grams/deciliter). A positive BAC level (0.01
g/dl and higher) indicates that alcohol was consumed
by the person tested. A BAC level of 0.08 g/dl or more
indicates that the person was intoxicated.
Distracted Driver
Any driver with the following attributes as recorded by
the investigating officer: looked but did not see; distracted
by vehicle occupant or object; while using a cell phone
(talking, listening, dialing, etc.); adjusting vehicle controls;
distracted by object/person outside the vehicle; eating,
drinking, or smoking; emotional or lost in thought; other or
unknown distraction.
Collision
An unintended event that causes a death, injury or
property damage and involves at least one motor vehicle
or pedalcyclist on a public roadway.
Contributing Circumstance
An element or driving action that, in the reporting officer’s
opinion, best describes the main cause of the collision.
First, second and third contributing causes are collected
for each motor vehicle driver, pedalcyclist and pedestrian
involved in the collision.
Electronic Traffic Information Processing (eTRIP)
Initiative
A collaborative effort among state and local agencies to
create a seamless and integrated system through which
traffic-related information can travel from its point of
origin to its end use and analysis. The heart of this
undertaking is to move from the current paper-based
process to an automated system that will enable law
enforcement agencies to electronically create tickets and
collision reports in the field and transmit this data to state
repositories and authorized users.
157
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix B: Glossary
Fatality
A person who died within 30 days of a collision as a result
of injuries sustained in the collision.
Impairment Related Collision
Any driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc., with a BAC of 0.08 or
greater and/or a positive result on a drug test.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Contains data on a census of fatal traffic crashes within
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To
be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle
traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public
and result in the death of a person (occupant of a vehicle
or a non-occupant) within 30 days of the crash. FARS
collects information on over 100 different coded data
elements that characterize the crash, the vehicle, and the
people involved. More information is available on page 162.
Licensed Driver
A person who is licensed by any state, province or other
governmental entity to operate a motor vehicle on public
roadways.
Motor Vehicle
Any motorized device in, upon or by which any person or
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public
roadway, excepting devices used exclusively upon
stationary rails or tracks. This includes every
motorized vehicle that is self-propelled or propelled by
electric power (excluding motorized wheel-chairs),
including that obtained from overhead trolley wires but not
operated on rails.
Fatality Rate
Number of deaths resulting from reportable collisions for
a specified segment of public roadway per 100 million
vehicle miles of travel or per 100,000 people.
Nonmotorist
Any person who is not an occupant of a motor vehicle in
transport and includes the following:
Heavy Truck
• Any vehicle that also has a vehicle classification of
trailer with GVWR of 10,001 lbs or more, single vehicle
with GVWR of 26,001 lbs or more, or single vehicle of
26,000 lbs or less-CDL required or a commercial vehicle
supplement to the collision report.
1. Pedestrians
2. Bicyclists, tricyclists, and unicyclists
3. Occupants of parked motor vehicles
4. Others such as joggers, skateboard riders, people
riding on animals, and persons riding in animal-drawn
conveyances
• A vehicle type of Truck and Trailer, Truck Tractor, Truck
Tractor and Semi-Trailer, or Truck-Double Trailer
Combinations.
• A vehicle usage classification of Concrete Mixer, Dump
Truck, Logging Truck, Refuse/Recycle Truck, Van over
10,001 lbs, Tanker Truck, or Auto Carrier.
Passenger
Any occupant of a motor vehicle who is not a driver.
Pedestrian
Any person not in or upon a motor vehicle or other vehicle
but includes persons on personal conveyance devices,
such as skateboards or wheelchairs.
Impaired Driver
Any driver with a BAC of .08 or greater and/or any driver
with a positive result on a drug test, or an investigating
officer or DRE assessment of impairment.
Pedestrian Safety Zones
Pedestrian safety zone programs include education,
enforcement, and engineering measures. The initiative can
target at a full range of pedestrian crash problems within
a limited geographic area or focused on particular types
of problems that make up a large portion of the problem
within a limited area.
158
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix B: Glossary
Per se Alcohol Limit
No further proof is needed. When a person is found
to have within two hours after driving, an alcohol
concentration of .08 or higher or a THC concentration of
5.00 nanograms per milliliter of blood or higher as shown
by an analysis of the person’s breath or blood, that person
is guilty “per se” of driving under the influence.
Serious Injury
Any injury other than a fatal injury that prevents the
injured person from walking, driving, or normally
continuing the activities the person was capable of
performing before the injury occurred. This definition
applies to traffic collision data only. This is not the legal
definition or medical definition of serious injury.
Restraint
A device such as a seat belt, shoulder belt, booster seat, or
child seat used to hold the occupant of a motor vehicle in
the seat at all times while the vehicle is in motion.
Speeding
Speeding occurs when drivers travel above the posted
speed or too fast for conditions. Drivers may be traveling
well under the posted speed, but weather conditions (such
as icy roads) or poor visibility (such as a foggy night) could
still cause drivers to lose control of their vehicles if they
don’t have enough stopping time.
Road Diet
Roadway reconfiguration reducing the number of motor
vehicle lanes to improve roadway safety. A typical
reconfiguration is converting an undivided four lane
roadway into three lanes made up of two through lanes
and a center two-way left turn lane. The reduction of lanes
allows the roadway to be reallocated for other uses such
as bike lanes and/or pedestrian crossing islands.
Trauma
A major or single or multiple injury requiring immediate
medical or surgical intervention or treatment to prevent
death or permanent disability.
Urban
Any incorporated area with a population of over 5,000.
Rural
All areas, incorporated and unincorporated, with a
population of less than 5,000.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The number of miles traveled annually by motor vehicles
in the state of Washington (this figure is formulated by
the Transportation and Collision Data Office of WSDOT).
More information on page 163.
Safety Edge
A beveled application of asphalt at the edge of pavement
to prevent drop-offs between the pavement edge and
gravel/earth shoulder.
Work Zone
Any activity involving construction, maintenance or utility
work on or in the immediate vicinity of a public roadway.
A work zone may be active
(workers present) or inactive.
Photo pending
159
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Young Driver Involved
A driver age 16 to 25 involved in
a fatal or serious injury collision
(involvement does not indicate
fault).
Appendices • Appendix C: Methodologies
Appendix C: Methodologies
Fatality and Serious Injury Five- and Ten-Year
Trend Line
The Target Zero Goal Line
For this edition of Target Zero, fatality and serious injury trend
charts are projected out to the year 2030. This approach
allows us to measure incremental progress within the entire
2030 timeframe and see what’s required to reach zero by
2030. The Target Zero goal line is simply a straight line to
zero in 2030 starting from the middle of the current fiveyear average (2007-2011). Using the five-year average helps
mitigate the skewing effect any single year might have on our
progress toward zero.
This edition of Target Zero provides the most recent 10
years of traffic fatality and serious injury data available. The
vision of Washington’s Target Zero ¬ zero deaths and serious
injuries by 2030 ¬ was formed in 2000. The data needed to
quantify and monitor this goal was improved in 2002.
In recent years the number of traffic safety partners adopting
this vision and implementing Target Zero strategies has grown
rapidly. Consequently, traffic fatalities and serious injuries
are decreasing at unprecedented rates. To best display the
positive impact of this rapid growth in cooperation and
collaboration, the trend charts in this edition of Target Zero
display both 10-year and five-year linear trend lines.
The Target Zero goal line plots the average annual decrease
required to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2030.
Determining the necessary average annual decline enables us
to monitor our progress over several years.
For example, the current 2007-2011 average traffic fatality
count is 500 (see chart below). In order to reach zero by
2030 from the middle of that average (2009), it will require
an average decline of 24 fatalities per year. Each trend chart
also shows the Target Zero goals for 2013 (404), 2015 (357)
and 2017 (309).
The vision of zero by 2030 itself is a linear concept. Therefore,
using a linear measure of progress to compare to a linear
goal makes the most sense. A linear trend is a straight line
that follows a series of numbers. A trend line may indicate a
declining, flat or increasing trend, depending on the average
change among the series of numbers. Each year contributes
equally to the average change.
Washington Fatalities from Traffic Crashes 2002‐2011
Trend lines represent a future
projection assuming all variation,
fluctuation and preventive measures
stay at historic and current levels. In
practice, by continuously implementing
new strategies and enhancing and
maintaining existing strategies, we can
drive the trend downward, closer to the
overall goal of zero by 2030.
The most recent five years represent the
continuous innovation that drove down
the overall 10-year trend. By comparing
the five-year trend to the 10-year trend,
we can gauge whether we are
progressing, just maintaining progress or
even losing momentum.
658
600
649
633
600
567
571
521
In order to reach Target Zero in 2030, fatalities must be reduced by an average of 24 per year (from 5yr Avg).
5YR AVG=500
492
460
400
454
404
357
309
200
0
Performance Gap
Actual Fatalities
Simply put, if the five-year trend line
is below the 10-year trend line, we are progressing. If it is
above the 10-year trend line, we are losing momentum and
more must be done to change direction.
TZ Goal (From 5YR Average)
Linear (Last 5 Years)
Linear (Last 10 Years)
While the exact values of the Target Zero goal line may
serve as annual targets for reaching zero, more accurate
assessments of progress occur when several years of data
are grouped and compared.
160
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix C: Methodologies
The Performance Gap
population rates enable identification of high risk groups.
Such groups may be at higher risk for traffic death or serious
injury than other population subgroups, as is the case with
older drivers, children and the Native American population
(see pages 21, 25, 26).
The solid dark orange line on trend charts represents the
Target Zero line – the downward trend needed to reach zero
by 2030. The performance gap is the space between the
Target Zero goal line and the 10-year trend line. The trend
charts show this “performance gap” in a lighter orange color.
The 10-year trend line was chosen as the reference line for
the performance gap for several reasons:
• Fluctuations in the historic counts are likely to continue
into the future
Some rates are presented based on the number of licensed or
endorsed drivers. These rates are similar to VMT rates, but
represent a measure of risk of traffic death or serious injury
based on the estimated number of drivers. The rates are
useful when comparing different categories of drivers, such as
motorcyclists (page 115).
• The 10-year trend represents a more conservative and
accurate trend than the five-year trend
Looking to the Future
• More years of data result in more stable estimates
The traffic safety community recognizes there are factors
related to traffic deaths and serious injuries outside the
reach of listed strategies. Additionally, we recognize most
strategies have immediate benefits that level off. As we look
to the future, we also realize that as overall fatal and serious
injury counts are driven downward, it will be harder to meet
average annual reduction goals.
Some charts do not show a gap because the 10-year trend
actually goes to zero before 2030!
The performance gap may also be used as a monitoring tool.
For example, if the performance gap is smaller in 2012 and
grows on its way to 2030, it indicates we not only need a
greater decrease in overall counts, but also a greater average
annual decline than we have had. This type of gap represents
areas in need of new and expanded strategies. However, if the
gap is of similar width in 2012 as it is in 2030, then we have
achieved the necessary average annual decline, but need an
immediate downward drive in annual counts to close the gap.
This is particularly true related to impacting more isolated,
high risk or less receptive members of the population.
As linear trends flatten and we get closer to 2030, more
sophisticated statistical methods will need to be explored to
monitor and predict outcomes. Our challenge is to continue
to accurately monitor changing trends and keep ahead of
them with new and expanded strategies.
Fatality and Serious Injury Rates
Rates are referenced in some chapters of this Target Zero
edition. There are three types of rates referenced:
The factors contributing to traffic fatalities and serious
injuries are an intimate web of environmental and
behavioral factors. Some factors are related to the triggering
of the event, while others are related to the severity of the
event. Using various facets of Enforcement, Education,
Engineering and Emergency Medical Services, we will
continue to prevent these collisions from happening in the
first place and mitigate the harm incurred when they do
happen.
1. Rates based on vehicle miles traveled
2.Rates based on population
3.Rates based on registered or endorsed drivers
The most common rates used in traffic safety statistics are
the number of fatalities or serious injuries per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These rates represent the
measure of risk for traffic deaths or serious injuries based on
estimated annual traffic volume. VMT is available for state,
county and rural and urban classifications (page 23).
While we may not be able to prevent every collision, we can
eliminate deaths and serious injuries, which is our vision for
Washington State.
Rates of fatalities and serious injuries specific to population
subgroups, such as racial/ethnic and age-specific groups, are
calculated per 100,000 population. Comparisons of these
161
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix D: Date Sources for Target Zero
Appendix D: Data Sources
for Target Zero
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System
CLAS stores all reportable traffic collision data for
Washington State public roadways. A collision needs to meet
at least one of the two following criteria to be considered as
a “reportable” collision thereby making the collision record
available to customers: 1) a minimum property damage
threshold of $700 and/or 2) bodily injury occurred as a result
of the collision.
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a
nationwide census of traffic fatalities that characterizes the
crash, the vehicles and the people involved in each fatal crash
reported. FARS contains more than 100 coded data elements
that are collected from official documents, including Police
Traffic Crash Reports
(PTCR), state driver
licensing and vehicle
registration files, death
certificates, toxicology
reports and Emergency
Medical Services (EMS)
reports.
Within Target Zero, CLAS
collision data was used for
counts of seriously injured
people. However, there
are sections within Target
Zero that also used CLAS
collision information for
deriving counts of fatally
injured people through
record merging with
FARS. Those sections are
as follows: 1) Run-offthe-Road, 2) Opposite
Direction, 3) Intersection,
and 4) Heavy Truck Involved. CLAS collision data were also
used to reconcile jurisdictional assignment in FARS for road
type/jurisdiction analysis.
To be included in FARS,
a crash must involve a
motor vehicle traveling on
a trafficway customarily
open to the public and
result in the death of a
person (either an occupant
of a vehicle or a non-motorist) within 30 days of the crash.
For more information about exclusionary parameters in FARS
traffic fatality counts, visit http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/statisticsreports/about-our-data/. The Washington Traffic Safety
Commission (WTSC) contracts with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide FARS data
for Washington State.
It is widely acknowledged that serious injury classifications
assigned by investigating officers are not as accurate as injury
severity derived from clinical records. The serious injury data
presented in this edition of Target Zero is classified by the
investigating officer at the scene. However, the multiagency
collaborative efforts to derive a more accurate injury severity
assessment related to traffic collisions, and particularly
serious injury collisions, continues and progress is being
made. For more information about the efforts of the Traffic
Records Committee (TRC), see the Traffic Data Systems
chapter (page 85).
The Collision Locator Analysis System
The collision data repository, otherwise known as the
Collision Location & Analysis System (CLAS), is housed at the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
The source for CLAS collision data is either law enforcement
officers via the PTCR (90%) or citizens via the Vehicle
Collision Report (10%).
162
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix D: Date Sources for Target Zero
Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimates
Administrative Office of the Courts Citation Data
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a measure of the total
number of miles traveled by all vehicles over a segment
of road or a network of roads with known length over a
specific period of time, either a day or a year. The WSDOT
Transportation Data Office (TDO) collects and reports several
different types of road and street data to the Federal Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) each year. The
TDO collects traffic data for state highways and relies on local
jurisdictions to provide traffic data for their roads and streets.
Court and citation data is obtained through the Washington
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). This data provides
information about enforcement and court processing. For
example, the number of ‘texting while driving’ citations is
obtained when they are filed with the court. Data gaps exist
which must be addressed, such as tracking a single DUI case
through the myriad of internal and external data systems
the information passes through. The AOC recently began to
actively participate in the Traffic Records Committee and the
Data Integration Subcommittee to identify and find solutions
for these data gaps and develop methods for linking AOC
data with WTSC and WSDOT collision data.
VMT is calculated by multiplying (length of road segment)
x (the Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT] that traveled on
that road segment). The total VMT for a highway network or
region is a summation of VMT for all segments of roads that
make up the network or region. Statewide VMT is a
summation of all segments of road statewide.
Office of Financial Management Population
Estimates
Washington has been providing annual population estimates
for revenue allocation purposes since the 1940s. Population
estimates, including breakouts by county, age, gender and
race/ethnicity are made available through the Office of
Financial Management (OFM) Population Unit (http://www.
ofm.wa.gov/pop/default.asp). Intercensal estimates are
reconciled with the official U.S. Census Bureau data every
decade for postcensal estimates.
Department of Licensing Drivers Data Mart
Data used in this document from the Washington State
Department of Licensing (DOL) was gathered from a database
known as the DOL Drivers Data Mart. This data is updated
daily from several sources that comprise the DOL driver
records. The Drivers Data Mart database is a replication of the
DOL Driver database, which is the primary data store for the
automated systems supporting the DOL Driver Division. The
primary purpose of this database is to support ad-hoc queries.
The database contains the complete driver records for all
Washington drivers.
163
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix E: Target Zero Data Definitions
Appendix E:
Target Zero Data Definitions
Measures
Priority Level One:
Fatality Definition
Serious Injury Definition
Fatality resulting from a collision that involved…
Serious injury resulting from a
collision that involved…
Impaired Driver Involved
any driver with a Blood Alcohol Concentration
(BAC) of 0.08 or higher or a positive drug
result as confirmed by the state Toxicology
Laboratory.
any driver in which the investigating officer
or Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) indicated
impairment by drugs or alcohol as reported in
contributing circumstances.
Drug Impaired Driver
Involved
any driver with a positive drug result as
confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory.
(Due to data limitations, including lack of
confirmation by toxicology, drug impaired driver
involved serious injuries are not reported.)
Alcohol Impaired Driver
Involved
any driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher as
confirmed by the state Toxicology Laboratory.
any driver in which the investigating officer or DRE
indicated impairment by alcohol as reported in
contributing circumstances.
Drinking Driver Involved
any driver with a BAC of any value except
zero as confirmed by the state Toxicology
Laboratory (also includes alcohol impaired
drivers)
any driver in which the investigating officer
or DRE indicated impairment by alcohol as
reported in contributing circumstances or
driver sobriety is reported as “Had been
drinking.”
Run-Off-the-Road
Derived from CLAS and flagged in FARS.
the primary collision type reported as one
parked-one moving, struck fixed object, struck
other object, or vehicle overturned AND object
struck is NOT overhead sign support, closed toll
gate, railway crossing gate, reversible lane control
gate, underside of bridge, drawbridge crossing
arm gate, falling rock or tree fell on vehicle, fallen
rock or tree hit by vehicle, mud or landslide, snow
slide, ridden domestic animal, animal-drawn
vehicle, not stated, fallen rock on vehicle (on the
road), fallen tree hit by vehicle (on the road), or
miscellaneous object or debris on road. Exclude
the primary collision type of vehicle overturned
when coupled with specific impact locations
(state routes only until 2010) and exclude those
with corresponding junction relationships of
described in the intersection definition.
Speeding Involved
any driver exceeding the posted speed limit or
driving too fast for conditions at the time of the
collision as indicated by the investigating officer.
any driver exceeding the posted speed limit or
driving too fast for conditions at the time of
the collision as reported in contributing
circumstances.
Young Driver Age 16-25
Involved
any driver between the ages of 16 and 25 years.
any driver between the ages of 16 and 25 years.
164
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Continued on next page.
Appendices • Appendix E: Target Zero Data Definitions
Measures
Fatality Definition
Serious Injury Definition
Distracted Driver
Involved
any driver with the following attributes as
indicated by the investigating officer:
(2009 and earlier) emotional; inattentive/
careless; cellular telephone; fax machine;
cellular telephone in use in vehicle; computer;
computer fax machines/printers; on-board
navigation system; two-way radio; or head-up
display: (2010 and later) looked but did not
see; by other occupants; by moving object in
vehicle; while talking or listening to cellular
phone; while dialing cellular phone; adjusting
audio or climate controls; while using other
device integral to vehicle; while using or
reaching for device brought into vehicle;
distracted by outside person, object, or event;
eating or drinking; smoking related; other
cellular phone related; distraction/inattention
details unknown; inattentive or lost in thought;
or other distraction.
any driver with the following attributes
reported in contributing circumstances:
inattention; driver operating handheld
telecommunications device; driver operating
hands-free wireless telecommunications
device; driver operating other electronic
device; driver adjusting audio or entertainment
system; driver smoking; driver eating or
drinking; driver reading or writing; driver
grooming; driver interacting with passengers,
animals, or objects inside vehicle; other
driver distractions inside vehicle; other driver
distractions outside vehicle; or unknown driver
distraction.
Intersection Related
Derived from CLAS and flagged in FARS.
a junction relationship reported as at
intersection and related; intersection related
but not at intersection; at driveway within
major intersection; entering roundabout;
circulating roundabout; exiting roundabout;
roundabout related but not at roundabout; or
traffic calming circle.
Priority Level Two:
Fatality resulting from a collision that involved…
Serious injury resulting from a
collision that involved…
Unrestrained Vehicle
Occupant
any fatal vehicle occupant whom was not using
a restraint or was improperly restrained as
indicated by the investigating officer.
any seriously injured occupant of a passenger
car, pickup, panel truck, or vannette under
10,000 lbs. in which the officer reported no
restraints used.
Unlicensed Driver
Involved
any driver with a license status of not licensed;
suspended; revoked; expired; or canceled or
denied as verified by Department of Licensing
records.
N/A – Driver license status not available in
serious injury data.
Continued on next page.
165
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix E: Target Zero Data Definitions
Continued from previous page.
Measures
Fatality Definition
Serious Injury Definition
Opposite Direction
Derived from CLAS and flagged in FARS.
a collision type reported as from opposite
direction; from opposite direction moving/
stopped head on; or from opposite direction
sideswipe and excluding cases if the junction
relationship was reported as at intersection
and related; intersection related but not at
intersection; at driveway; at driveway within
major intersection; entering roundabout;
circulating roundabout; exiting roundabout; at
roundabout but not related; or traffic calming
circle.
Motorcyclists
a vehicle body type coded as motorcycle;
three-wheel motorcycle/moped – not all
terrain vehicle; or off-road motorcycle 2-wheel
(excludes mopeds, mini-bikes, motor scooters,
and unknown motored cycle type).
a vehicle type reported as motorcycle
(excludes scooter bikes and mopeds).
Pedestrians
a fatal person type coded as pedestrian or
person on personal conveyances.
a seriously injured person coded as pedestrian
(includes person on foot, roller skater/
skateboarder, wheelchair, flagger, roadway
worker, and EMS personnel).
Priority Level Three:
Fatality resulting from a collision that involved…
Serious injury resulting from a
collision that involved…
Older Driver Involved
(age 75+)
any driver age 75 years or older.
any driver age 75 years or older.
Heavy Truck Involved
Derived from CLAS and flagged in FARS.
any vehicle that also has a vehicle classification
of trailer with GVWR of 10,001 lbs. or more,
single vehicle with GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more,
or single vehicle of 26,000 lbs. or less-CDL
required or a commercial vehicle supplement to
the collision report; OR a vehicle type reported as
truck and trailer, truck tractor, truck tractor and
semi-trailer, or truck-double trailer combinations;
OR a vehicle usage classification reported as
concrete mixer, dump truck, logging truck,
refuse/recycle truck, vannette over 10,001 lbs.,
tanker truck, or auto carrier.
Drowsy Driver Involved
any driver with a driver related factor coded as
‘drowsy, sleepy, asleep, fatigued’ (2009 and
prior) or a driver condition coded as asleep or
fatigued (2010 and later).
any driver with the following attributes
reported in the contributing circumstances:
apparently asleep or apparently fatigued.
Bicyclists
a fatal person type coded as bicyclist or other
cyclist.
a seriously injured person coded as pedcyc driver
or pedcyc passenger (includes bicycles and
tricycles).
Continued on next page.
166
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix E: Target Zero Data Definitions
Measures
Fatality Definition
Serious Injury Definition
Work Zone
a work zone status coded as construction;
maintenance; utility; or work zone, type
unknown.
a work zone status reported as within work
zone or in external traffic backup caused from
work zone.
Wildlife
sequence of events coded as animal.
a collision type reported as non-domestic
animal (2008 and prior) or a collision type
reported as vehicle strikes deer; vehicle strikes
elk; or vehicle strikes all other non-domestic
animal (2009 and later).
School Bus Involved
a vehicle coded as school bus.
a vehicle type reported as school bus.
Vehicle-Train
sequence of events coded as railway train.
a collision type reported as train struck moving
vehicle; train struck stopped or stalled vehicle;
vehicle struck moving train; or vehicle struck
stopped train.
Other Measures:
Fatality resulting from a collision that involved…
Serious injury resulting from a
collision that involved…
Rural Roads
a federal functional roadway classification of
rural principal arterial-interstate; rural principal
arterial-other; rural minor arterial; rural major
collector; rural minor collector; rural local road
or street; or rural unknown.
N/A – federal functional class missing for
collisions occurring within city limits.
Urban Roads
a federal functional roadway classification of
urban principal arterial-interstate; urban
principal arterial-other freeways or
expressways; urban other principal arterial;
urban minor arterial; urban collector; urban
local road or street; or urban unknown.
N/A – federal functional class missing for
collisions occurring within city limits.
State Routes/
Jurisdiction
route signing coded as interstate, U.S. highway,
or state highway.
a report classification of state route.
City Routes/
Jurisdiction
Derived from CLAS and flagged in FARS.
a report classification of city street OR a collision
classified as state route with access control of
limited access occurring within the city limits of
a city having a population over 25,000.
County Roads/
Jurisdiction
route signing coded as county road.
a report classification of county road.
Miscellaneous
Trafficways
route signing coded as local street-frontage
road, other, or unknown.
a report classification of miscellaneous
trafficway.
167
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix F: Strategy Effectiveness Criteria
Appendix F:
Strategy Effectiveness Criteria
Strategies listed in Target Zero are given a designation of Proven, Recommended, or Unknown as described in the table
below. A new process in this Target Zero update was to review and justify every designation given to a strategy. For this
review process, three main resources were chosen to serve as the foundation for the designations:
• Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices – 7th Edition 2013
• Report 500 Series from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
• Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
Strategy
Effectiveness
Definition
Countermeasures
That Work (CTW)
NCHRP
500 Report
Crash Modification
Factors (CMF)
Clearinghouse
Proven (P)
Demonstrated to be
effective by several
evaluations with
consistent results
***** Demonstrated to be
effective by several highquality evaluations with
consistent results
Proven (P) - Those strategies
that have been used in one
or more locations and for
which properly designed
evaluations have been
conducted which show them
to be effective.
***** = 14 quality points
Recommended
(R)
Generally accepted to
be effective based on
evaluations or other
sources
**** Demonstrated to
be effective in certain
situations
OR
*** Likely to be effective
based on balance of
evidence from high-quality
evaluations or other sources
Tried (T) - Those strategies
that have been implemented
in a number of locations,
and may even be accepted as
standards or standard
approaches, but for which
there have not been found
valid evaluations.
**** = 11-13 quality
points
** Effectiveness still
undetermined; different
methods of implementing
this countermeasure
produce different results
OR
*Limited or no high-quality
evaluation evidence
Experimental (E) - Those
strategies representing ideas
that have been suggested,
with at least one agency
considering them sufficiently
promising to try them as an
experiment in at least one
location.
** = 3-6 quality points
Unknown (U)
Limited evaluation
evidence, or
experimental
*** = 7-10 quality points
These sources (CTW, NCHRP 500, CMF Clearinghouse) were reviewed for the strategies identified by our statewide
partners. If the strategies were found, designations were adopted according to the table above. In some instances, our
strategies are slightly modified to be more specific to Washington State, but they still aligned with the strategies in these
sources and are therefore designated the same.
168
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix F: Strategy Effectiveness Criteria
If a strategy was not found in one of the three primary sources, then further evaluation was conducted in the following
order:
• Was the strategy supported with published, favorable outcomes in the form of a metastudy (a review of several
related studies for methodological strength and consistent outcomes)? These strategies were designated Proven with
META as the source.
• Was the strategy supported by extensive literature but lacks a metastudy? These strategies were designated Proven
or Recommended with LIT as the source, dependent on evaluation of the quality and outcomes of the available
literature.
• Was the strategy a recommendation supported by a state or federal agency, backed by cited evaluation/data? These
strategies were designated Recommended with the supporting agency as the source.
If a strategy did not meet the Proven or Recommended criteria, or did not meet one of the criteria listed in a previous
bullet, then the strategy was designated Unknown. The unknown designation was assigned to strategies when:
• The strategy was listed in one of the three main resources with lower quality ratings
• The literature was insufficient to designate it as recommended
• There was sufficient literature, but outcomes were inconsistent and inconclusive between studies
169
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Appendices • Appendix G: Virtual Appendix
Appendix G: Virtual Appendix
http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/statistics-reports/crash-data/
The success of the Target Zero plan is dependent on local
participation. And local efforts are most successful when
driven by local data. Though we can’t include community-bycommunity data in this publication, it is available online as an
extension of the Target Zero plan at http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/
statistics-reports/crash-data/.
Data is broken down by local areas – Regional Transportation
Planning Organizations (RTPOs), counties and cities with
populations over 30,000. This local data is compared to state
statistics. Information is updated regularly and can be found
by accessing the “Traffic Safety Priorities in Washington State
for Local Jurisdictions” link on the Crash Data page of the
Washington Traffic Safety Commission website.
The online information highlights which factors are
contributing to the most fatalities and serious injuries broken
down by local areas. Sometimes a community will find a state
priority – such as Run-Off-the-Road – is a lesser issue for
their community, while another area may be near the top.
The community specific data will help you prioritize local
and regional safety projects and programs, and assist in
developing a localized Target Zero plan. Access this rich
collection of online data and target your efforts on the most
pressing local issues on your community’s path to achieving
zero deaths and serious injuries by 2030.
170
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
Special Thanks!
Hundreds of people were involved in creating the Target Zero plan. At the front of the publication we thanked our state’s
Traffic Safety Commission members and scores of partners across the state.
The people on this page represent those who really had to roll up their sleeves. For over a year they gathered data, reached
out to partners, created meaningful charts, attended meetings, wrote and edited text, and collaborated inside and outside
their organizations.
Their commitment to creating a data-driven, easy to understand document was fueled by their desire to realize the goal of
zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Data Analysts & Project Team Members
ebi Besser (Project Manager)
D
Cdr. Steve Aust
Shelly Baldwin
Mike Bernard
Bruce Chunn
Paula Connelley
Dan Davis
Dick Doane
Mike Dornfeld
Kathy Droke
Matthew Enders
Dolly Fernandes
MJ Haught
Staci Hoff, Ph.D
Bob Knudson
Carla Marconi
Capt. Wes Rethwill
Stephanie Rossi
Lt. Rob Sharpe
Zeyno Shorter
Lt. EJ Swainson
Sgt. Bob Thompson
Joanna Trebaczewski
Jonna VanDyk
Angie Ward
Haiping Zhang
WA Traffic Safety Commission
Lewis County Sheriff’s Office
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Dept. of Licensing
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Dept. of Health
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Licensing
Colville Tribes
WA State Patrol
Puget Sound Regional Council
WA State Patrol Impaired Driving
Section
WA Dept. of Health
WA State Patrol
Puyallup Police Dept.
WA State Patrol
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Licensing
Additional Key Contributors
Debbie Bray
Carlos Echevariia
Edica Esqueda
Ian Macek
Mark Medalen
Paula Reeves
Blake Trask
Cesi Velez
Tulalip Tribes
Tulalip Tribes
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Transportation
WA Traffic Safety Commission
WA Dept. of Transportation
Bicycle Alliance of WA
Child Passenger Safety Program
Manager
Steering Committee Members
Steve Lind (Project Sponsor) WA Traffic Safety Commission
John Nisbet (Project Sponsor) WA Dept. of Transportation
Gloria Mansfield Averill Target Zero Managers Executive
Council
Sheriff Ken Bancroft WA Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs
Teresa Berntsen WA Dept. of Licensing
Dr. Fiona Couper WA State Patrol, State Toxicologist
Alyson Cummings WA Office of Financial
Management
Kathleen Davis WA Dept. of Transportation
Dr. Beth Ebel Harborview Injury Prevention
& Research Center
Glenn Gorton WA Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction
Pam Pannkuk WA Governor’s Office
Janet Kastl WA Dept. of Health
Janet Ray AAA Washington
Stephanie Rossi Puget Sound Regional Council
Gary Rowe WA State Association of County
Engineers
Assistant Chief Ron Rupke WA State Patrol
Chief Tom Schlicker Northwest Association of Tribal
Enforcement Officers
Kirk Vinish Tribal Transportation Planning
Organization
Scott Waller WA Dept. of Behavioral Health
Recovery (DSHS)
Advisors
Greg Fredericksen
Don Petersen
Jeffrey James
Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013 • Target Zero
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Region 10
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carriers Safety
Administration
Washington State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2013
Zero Deaths - Zero Serious Injuries - 2030
Target Zero® is a registered mark of Washington State’s
Washington Traffic Safety Commission effective 2013.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement