Safety Performance Measures

1
Safety Performance Measures

• Numbers?
• Rates?
• Trends?

Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation Safety
Engineer Office of Traffic and Safety Iowa
Department of Transportation 515
239-1267 tom.welch_at_dot.iowa.gov
Midwest / Iowa Highway Safety Data
Summit September 15-16, 2008
2
2003 Shared National Goal AASHTO, FHWA, NHTSA,
GHSA, FMCSA

• Reduce fatalities by 1/3 by 2008 from 43,000
  to 29,000/ year
• Reduce the national fatality ratefrom 1.48 to
  1.0
• One state at a time

3
(No Transcript)
4
Fatality Rates Can Be Misleading
2.12
SD
1.27
CA
South Dakotas roads are safer than Californias
5
This phenomenon is known asSimpsons Paradox
6
2006 Fatality Rates

• National Iowa Difference
• Overall 1.41 1.40 None
• Rural
• Roads 2.30 1.80
  -22
• Urban
• Streets 0.95 0.80
  -16

7
Expected Fatality Rates (Weighted by Distribution
of VMT) Compared to Actual Fatality Rates
(0.76)
(0.16)
(1.26)
(0.54)
0.64
(0.65)
(0.46)
(0.39)
(0.30)
(0.39)
(0.25)
0.06
0.19
(0.08)
0.13
(0.23)
(0.07)
(0.02)
(0.52)
(0.17)
(0.17)
(0.17)
0.81
(0.57)
(0.29)
(0.02)
0.02
0.05
0.23
0.29
(0.33)
0.10
0.19
(0.15)
0.21
0.01
0.29
DC
0.17
(0.06)
0.79
0.23
0.30
0.44
(0.18)
0.12
0.46
0.23
0.34
0.19
0.41
(0.10)
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
8
Iowa Crash Fatalities5-Year Running Averages
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
State of IowaFatalities and Major Injuries
12
(No Transcript)
13
Traffic Safety Performance Measures for
States and Federal Agencies
Jim Hedlund, Highway Safety North Preusser
Research Group, Inc.
GHSA 2008 Annual Meeting Scottsdale, AZ Sept. 8,
2008

14
Need for Safety Performance Measures

• Required for each state traffic safety activities
  (23CFR 1200.20(a)(1)
• (a) A Performance Plan, containing the following
  elements
• (1) A list of objectives and measurable highway
  safety goals, within the National Priority
  Program Areas and other program areas, based on
  the highway safety programs identified by the
  State during the processes under paragraph (a)(2)
  of this section. Each goal must be accompanied by
  at least one performance measure that enables the
  State to track progress, from specific baseline

15
2007 US DOT NHTSA Program Audit Reported

• Better performance measures are needed to fully
  gauge the impact that future Federal resources
  will have on State programs.

16
2007 GAO Raised the Question (Government
Accountability Office)

• In some states, performance measures do not
  always contain sufficient detail or do not
  explain the specific actions that the state will
  take to achieve final targeted outcomes. What
  steps, if any, can NHTSA take to improve the
  quality of state performance measures?

17

• Theses examples illustrate the importance of
  establishing a common set of performance measures
  that cover key traffic safety program areas and
  that will be used by all States and NHTSA (as
  wells as other federal agencies dealing with
  traffic safety.)

18
Objective

• Develop voluntary guidance on a minimum set of
  performance indicators that could be used by
  federal, State, and local governments in the
  development and implementation of their highway
  safety plans and programs.

• Key features of performance measures
• Consensus federal and State
• Both general and specific subject area measures
• Both outcome (bottom line) and intermediate
• Timeliness, accuracy, feasibility, costs and
  benefits

19
Project Organization

• PRG Contractor
• Jim Hedlund, Highway Safety North Project
  Director
• GHSA Subcontractor
• Barbara Harsha and staff
• liaison with States
• facilities for panel meetings
• Expert panel advice and counsel

20
Expert panel

• 5 NHTSA Chakiris, Weiser Geraci, Michael, Oates
  
• 5 State GRs Depue MO, Murphy CA, Poole TN,
  Porter/Lind WA, Sandoval NM
• 1 State DOT Welch IA
• 1 FHWA Halladay
• 1 IACP McMahon
• 1 State data expert Presbury MD
• 1 TRB perf measure committee chair Neumann
• 5 research Dellinger CDCP, Fell PIRE, McCartt
  IIHS, Shinar Israel, Weiss PAR
• 1 wild card McNamara

21
Purposes of Performance Measures

• Set goals
• Allocate resources
• Connect goals to actions
• Monitor and evaluate progress
• Communicate results

22
Criteria for Performance Measures

• Important and valid substantial impact on
  traffic safety
• Uniform across States (for measures to be
  aggregated)
• Sensitive to actual State-level trends
• Long-term can be used for years
• Acceptable to stakeholders, consensus
• Operational definition clear how to obtain
  measure
• Accurate, reliable, repeatable
• Understandable easy to communicate to public
• Timely
• Reasonable cost for value of information
• Not too many stick to most important

23
Types Of Performance Measures Considered

• Outcome measures
• Crashes, injuries, fatalities
• Behavior measures
• Observed (belt use)
• Self-reported (survey)
• Activity measures
• Law enforcement (citations)
• Media
• Other key activities

24
State Uses for Performance Measures

• Outcome measures
• Set goals in highway safety plans
• Track and report progress
• Call these core outcome measures
• Behavior and activity measures
• No goals required in highway safety plans, except
  for seat belt use
• Track and report progress
• Establish necessary data collection and reporting
  systems

25
NHTSA Uses for Performance Measures

• Use the core outcome measures as an integral part
  of reporting to Congress and the public

26
State Responsibilities

• Set performance goals for each core outcome
  measure track and report on goals and progress
  in annual highway safety plans and annual
  reports
• Track and report on progress for each behavior
  and activity measure report to NHTSA annually
• Collect, analyze, and report data on all measures
• may require funds to establish and operate data
  collection and reporting systems that are not now
  in place

27
NHTSA Responsibilities

• In cooperation with the States, develop uniform
  definitions, protocols, and reporting
  requirements for each performance measure
• Assist States in establishing necessary data
  collection and reporting systems that are not
  now in place

28
Potential Areas for Performance Measures

• Overall
• Seat belt use
• Child occupants
• Alcohol
• Speeding and aggressive driving
• Motorcyclists
• Young drivers
• Older drivers
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists

29
Initial Performance Measure Sources

• State Strategic Highway Safety Plans
• State HSPs (402 plans)
• GHSA highway safety plan template for States
• PIRE report Traffic Safety Measures for States
  and Communities July 2004
• GASB performance measures for States
• Suggestions from NHTSA, States, expert panel
• Information summarized in final report

30
Measures in the Minimum Set

• 10 core outcome measures
• 1 core behavior measure
• 3 activity measures
• 4 areas with measures under development
• Numbered by type
• A activity,
• B behavior,
• C core outcome
• Data source in parentheses
• e.g. (FARS), (survey)

31
Overall measures

• Core outcome measures
• C-1)
• Number of traffic fatalities (FARS)
• C-2)
• Number of persons seriously injured in traffic
  crashes (State crash data files)
• C-3)
• Fatalities/VMT (FARS, FHWA)

32
Seat Belt Measures

• Core outcome measure
• C-4) Number of unrestrained passenger vehicle
  occupant fatalities, all seat positions (FARS)

• Core behavior measures
• B-1) Observed belt use (passenger vehicles, front
  seat outboard) (survey)
• Activity measure
• A-1) Number of seat belt citations issued during
  grant-funded enforcement activities (grant
  activity reporting)

33
Alcohol Measures

• Core outcome measure
• C-5) Number of fatalities in crashes involving a
  driver or motorcycle operation with BAC .08
  (FARS)
• Activity measures
• A-2) Number of impaired driving arrests made
  during grant- funded enforcement activities
  (grant activity reporting)

34
Speeding And Aggressive Driving Measures

• Core outcome measure
• C-6) Number of speeding-related fatalities (FARS)
• Activity measure
• A-3) Number of speeding citations issued during
  grant-funded enforcement activities (grant
  activity reporting)

35
Motorcyclist Measures

• Core outcome measure
• C-7) Number of motorcyclist fatalities (FARS)
• C-8) Number of unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities
  (FARS)

36
Young Driver Measures

• Core outcome measure C-9)
• Number of drivers age 20 or younger involved in
  fatal crashes (FARS)

37
Pedestrian Measures

• Core outcome measure
• C-10)
• Number of pedestrian fatalities (FARS)

38
No Measures Proposed

• Child occupants
• Aggressive driving (aside from speeding)
• Older drivers
• Bicyclists

39
Measures Under Development NHTSA-GHSA

• Traffic injury data
• best way to report serious injuries using each
  States current crash data file
• move toward common and improved definitions,
  reporting
• Telephone or similar surveys
• develop and test basic survey questions on seat
  belt use, impaired driving, speeding
• States will begin reporting in 2010 HSPs and
  Annual Reports
• Speed monitoring (with FHWA)
• develop guidance for speed reporting
• work toward establishing speed monitoring and
  reporting systems

40
Measures Under Development NHTSA-GHSA

Law enforcement activities

• report citations and arrests from grant-funded
  activities for alcohol, seat belts, and speeding
  in 2010 HSPs and Annual Reports
• extend reporting as technologies and systems are
  developed and implemented (electronic citations)
• current NHTSA contract to develop more
  comprehensive performance measures for
  enforcement activities (PIRE)

41
Report Available from NHTSA or GHSA

• Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States
  and Federal Agencies

www.ghsa.org/
42
The care of human life and
happiness is the first and only
objective of good government. -Thomas Jefferson
43
Safety Performance Measures

• Numbers?
• Rates?
• Trends?

Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation Safety
Engineer Office of Traffic and Safety Iowa
Department of Transportation 515
239-1267 tom.welch_at_dot.iowa.gov
Midwest / Iowa Highway Safety Data
Summit September 15-16, 2008