Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

  DOT HS 809 707

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle
Aggressive Driving Enforcement: Evaluation of Two Demonstration Programs

5. Report Date
March 2004

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)
Jack Stuster, PhD, CPE

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Anacapa Sciences, Inc.
P.O. Box 519 11. Contract No.
Santa Barbara, CA 93102

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Sreet, SW
Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report  

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes
Patricia Ellison-Potter, PhD, was the Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative (COTR) for this project.

16. Abstract

  This report presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the effects of two programs that were implemented to reduce the incidence of aggressive driving. The programs were conducted by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership (a consortium of agencies in the vicinity of Indianapolis, Indiana), and The Tucson, Arizona, Police Department. The programs each received grants of $200,000 from NHTSA to support the special enforcement and public information and education (PI&E) components. Program managers were required, as conditions of the grant, to 1) focus their enforcement efforts on key aggressive driving infractions in carefully-selected zones within their communities; 2) develop and implement PI&E campaigns to publicize the special enforcement efforts; and, 3) provide the data and other information necessary to prepare this evaluation. The programs shared additional features, but program managers were encouraged to consider innovative approaches to both special enforcement and publicity.

Samples of vehicle speed, collected unobtrusively in the special enforcement zones, and crash incidence served as the primary measures of program effect. Average speeds slightly in Marion County and at a greater rate in Tucson. The total number of crashes in the Marion County special enforcement zones increased by 32 percent, compared to the same six-month period one year earlier; the number of those crashes with primary collision factors (PCFs) associated with aggressive driving increased by 41 percent. That is, the total number of crashes increased, but the crashes with aggressive driving PCFs increased at a greater rate. The change in proportion of crashes with the target PCFs provides a better measure than crash frequency because it eliminates the effects of changes in traffic volume and other factors that might have contributed to the overall increase in crash incidence. In this regard, the Marion County zones experienced a six percent increase in the proportion of all crashes with aggressive driving PCFs, despite the extensive publicity and special enforcement efforts. The number of crashes in Tucson’s special enforcement zones increased by ten percent, but the number of crashes with aggressive driving PCFs increased by less than one percent. More important, the proportion of all crashes with target PCFs decreased by eight percent. That is, crash incidence increased overall in Tucson’s zones, but the proportion of those crashes with aggressive driving PCFs declined.

Study results suggest that limited resources might be better spent on officer labor than on publicity, and that focusing enforcement responsibility on a small team assigned full-time to the special enforcement patrols might be more effective than sharing the responsibility among a large number of officers as occasional overtime duty.

17. Key Words

Traffic Safety, Aggressive Driving, Road Rage
Traffic Enforcement

18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (Of this report)

20. Security Classif. (Of this page)

21. No. of Pages

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)                             Reproduction of completed page authorized