California 2006 Five Percent Report

This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code.  Each state’s report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs.  The reports included on this Web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage.  Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site.

Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence—Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports.

Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fiveguidance.htm.

---

Highway Safety Improvement Program
The California 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report

Prepared by:

The California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Table of Contents

I. Introduction: The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report
II. The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Purpose
III. Collision Factors
IV. California Roadway Data
V. The California 5 Percent Report Methodology
The Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System
2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Location Identification
Strengths and Limitations of the TASAS Table C Approach
VI. Remedies, Impediments to Implementation, and Cost
VII. Next Steps for the 2007Annual 5 Percent Report
VIII. Discovery and Admission into Evidence

Appendices
A – 5 Percent Report of Roadway Locations
B – 5 Percent Report of Intersections
C – 5 Percent Report of Ramps
D – Remedies and Impediments to Implementation

I. Introduction: The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report top
On August 10, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU establishes a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) structured and funded to reduce fatalities on all public roadways. A provision of the new HSIP requires all states to submit an annual report to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by August 31 of each year describing not less than 5 Percent of their public roadway locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs [Section 148(c)(1)(D)]. This first year the California report is due September 27, 2006. Subsequent to the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA issued guidance¹ to facilitate states’ response to the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report. This report satisfies the requirements detailed in United States Code, Title 23, Section 148(c)(1)(d) and complies with the FHWA guidance.

II. The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Purpose top
The California 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report is not intended to be used as a tool for the allocation of funding for, or prioritization of, State roadway safety projects.

The California 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report serves to:

1. Satisfy the HSIP reporting requirement – The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report is one of four reports required by SAFETEA-LU in addition to the development of an approved Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) if the State is to receive its full apportionment of federal HSIP funding.
2. Raise public awareness of the safety needs and challenges in the State – In accordance with SAFETEA-LU, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) will facilitate public awareness by placing the approved 5 Percent Report for California and all other state’s Annual 5 Percent Reports on the USDOT Web site.
3. Raise awareness of the importance of traffic safety data – The locations identified in the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report are based on available roadway and collision data for the State Highway System only (city and county roadway locations are not included for the 2006 report). In order for California to report on locations for all public roadways, California will need to examine available data sources and data collection methods to identify associated deficiencies.

III. Collision Factors top
The Venn diagram in Figure 1 shows collisions result from one or a combination of three factors: the vehicle, the driver, and the road. For example, a collision may result from faulty brakes, an impaired driver, or a curve that is too tight for the prevailing speed.² As a nation, 12 percent of all collisions involve some factor of the vehicle traveling the roadway; 34 percent involve some characteristic of the roadway, and 93 percent were due to human factors. When situations involving other collision factors are removed the data attribute the majority (57 percent) of traffic collisions to human factors. This information shows the importance of a holistic approach to roadway safety. To provide safer trips on California’s roadway system, efforts to improve roadway safety need to focus on engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services (4Es).

Figure 1 - Collision Factors³

IV. California Roadway Data top
Table 1 shows California’s roadway information segmented by city streets, county roads, and State highways [roadways maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)]. City streets and county roads have roughly similar lengths of maintained miles and lane miles; however, data show that city streets carry much more traffic than do county roads. A review of the State Highway System reveals that, even though the State Highway System constitutes fewer maintained miles and lane miles than city and county roads, the State Highway System carries the majority of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California.⁴

TABLE 1 - California's Roadway System⁵

Roadway	Total Maintained Miles	Lane Miles	Total Annual VMT in Millions
City Streets	73,703	164,253	113,781
County Roads	65,324	132,601	31,113
State Highway	15,209	50,525	182,906
Total:	154,236	347,378	327,800

V. The California 5 Percent Report Methodology top
Caltrans assembled a team of traffic safety stakeholders to analyze available data and explore approaches to identify locations for the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report. The team included: California Highway Patrol (CHP), Caltrans, Department of Motor Vehicles, League of California Cites, County Engineers Association of California, California State Association of Counties, the Traffic Safety Center – University of California Berkeley, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The team determined that available statewide data was insufficient to identify locations on all public roadways (State and local). Caltrans (state highways only), has data, processes and procedures in place to analyze and report on locations for the State Highway System; The Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) managed by Caltrans. Therefore, the team opted to use the established process and data for the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report as allowed by the FHWA Guidance,⁶ and will endeavor to include local roadway information for the 2007 report.

The Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System top
Caltrans uses TASAS to identify locations with significantly high collision concentrations during the preceding three year period. The identified locations are systematically investigated to determine probable cause of the collisions and implement effective countermeasures to improve safety. There are approximately 7,000 traffic safety investigations completed each year, which consist of detailed analysis of collision history, collision diagrams, field investigations, and a review of roadway geometrics. Each investigation has a recommendation, which is either to undertake an improvement or to make a determination of no action. Improvements can range from maintenance work orders or sign installation orders to minor or major improvement projects. Each recommendation is followed-up to ensure implementation.

Caltrans collects fatal, injury (severe, minor, and complaint of pain), and property damage only collision information from the CHP Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System, maps the collisions to the State Highway System contained in TASAS, and then segments the roadway into 0.2 mile lengths for analysis. All State Highway System locations are identified as a roadway segment, an intersection, or a ramp (which includes the intersections between the ramp and local road). Next, TASAS divides State Highway System locations into rate groups, which factor in geometrics, volumes, and other relevant factors. TASAS also considers other factors and applies rates to roadway segments (per million vehicle miles), intersections (per million vehicles) and ramps (per million vehicles) to allow for location comparison. Then TASAS compares individual locations to facilities with similar characteristics (e.g. geometrics, travel, etc) statewide. State Highway System locations that have a statistically significant collision concentration are flagged for investigation. The quarterly output of the TASAS analysis is the Table C –Investigation Locations Report (Table C).

2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Location Identification top
For the purpose of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report, Caltrans used State Highway System location information from the Table C report for the second quarter of 2005. The second quarter Table C report provided location information for the 36 month period spanning July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005. The Table C report identified 2,624 locations for potential investigation. Five percent of the identified locations requires Caltrans to identify not less than 131 locations. Caltrans split the total locations by location type (intersections, ramps, and roadway segments) and sorted by fatal and injury⁷ collision rates from high to low. Finally Caltrans selected the top 5 percent of State Highway System locations for each location type for inclusion in the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report (85 roadway locations, 25 intersection locations, and 23 ramp locations). The results are contained in Appendix A – 5 Percent Report of Roadway Locations (State Highway System Only), Appendix B – 5 Percent Report of Intersections (State Highway System Only), and Appendix C – 5 Percent Report of Ramps (State Highway System Only).

Strengths and Limitations of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Approach top
The strength of this approach is:

• Table C is a well established and proven methodology that has been used for decades to identify State Highway System locations for safety investigations, to implement safety projects, and successfully achieve reductions in fatalities and injuries on the State Highway System.

Limitations of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report Approach
The limitations of this approach include:

• The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report does not include locations from city and county roadways. The 2007 and subsequent Annual 5 Percent Reports will include city and county roadway locations.
• The 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report identifies State Highway System locations using a rate-based analysis versus a count-based analysis and there is an inherent trade-off between them. Rate-based location identification tends to include lower volume, rural locations whereas count-based location identification tends to include higher volume, urban locations.
• The TASAS Table C methodology based on 0.2 mile segments may overlook longer corridor locations that also have safety needs.

VI. Remedies, Impediments to Implementation, and Cost top
Figure 1 graphically shows how the roadway, the driver, and the vehicle all contribute to fatal and severe injury collisions. The potential remedies which could be applied to the State Highway System locations identified in this report should look at implementing engineering, educational, enforcement, and emergency medical services (4Es) countermeasures and strategies. Appendix D lists remedies to reduce fatalities and impediments to implementation currently recommended in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). California has assembled a team to guide the implementation of the SHSP recommendations.

As Caltrans reported in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report to the FHWA for Fiscal Year 2005/06, California awarded more than $184 million of state and federal money to safety projects in the areas of intersection improvements, roadway/structure improvements, roadside improvements, signs, beacons, lane monitoring systems, rumble strips, and barriers.

As the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reported to the FHWA in the Highway Safety Plan for Federal Fiscal Year 2006, California’s planned fund distribution for all active grants totaled more than $90 million for the following program areas: alcohol and other drugs, emergency medical services, community based organizations, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, police traffic services, roadway safety, and traffic records.

VII. Next Steps for the 2007Annual 5 Percent Report top
California intends to employ the following steps to improve future versions of the Annual 5 Percent Report:

1. Establish a statewide safety stakeholder team to develop a methodology, which reports locations with safety needs for the local (city and county) roadways system as well as the State Highway System. The inclusion of city and county roads may necessitate a change in the methodology used to identify locations for subsequent Annual 5 Percent Reports.
2. Review the SHSP Implementation Plan and utilize the 16 Challenge Area Action Plans to improve locations with safety needs in California.

VIII. Discovery and Admission into Evidence top
Section 148(g)(4) stipulates that the "5 Percent Report" and any reports, surveys, lists, schedules or data compiled or collected for any purpose directly related to paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D) in the preparation of the “5 Percent Report”, or related reports published or made available to the public by USDOT, “…shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports…” The information is also protected by Section 409 of Title 23 USC (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).

Appendix A – 5 Percent Report of Roadway Locations (State Highway System Only) top
Summary
The table in Appendix A displays information for 85 roadway locations on the State Highway System from 27 different counties in California. The 85 roadway locations represent 5 percent of all roadway locations identified by the TASAS Table C process discussed in the body of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report. The roadway locations are sorted alphabetically by county, ascending by route, and ascending by postmile.

How to Read the Table
The locations in this table are sorted alphabetically by county.

The table displays location information in the following columns:

1. Route = State Route in California
2. County = The California county in which the location.
3. Postmile = For the State Highway System, California uses a postmile marker system for location identification. Beginning with each county’s boundary, every roadway on the State Highway System starts at mile zero (0) and increases moving South to North and West to East.

Example Roadway Segment Location

Amador

88

044.314 TO 044.514

This is a 0.2-mile highway segment along State Route 88 in Amador County, which goes from about 44.314 miles east of the western Amador County line to about 44.514 miles east of the western Amador County line.

Discovery and Admission into Evidence
Section 148(g)(4) stipulates that the "5 Percent Report" and any reports, surveys, lists, schedules or data compiled or collected for any purpose directly related to paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D) in the preparation of the “5 Percent Reports”, or related reports published or made available to the public by USDOT, “…shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports…” The information is also protected by Section 409 of Title 23 USC (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).

Table of California Roadway Locations (State Highway System only)

County	Route	Postmile
Amador	88	044.314 TO 044.514
Calaveras	4	014.257 TO 014.457
Calaveras	49	029.447 TO 029.647
Del Norte	101	014.615 TO 014.815
Del Norte	101	022.747 TO 022.947 NORTH
Del Norte	199	001.979 TO 002.179
Del Norte	199	009.123 TO 009.323
Del Norte	199	009.323 TO 009.523
Del Norte	199	027.070 TO 027.270
Del Norte	199	027.270 TO 027.470
El Dorado	49	021.784 TO 021.984
El Dorado	49	022.404 TO 022.604
Fresno	168	054.087 TO 054.287
Humboldt	101	111.803 TO 112.003
Humboldt	101	124.798 TO 124.998
Humboldt	299	019.537 TO 019.737
Humboldt	299	R025.356 TO R025.556
Inyo	190	069.114 TO 069.314
Kern	58	R087.304 TO R087.504 WEST
Kern	178	013.880 TO 014.080
Kern	178	014.100 TO 014.300
Kern	178	015.220 TO 015.420
Kern	178	016.680 TO 016.880
Kern	178	019.460 TO 019.660
Kern	178	080.920 TO 081.120
Lake	20	041.971 TO 042.171
Los Angeles	2	026.838 TO 027.038
Los Angeles	2	029.538 TO 029.738
Los Angeles	2	031.267 TO 031.467
Los Angeles	2	031.467 TO 031.667
Los Angeles	2	080.874 TO 081.074
Los Angeles	138	022.162 TO 022.362
Mariposa	41	004.177 TO 004.377
Mendocino	20	004.575 TO 004.775
Mendocino	20	004.775 TO 004.975
Mendocino	20	022.517 TO 022.717
Mendocino	101	040.111 TO 040.311 SOUTH
Mendocino	128	007.700 TO 007.900
Mendocino	128	010.537 TO 010.737
Mendocino	253	013.020 TO 013.220
Merced	59	006.597 TO 006.797
Mono	266	002.320 TO 002.520
Mono	395	101.320 TO 101.520
Mono	395	R010.471 TO R010.671 NORTH
Napa	29	046.120 TO 046.320
Napa	29	046.320 TO 046.520
Napa	29	046.944 TO 047.144
Napa	121	011.450 TO 011.650
Napa	121	018.122 TO 018.322
Napa	128	000.500 TO 000.700
Nevada	20	021.715 TO 021.915
Nevada	20	029.907 TO 030.107
Plumas	70	017.117 TO 017.317
Plumas	70	054.032 TO 054.232
Riverside	74	010.313 TO 010.513
Riverside	74	050.100 TO 050.300
Riverside	74	056.780 TO 056.980
Riverside	74	058.922 TO 059.122
Riverside	74	083.193 TO 083.393
Riverside	74	089.695 TO 089.895
Riverside	79	006.389 TO 006.589
San Bernardino	18	038.140 TO 038.340
San Bernardino	38	029.509 TO 029.709
San Bernardino	38	030.329 TO 030.529
San Bernardino	38	037.483 TO 037.683
San Bernardino	95	042.407 TO 042.607
San Bernardino	95	051.414 TO 051.614
San Diego	76	037.017 TO 037.217
San Diego	79	009.457 TO 009.657
San Diego	94	025.530 TO 025.730
San Diego	94	032.744 TO 032.944
San Luis Obispo	41	006.507 TO 006.707
San Luis Obispo	227	004.327 TO 004.527
Santa Barbara	1	M034.901 TO M035.101 SOUTH
Santa Clara	9	000.560 TO 000.760
Santa Clara	9	000.760 TO 000.960
Santa Cruz	9	019.719 TO 019.919
Santa Cruz	17	010.109 TO 010.309 SOUTH
Shasta	5	R028.906 TO R029.106 SOUTH
Shasta	299	006.117 TO 006.317
Trinity	299	002.187 TO 002.387
Trinity	299	013.197 TO 013.397
Ventura	23	000.940 TO 001.140
Ventura	33	016.408 TO 016.608
Ventura	150	001.599 TO 001.799

Appendix B – 5 Percent Report of Intersections (State Highway System Only) top
Summary
The table in Appendix B displays information for 25 intersection locations on the State Highway System from 20 different counties in California. The 25 intersection locations represent 5 percent of all intersection locations identified by the TASAS Table C process discussed in the body of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report. The intersection locations are sorted alphabetically by county, ascending by route, and ascending by postmile.

How to Read the Table
The locations in this table are sorted alphabetically by county.

The table displays location information in the following columns:

1. Route = State Route in California
2. County = The California county in which the location.
3. Postmile = For the State Highway System, California uses a postmile marker system for location identification. Beginning with each county’s boundary, every roadway on the State Highway System starts at mile zero (0) and increases moving South to North and West to East.

Example Intersection Location

Calaveras

4

14.72 POOLE STA RD LT

This is an intersection location along State Route 4 in Calaveras County, which is approximately 14.72 miles east of the western Calaveras County line and intersects with Poole Station Road on the left.

Discovery and Admission into Evidence
Section 148(g)(4) stipulates that the "5 Percent Report" and any reports, surveys, lists, schedules or data compiled or collected for any purpose directly related to paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D) in the preparation of the “5 Percent Reports”, or related reports published or made available to the public by USDOT, “…shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports…” The information is also protected by Section 409 of Title 23 USC (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).

Table of California Intersection Locations (State Highway System only)

County	Route	Postmile
Calaveras	4	14.72 POOLE STA RD LT
Colusa	20	T 23.177 FRESHWTR/HUSTED
Del Norte	199	T .797 ELK VALLEY CROSS RD
El Dorado	49	23.9 LOTUS RD - LT
Fresno	168	T 24.697 MORGAN CNYN/OLD
Glenn	45	11.866 CO RD 39(BLUE GUM
Kern	43	33.48 POND RD, WASCO AVE
Kings	43	19.431 GRANGEVILLE BLVD
Los Angeles	138	48.961 AVE R RT
Merced	33	22.44 COTTONWOOD RD
Merced	140	40.7 ARBOLEDA DR
Nevada	20	31.834 WASHINGTON RD - LT
Riverside	62	84.965 DESERT CTR-RICE-
Riverside	74	44.404 NEW CHICAGO AVE
San Bernardino	18	102.475 VERBENA RD - RT
San Bernardino	247	39.598 CAMP ROCK RD/EAST
San Diego	76	32.87 VALLEY CENTER RD.
San Joaquin	26	12.67 FINE RD
San Joaquin	33	3.26 KOSTER RD
San Joaquin	33	3.51 DURHAM FERRY RD
Solano	113	8.04 COOK RD LT
Stanislaus	33	18.9 FRANK COX RD
Tulare	43	R 20.586 AVE 144
Ventura	34	5.295 ROSE AVE
Yolo	84	9.53 CLARKSBURG RD 152

Appendix C – 5 Percent Report of Ramps (State Highway System Only) top
Summary
The table in Appendix C displays information for 23 ramp locations on the State Highway System from 11 different counties in California. The 23 ramp represent 5 percent of all ramp locations identified by the TASAS Table C process discussed in the body of the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report. The ramp locations are sorted alphabetically by county, ascending by route, and ascending by postmile.

How to Read the Table
The locations in this table are sorted alphabetically by county.

The table displays location information in the following columns:

1. Route = State Route in California
2. County = The California county in which the location.
3. Postmile = For the State Highway System, California uses a postmile marker system for location identification. Beginning with each county’s boundary, every roadway on the State Highway System starts at mile zero (0) and increases moving South to North and West to East.

Example Ramp Location

Fresno

5

5.242 005/NB OFF TO JAYNE

This is an off-ramp location along northbound State Route 5 to Jayne Avenue in Fresno County, which is about 5.242 miles north of the southern Fresno County line.

Discovery and Admission into Evidence
Section 148(g)(4) stipulates that the "5 Percent Report" and any reports, surveys, lists, schedules or data compiled or collected for any purpose directly related to paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D) in the preparation of the “5 percent Reports”, or related reports published or made available to the public by USDOT, “…shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports…” The information is also protected by Section 409 of Title 23 USC (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys).

Table of California Ramp Locations (State Highway System only)

County	Route	Postmile
Fresno	5	5.242 005/NB OFF TO JAYNE
Kern	99	22.382 099/SB ON FR MING AVE
Kern	99	R 28.878 099/SBOFF TO
Kings	198	R 21.237 198/WB OFF TO RTE 43
Los Angeles	5	13.069 005/SB OFF TO
Los Angeles	14	R 25.056 014/SEG SB TO WELDON CYN RD
Los Angeles	14	R 25.095 014/SEG NBON FR SIERRA HWY
Los Angeles	14	R 65.886 014/SB OFF TO AVE L
Los Angeles	110	13.765 110/NB OFF TO TRANSIT STATION
Orange	55	13.921 055/SB OFF WB
Orange	91	3.268 091/SEG EB CONN FRONTAGE RD
Orange	91	3.502 091/SEG WB CONN FRONTAGE RD
Riverside	10	35.853 010/EB OFF TO GENE
Sacramento	50	16.972 050/WB OFF TO FOLSOM BL
Sacramento	51	6.181 051/NB OFF TO BELL ST
Sacramento	80	M 2.614 080/WB ON FR NB 5
Sacramento	99	20.826 099/SB OFF TO EB
San Bernardino	15	40.683 015/NB ON FR RTE
San Diego	5	R 18.937 005/SB ON FROM OLD TOWN AVE
San Diego	15	M 19.22 015/SEG NBOFF TO
Santa Barbara	101	11.62 101/SBOFF LT-225/CABRILLO
Santa Clara	101	38.781 101/NB OFF TO OLD
Santa Clara	680	M 7.434 680/SEG NBOFF TOEB

Appendix D – Remedies and Impediments to Implementation for the 2006 Annual 5 Percent Report top

This appendix contains strategies and impediments to implementation California intends to explore as it implements the SHSP.
Challenge 1: Reduce Impaired Driving Related Fatalities
Strategies:

1. Educate roadway users regarding the dangers of impaired roadway use.
2. Restrict access to sources of alcohol/drugs for persons under 21 years of age, and for others as appropriate.
3. Enhance law enforcement training and the tools for detection of impaired roadway users.
4. Review effectiveness of existing sanctions as a deterrent to impaired driving.
5. Streamline and ensure consistent adjudication of arrested impaired drivers.
6. Improve the tracking of convicted impaired drivers.
7. Enhance the use of treatment programs to reduce recidivism of impaired drivers.
8. Increase and improve the application of administrative sanctions regarding impaired drivers.
9. Develop educational programs that combat the social acceptance of drinking and driving.
10. Develop new and innovative ways to approach repeat offenders.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Reinforcing public consensus that driving under the influence is unacceptable behavior.
2. Continue to apply resources that focus on high-visibility enforcement, education, and community involvement.
3. Difficulty in changing the behaviors that lead to impaired driving among drivers aged 21 to 34.

Challenge 2: Reduce the Occurrence and Consequence of Leaving the Roadway and Head-on Collisions
Strategies:

1. Keep vehicles on the roadway.
2. Minimize the consequences of leaving the roadway.
3. Reduce head-on collisions.
4. Apply advanced technology to reduce collisions.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited education and training for drivers on how to correct when their vehicle departs the roadway and how to avoid head-on collisions.

Challenge 3: Ensure Drivers are Licensed and Competent
Strategies:

1. Improve the initial licensing process.
2. Improve the competency of licensed California drivers.
3. Improve how California manages unlicensed drivers.
4. Improve how California manages drivers who operate vehicles with a suspended or revoked license.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited incentives and penalties for violators that effectively eliminate repeat offenders.
2. Limited public awareness regarding the problem.
3. Limited range of effective deterrents.
4. Laws that prescribe license suspension for a variety of non-driving offenses.

Challenge 4: Increase Use of Safety Belts and Child Safety Seats
Strategies:

1. Improve the availability, use, and proper installation of child restraint systems.
2. Target education and enforcement for demographic groups that show low safety belt usage rates.
3. Collect safety belt use information from first responders.
4. Increase education and enforcement on teen safety belt usage.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Public misperception that child safety seats are properly installed.
2. Limited resources for education about and inspection of child restraint systems.
3. Segments of the public remain unconvinced of the benefits of using safety restraints.

Challenge 5: Improve Driver Decisions about Rights of Way and Turning
Strategies:

1. Educate drivers on turning rules to support proper turning decisions.
2. Increase enforcement of drivers who make unsafe turns.
3. Employ traffic control devices, traffic calming, and speed-reduction design practices to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes related to turning movements.
4. Improve roadway geometrics to restrict unsafe turns by motor vehicles.
5. Apply advanced technology to reduce collisions.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Importance of providing driver education in California schools.
2. Limited number of personnel to monitor and enforce violations.
3. Incomplete understanding of the “rules of the road” by roadway users.

Challenge 6: Reduce Young Driver Fatalities
Strategies:

1. Improve the education and behind the wheel training of young drivers.
2. Increase parental involvement, knowledge and buy-in to the graduated driver’s license.
3. Improve the process of testing young drivers to obtain a driver’s license.
4. Enforce compliance of young drivers with the graduated driver’s license and rules of the road.
5. Enhance existing positive and constructive reinforcement of young driver behavior.
6. Enhance effective driving under the influence countermeasures targeting drivers under age 21.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited resources for enhanced law enforcement of graduated driver’s licens restrictions on young drivers.
2. Gaining widespread support from parents, teens, and the general public to increase teen compliance with GDL restrictions.

Challenge 7: Improve Intersection and Interchange Safety for Roadway Users
Strategies:

1. Improve land use planning regarding impacts to intersections.
2. Educate the public on intersection safety and the rules of the road.
3. Increase enforcement at and near intersections.
4. Improve the visibility of and at intersections (illumination, marking, and advanced warning).
5. Improve the design of traffic control devices.
6. Enhance the safety of rail-highway intersections.
7. Improve roadway design at intersections.
8. Reduce high risk rural road collisions.
9. Apply advanced technology to reduce collisions.
10. Improve design and operation of freeway interchanges.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. The difficulty in changing driver behavior at intersections.
2. Finding an appropriate balance of design considerations for all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians (especially young, older, and disabled persons).
3. Inadequate data regarding intersection collisions relevant to improving roadway safety.

Challenge 8: Make Walking and Street Crossing Safer
Strategies:

1. Incorporate pedestrian roadway users into smart growth, land use planning, and other local plans.
2. Enhance the enforcement of violations of pedestrian law by pedestrians and motorists.
3. Educate all roadway users regarding the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians.
4. Promote and improve roadway safety infrastructure for pedestrians including the use of advanced technology.
5. Improve the visibility of pedestrians on the roadway.
6. Improve the safety of pedestrians traveling to and from schools.
7. Improve data collection and analysis regarding pedestrian trip characteristics, level of service, injuries and fatalities on California roadways.
8. Improve pedestrian safety expertise among transportation professionals.
9. Consider pedestrian needs in all roadway and transit projects.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited existing statutory means to require the incorporation of pedestrian needs into land use planning, design, construction, and maintenance projects.
2. Limited data on pedestrians and walking trips that is relevant to roadway safety.
3. The constraints of existing right of way available for pedestrian infrastructure.
4. Limited coordination/collaboration/partnership among agencies and stakeholders concerned with pedestrian safety.

Challenge 9: Improve Safety for Older Roadway Users
Strategies:

1. Improve driver licensing testing and assessment procedures to more accurately reflect behind-the-wheel capabilities.
2. Create and promote wellness and behavioral strategies for older persons, making it possible for them to drive safely for added years.
3. Enhance law enforcement training to recognize older driver behaviors that may necessitate priority drivers license re-examinations, and provide law enforcement with a broader understanding of older driver sensitivities.
4. Develop public education materials, programs and tactics that clearly explain how the aging process affects driving and what families, friends and the public can do to help seniors (1) drive for more years safely and (2) transition comfortably to alternate forms of transportation when driving ceases.
5. Explain and encourage older persons’ self-assessment of driving abilities and how to take advantage of that information to make appropriate decisions about driving.
6. Seek the cooperation and coordination of the transit (bus, light rail, etc.) community to make these transportation options more accommodating and practical for older persons who can no longer drive.
7. Implement advancements in highway lighting, striping, signing, and engineering practices to make the highway environment safer for older drivers.
8. Leverage the programs and resources of the Older Californian Traffic Safety
9. Task Force to help with accomplishment of stated objectives.
10. Promote the establishment and enhanced capacity of occupational therapy driving evaluation and rehabilitation programs that serve seniors.
11. Improve the ability of health care professionals to provide effective assessment, counseling, and remediation to improve safe mobility of seniors.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Rapid growth in California’s licensed drivers aged 65 and older.
2. Preference of older adults to drive versus ride in a car, walk or take another form of transportation even when driving may not be safe for them.

Challenge 10: Reduce Speeding and Aggressive Driving
Strategies:

1. Change our social norms to reduce the acceptability of speeding and other forms of aggressive driving.
2. Provide targeted enforcement to locations prone to speeding and other forms of and aggressive driving.
3. Employ engineering methods to deter speeding and other forms of aggressive driving (e.g. traffic calming).
4. Ensure consistent adjudication of drivers cited for speeding and other forms of aggressive driving.
5. Apply advanced technology to reduce collisions.
6. Reduce the presence of speeding, unsafe and aggressive driving on the television and in movies.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Making the risks of aggressive driving a component of driver education.
2. Lack of a widely accepted common definition of what constitutes “aggressive driving.”

Challenge 11: Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety
Strategies:

1. Educate the public on commercial vehicle safety.
2. Improve the training, testing, and licensing of commercial vehicle drivers.
3. Increase the enforcement of commercial vehicle and operator violations.
4. Improve commercial vehicle maintenance.
5. Increase the use of commercial vehicle safety equipment.
6. Improve commercial vehicle drivers’ detection of other roadway users.
7. Improve infrastructure for commercial roadway drivers.
8. Improve commercial vehicle safety design.
9. Apply advanced technology to reduce collisions.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Lack of availability and knowledge of areas for commercial drivers to rest (e.g. Rest Havens).
2. Need for improved licensing and testing procedures.
3. Limited motorist awareness of safe driving practices and laws about operating safely around large trucks.
4. Lack of safety restraint use by commercial vehicle drivers.

Challenge 12: Improve Motorcycle Safety
Strategies:

1. Educate the public on motorcycle safety.
2. Improve the training, testing, and licensing of motorcyclists.
3. Enhance the enforcement of motorcyclist violations and violations by the operators of other vehicles.
4. Increase the use of safety equipment by motorcyclists.
5. Improve motorcyclist visibility to other roadway users.
6. Improve roadway design to enhance motorcycle safety.
7. Promote the use of helmets that meet Department of Transportation standards.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. It is difficult and expensive to address all the roadway conditions such as roadway surfaces (gaps, groves, bumps, holes), changes in roadway surfaces (lane shifts, etc.), and varying surface compounds, that create safety challenges for motorcyclists.
2. Technical and practical constraints on the enforcement of existing helmet integrity laws.
3. Proper training for older riders, the fastest growing demographic among motorcyclists.

Challenge 13: Improve Bicycling Safety
Strategies:

1. Improve data collection regarding bicyclist trips, injuries, and fatalities on California roadways.
2. Incorporate bicyclists into smart growth, land use planning, and other local plans.
3. Enhance the enforcement of bicyclist and motorist roadway laws.
4. Educate all roadway users regarding the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists.
5. Promote and improve roadway safety infrastructure for bicyclist use.
6. Improve the visibility of bicyclists on the roadway.
7. Improve the safety of bicyclists traveling to and from schools, utilizing education, encouragement, enforcement and engineering techniques.
8. Increase the use of helmets and enforcement of related laws.
9. Improve bicycle safety expertise among transportation professionals.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited means to effectively educate all roadway users about the rights of bicyclists on California’s roadways.
2. Limited means to require the incorporation of bicyclist needs into land use planning, design, construction, and maintenance projects.
3. Limited data on bicyclists relevant to improving roadway safety.
4. The constraints of existing right of way available for bicyclists infrastructure.
5. Limited coordination/collaboration/partnership among agencies and stakeholders concerned with bicyclist safety.

Challenge 14: Enhance Work Zone Safety
Strategies:

1. Enhance safe driving through work zones with education and enforcement.
2. Improve traffic control in work zones.
3. Reduce worker exposure and improve worker visibility.
4. Apply advanced technology to enhance work zone area.
5. Improve data collection and analysis.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Limited availability of skilled work zone safety resources.
2. During full road closures, work often runs 24 hours a day which can impact near-by residences – leading to opposition to full road closures.
3. Increased project costs associated with the implementation of safety strategies.

Challenge 15: Improve Post Crash Survivability
Strategies:

1. Improve technology for locating crash sites and for improving emergency medical services access routes and response times.
2. Ensure interoperability of communications systems between all responders to crash sites.
3. Improve patient transportation and destination from crash location.
4. Increase availability of appropriate-level trauma centers, with emphasis on rural areas.
5. Improve access to trauma-related training courses for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and paramedics.
6. Encourage Emergency Medical Dispatch programs to train dispatchers to assist victims awaiting arrival of EMS.
7. Improve data access to meet the needs of EMS.
8. Increase public access to first aid, CPR, and automated external defibrillation (AED) training.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Inadequate mechanisms for sharing prehospital data, as well as information on innovative programs.
2. Limited access to training programs, and inadequate recruitment and retention of EMS staff, especially in rural areas.
3. Lack of radio infrastructure to support communication needs for rural solutions.
4. Increases in special populations, including non-English speaking groups, that may be harder for the EMS system to serve without special training.
5. Shortages of trauma centers, especially in rural areas.

Challenge 16: Improve Safety Data Collection, Access, and Analysis
Strategies:

1. Improve the quality, completeness, and uniformity of data collection practices.
2. Improve data sharing among federal, State, and local agencies and stakeholders.
3. Improve accessibility to real-time information by California roadway users.
4. Enhance accessibility of traffic safety data.
5. Improve data collection and analysis regarding trip characteristics of all roadway users, level of service, injuries, and fatalities on California road ways.
6. Coordinate traffic safety information system improvements through the State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee.

Impediments to Implementation:

1. Data quality issues plague the analysis of safety issues - data are only as accurate as the ‘on-scene’ personnel who initially collect and code the data.
2. Data gaps – California must identify where data are missing regarding safety.
3. Sometimes the most useful data are also the most difficult and costly to obtain.

Footnotes top

1. Guidance: Highway Safety Improvement Program "5 Percent Report." (2006, April 5). FHWA.
2. Lum & Reagan (1995), Public Roads 58 (3), Winter 1995 “Interactive Highway Safety Design Module.” http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/winter95/p95wi14.htm.
3. ibid.
4. 2004 California Public Road Data, Caltrans, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), p. 6.
5. ibid.
6. Guidance: Highway Safety Improvement Program "5 Percent Report." (2006, April 5). FHWA.
7. Note: SAFETEA-LU requests locations for fatal and severe injury collisions. The injury collisions tracked in TASAS include all injury collisions (severe, minor, and complaint of pain) as characterized by CHP from the individual collision reports.