Arizona
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Safe Today, Safer Tomorrow
August 2007
ii
Acknowledgements
This report was produced through the combined efforts of the following Governor’s
Traffic Safety Advisory Council ( GTSAC) members, the joint Arizona Department of
Transportation / Federal Highway Administration / Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Workgroup, the GTSAC subcommittees, external safety partners and emphasis area team
reviewers:
Alan Hansen, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Alan Vitcavage, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Anthony Sandoval, Salt River Police Department
Arianna Valle, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Arnie Cuellar, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Artemio Hoyos, Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Bob Mickelson, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Bruce Kalin, Scottsdale Police Department
Christ Dimitroplos, Arizona Department of Transportation, ATRC
Cindy Eiserman, Arizona Department of Transportation
Dale Buskirk, Arizona Department of Transportation
Dale Wegner, Coconino County
Dan Mulleneaux, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
David Harden, Arizona Department of Health Services
Dr. David Manning, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - GTSAC Member
David Smith, Federal Highway Administration
Dennis Young, Department of Public Safety, Phoenix Metro West
Doug Forstie, Arizona Department of Transportation
Ed Armijo, Arizona Department of Health Services
Eric Ice, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration – GTSAC Member
Esther Corbett, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona – GTSAC Member
Gary G. Hayes, Pima Association of Governments - GTSAC Member
Geni Bahar, iTRANS Consulting
George Delgado, Arizona Department of Transportation
Jack Champlin, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
James Young, Arizona Department of Transportation
Jan Blaser- Upchurch, Mothers Against Drunk Driving - GTSAC Member
Jason Harris, Arizona Department of Transportation
Jeanne Marie, Driver and Safety Education Association
Jennifer Brown, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Jessica Smith, Students Against Destructive Decisions - GTSAC Member
Jim Williams, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
John R. Armer, Arizona County Sheriff’s Association– GTSAC Member
John Semmens, Arizona Department of Transportation, ATRC
Karen King, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Karen Rasmussen Arizona Trucking Association
Karla Petty, Federal Highway Administration
Kateri Goseyun, White Mountain Apache Tribe
Kiran Guntupalli, Maricopa Association of Governments
Kohinoor Kar, Arizona Department of Transportation, HES
La Retta Lehan, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Larry Scarber, Department of Public Safety, Tucson
Lela C. Decker, Driver and Safety Education Association – GTSAC Member
Linda Gorman, American Automobile Association of Arizona
Louis Lombardi, Salt River Police Department
Manuel Sanchez, Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division
Margaret Boone- Pixley, City of Avondale
iii
Maria Wojtczak, Driving MBA
Mary Beth Reisinger, American Automobile Association of Arizona - GTSAC Member
Maurice Masliah, iTRANS Consulting
Michael Caltabiano, Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona - GTSAC Member
Michael Hegarty, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Michael Lomayaktewa, Fort Apache Agency
Michael Sanders, Arizona Department of Transportation
Michael Trickey, iTRANS Consulting – Consultant Lead mtrickey@ itransconsulting. com
Michelle Tonati, American Automobile Association
Mike Blankenship, Arizona Department of Transportation, RSA
Mike Manthey, Arizona Department of Transportation - SHSP Project Manager
Nesta Morris, iTRANS Consulting
Pamela Najera, Arizona Chapter National Safety Council - GTSAC Member
Patrick McGrath, Arizona Courts
Paul Casertano, Pima Association of Governments
Paul Kuehl, White Mountain Apache Tribe
Reed Henry, Arizona Department of Transportation, HES
Richard Fimbres, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety – GTSAC Member
Richard Palmer, White Mountain Apache Tribe
Robert Hollis, Federal Highway Administration – GTSAC Member
Rodney Mendoza, Arizona Police Chiefs Association – GTSAC Member
Roger Vanderpool, Arizona Department of Public Safety - GTSAC Member
Rudy Sooklall, iTRANS Consulting
Russ Hanson, Trans Tech Consulting
Sam Elters, Arizona Department of Transportation
Sarath Joshua, Maricopa Association of Governments – GTSAC Member
Sonia Herrera, Arizona Department of Transportation
Stephanie Brown, Arizona Department of Transportation
Steve Owens, Arizona Department of Transportation, ATRC
Susan Hall, Federal Highway Administration
Terry Mullin, Arizona Department of Health Services
Terry Otterness, Arizona Department of Transportation, Roadway Design
Tiffiny Strever, Trauma Outreach Coordinator
Timothy Flood, Arizona Department of Health Services
Tom Prezelski, Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Tom Woodward, Department of Public Safety, Phoenix Metro East
Tomi St. Mars, Arizona Department of Health Services ( Safe Kids) – GTSAC Member
Ursula Miller, Arizona Department of Public Safety
Victor Mendez, Arizona Department of Transportation – GTSAC Member
Vivian Saunders, Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
iv
Executive Summary
This document presents Arizona’s first Strategic Highway Safety Plan ( SHSP). As this is
the first Plan, the document includes both the background and the Plan itself.
Introduction to Arizona’s Main Traffic Safety Issues
On average, at least three people are killed every day on Arizona’s roads. In 2006, the
number of fatalities was 1,288, an increase of 21.5 percent over 2001. Arizona’s annual
fatality crash rate is about 33 percent higher ( 2005) than the United States’ national rate.
Traffic related fatalities and serious injuries represent a tragic loss of life and loss of
quality of life. In 2005, crashes resulted in an estimated $ 5.8 billion of economic loss to
our state.
Arizona is one of the fastest growing states, and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) have
naturally increased. Although the data for 2001– 2005 show that the Arizona fatality rate
( fatalities per 100 million VMT) has been decreasing, the increase in the number of
fatalities is clearly unacceptable. This document sets out Arizona’s response to the
challenge of decreasing the number of road fatalities in Arizona.
The Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Council and the Transportation Safety Plan
Arizona’s response included the establishment of the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory
Council ( GTSAC) in 2004. GTSAC develops, promotes, and implements effective traffic
safety strategies designed to reduce the impact of traffic crashes in Arizona. The Council
also serves as a role model in safety leadership.
In 2005, GTSAC championed and released the development of Arizona’s Transportation
Safety Plan ( TSP). The TSP examined safety from a broad perspective that included
engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services ( EMS) ( the 4E’s).
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act and the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
In July 2005, after the completion of Arizona’s TSP, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA– LU) was passed.
This Act contains a number of important new and continued funding sources for safety
related projects, programs, and initiatives. To access the Act’s Highway Safety
Improvement Plan ( HSIP) funds, every state is required to develop a Strategic Highway
Safety Plan ( SHSP).
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
v
Since the SAFETEA– LU legislation was introduced, Arizona has focused its commitment
to reverse the growing trend in the number of highway related fatalities on the SHSP
process. The SHSP requires each state to adopt a traffic safety vision, to set clear and
explicit safety goals, to implement appropriate strategies and countermeasures, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and countermeasures. The process to be
adopted and the presentation of the Plan have been specified by the US Department of
Transportation’s Champion Guide 2 .
The SHSP initiative has four basic phases:
Phase 1. Producing the Development Plan
Phase 2. Producing the Implementation Plan
Phase 3. Implementation
Phase 4. Evaluation and Updating
The four phases are integrated and synchronized with the business cycles of existing plans
and programs. Future Plans will repeat and reiterate the process as developments,
achievements, and new challenges require.
This report represents Phase 1, Development Plan ( The Plan) and is a comprehensive,
collaborative, high level, statewide safety strategy that will guide Arizona’s safety change
initiative. The Plan can be regarded as an “ umbrella” for all existing and future safety
planning and programming processes. It is a living document, the first phase of an
iterative process that will reconsider all safety initiatives as they are implemented and
evaluated.
The Plan complies with the legislation’s requirements regarding the content and
presentation of the Plan, but the SHSP process is not just a legislative requirement. The
SHSP process is an overarching approach to safety that requires strong leadership, an
inspiring vision, achievable goals, and a team dedicated to the opportunities represented
by the SHSP. The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), in consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration – Arizona Division, was assigned the role of
champion ( project manager) for this SHSP phase by GTSAC.
Like the TSP, the SHSP encompasses engineering, enforcement, education, and EMS. The
following issues are also specifically addressed: a state vision; a state goal; the selection of
a set of emphasis areas; a sub- goal for each emphasis area; the selection of a set of
appropriate strategies for each emphasis area; and a suite of countermeasures for each
strategy. Every aspect of the approach is data driven, and every aspect is intended to draw
in as wide a spectrum of Arizona’s many safety partners and the broader community as
possible.
2 STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANS: A CHAMPION’S GUIDE TO SAVING LIVES, Interim
Guidance to Supplement SAFETEA- LU Requirements
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
vi
As this is Arizona’s first SHSP, a one- time initiation phase was added to bring the state’s
safety partners together to build a common understanding of the SHSP process, to review
baseline safety statistics, and to set the vision, goals and priorities of this SHSP. The
initiation phase included a workshop held in May, 2007.
The workshop participants included:
American Automobile Association
Arizona Courts
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Police Chiefs Association
City of Peoria
Coconino County
Driver and Safety Education Association
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Governors Office of Highway Safety
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Maricopa Association of Governments
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pima Association of Governments
TransTech Consulting
Arizona’s Safety Vision
The safety vision is “ Zero fatalities on Arizona roads, your life depends on it” ( the
Every One Counts vision). The Plan’s 4E and supporting public information and
outreach strategies are all designed to support this new vision for safety in Arizona.
Arizona’s State Safety Goal
The vision developed is supported by a state “ stretch” goal designed to bring about clear
progress towards the Every One Counts vision. In the first five years, this goal requires a
reduction in the number of fatalities of approximately 12 percent. The first five year
period will be 2008– 2012, and the base year of comparison will be 2007. The state goal is
discussed in detail in Section 4.
Adoption of this goal required workshop participants to consider the pros and cons of
expressing the goal as an absolute number of fatalities or as a rate. A fatality goal was
favored because an absolute number is so clearly consistent with the Every One Counts
vision, because an absolute number conveys a clear message that can be used in outreach
programs and other communications with the public, and because progress in reducing the
number of crash fatalities would also have a positive effect on serious injury crashes, non-serious
injury crashes, and property damage only crashes. An additional state goal
addressing serious injury crashes may be added in future Plans.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
vii
Arizona’s Six Emphasis Areas
There is a natural tendency to try to address every area of safety, but the SAFETEA– LU
legislation recognizes that this is simply not possible in practice. A SHSP proceeds by
selecting a number of emphasis areas that reflect the needs of the Plan’s jurisdictions, and
available resources.
As SHSPs are data driven, the emphasis areas were ranked by fatalities and selected after
careful consideration of the most recent safety data available. The emphasis areas take into
account the safety issues that most need to be addressed, and practical considerations such
as data issues and staff availability.
Six emphasis areas were selected:
1. Restraint Usage
2. Speeding
3. Young Drivers
4. Impaired Driving
5. Roadway / Roadside ( lane departure and intersections)
6. Data Improvement
Although the Plan will focus on the six emphasis areas listed, work on other areas of
safety ( such as pedestrians) will of course continue. With a Zero fatality vision, all areas
of safety will have to be addressed. As each emphasis area involves many aspects of
crashes, it is likely that addressing the selected emphasis areas will provide benefits in
other areas of traffic safety.
The emphasis areas are expected to change in future Plans as goals are achieved or
modified.
Problem Statement for each Emphasis Area
In accordance with SAFETEA- LU requirements and the data driven basis of the Plan, the
problem statement for each emphasis area sets out the number of fatalities and the number
of serious injuries involving the emphasis area. The problem statements refer to the five
year period from 2001– 2005.
From 2001– 2005, there were 5,644 traffic related fatalities and 37,265 traffic related
serious injuries in Arizona. The number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries
involving each emphasis area were as follows:
Lack of restraint use contributed to 3,437 fatalities and 15,100 serious injuries
Young drivers ( age less than 25 years) accounted for 1,956 fatalities and 16,208
serious injuries
Speeding contributed to 2,194 fatalities and 12,670 serious injuries
Impaired driving contributed to 2,385 fatalities and 5,728 serious injuries
Lane departure contributed to 2,958 fatalities and 10,957 serious injuries
Intersection layout contributed to 1,271 fatalities and 16,365 serious injuries
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
viii
The numbers total more than 5,644 fatalities and more than 37,265 serious injuries
because of the overlap between emphasis areas: a single fatality or serious injury may be
counted under more than one emphasis area. For example, a fatality may be a young driver
who is also driving while impaired.
Sub- goal for each Emphasis Area
Each emphasis area has a stretch sub- goal of reducing fatalities by 15 percent in each of
the five year periods following 2007. Arizona’s state safety goal aims for a 12 percent
reduction in the number of fatalities in the first five years. The stretch goal of 15 percent
for the individual emphasis areas was considered appropriate as it provides an allowance
for double counting where emphasis areas overlap. The rationale for this approach is
discussed in greater detail in Section 4.
Strategy Development for each Emphasis Area
The development of strategies was based on an analysis of the data for the number of
fatalities and serious injuries by:
Driver versus passenger
Gender
Age group
Collision manner ( e. g. angle collisions, head- on collisions, etc.)
Type of vehicle ( e. g. passenger cars, pick- up truck, motorcycle, etc.)
Month of the year
Day of week
Time of day
The recommended strategies are designed to achieve the emphasis area sub- goal. The
discussion of the strategies recommended for each of the five emphasis areas ( excluding
Data Improvement) includes:
A description of the proposed broad strategies
A description of the detailed countermeasures that support the broad strategies
Focus area ( state or county) of the countermeasure
Proposed timing of the implementation
Appropriate performance measure( s)
Strategies for Restraint Usage
The broad strategies for restraint usage are:
Maximize restraint use by all vehicle occupants
Educate the public on the proper use of child restraints
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
ix
Strategies for Young Drivers
The broad strategies for young drivers are:
Strengthen legislative and administrative requirements
Reduce young drivers’ involvement in fatal and serious injury crashes
Introduce training support for parents of young drivers
Increase young drivers’ safety awareness through education and training
enhancements
Strategies for Speeding
The broad strategies for speeding are:
Reduce the incidence of speeding
Reduce the number of chronic speeders
Reduce the effects of speeding related crashes
Strategies for Impaired Driving
The broad strategies for impaired driving are:
Deter impaired driving through effective enforcement
Reduce excessive drinking and underage drinking
Prosecute and impose sanctions on DUI offenders
Control and reduce the number of repeat offenders
Strategies for Roadway / Roadside
The broad strategies for lane departures are:
Reduce the incidence and severity of head- on collisions
Reduce the number of vehicles leaving the roadway
Minimize the effects of vehicles leaving the roadway
The broad strategies for intersections are:
Reduce the number of intersection related fatalities through improved operations and
traffic control
Reduce the number of intersection related fatalities through improved geometric
configuration
Reduce the number of intersection related fatalities by improving driver compliance at
intersections
Reduce the number of potential conflicts at intersections through improved access
management
Strategies for Data Improvement
The broad strategies for data improvement are:
Improve the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of data
Improve uniformity, integration, and accessibility of data
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
x
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Arizona’s Commitment to Traffic Safety.......................................................... 1
1.2.1. SHSP Leadership................................................................................... 2
1.2.2. SHSP Champion.................................................................................... 3
1.3. Safety Principles and Vision ............................................................................. 5
2. Arizona Demographics and Geography ....................................................................... 6
2.1. Increase in Population, the Number of Drivers’ Licenses, and Vehicle Miles
Traveled............................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Population Diversity.......................................................................................... 8
2.3. Geography ......................................................................................................... 9
3. Safety Challenges and Trends .................................................................................... 11
3.1. Data Challenges............................................................................................... 11
3.2. Safety Challenges and Trends ......................................................................... 11
4. Arizona State Safety Goal .......................................................................................... 16
5. Arizona Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................ 19
5.1. Process for Selecting Emphasis Areas ............................................................ 19
5.2. Arizona Emphasis Areas ................................................................................. 20
6. Introduction to the Emphasis Areas Analysis and Emphasis Area Strategies ........... 23
6.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 23
6.2. Sub- Goal Statement......................................................................................... 24
6.3. Strategy Development ..................................................................................... 24
6.4. Strategies ......................................................................................................... 25
7. Emphasis Area 1: Restraint Usage ............................................................................. 26
7.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 26
7.2. Restraint Usage Sub- Goal Statement .............................................................. 27
7.3. Strategy Development ..................................................................................... 27
7.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 28
7.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 30
7.3.3. Summary of Lack of Restraint Usage Data......................................... 32
7.4. Restraint Usage Strategies and Countermeasures ........................................... 33
7.4.1. Strategy: Maximize Restraint Use by All Vehicle Occupants ............ 33
7.4.2. Strategy: Educate the Public on the Proper Use of Child Restraints... 35
8. Emphasis Area 2: Young Drivers............................................................................... 37
8.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 37
8.2. Young Drivers Sub- Goal Statement ................................................................ 38
8.3. Strategy Development ..................................................................................... 38
8.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 39
8.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 40
8.3.3. Summary of Young Drivers Data, 2001– 2005.................................... 42
8.4. Young Drivers Strategies and Countermeasures............................................. 43
8.4.1. Strategy: Strengthen Legislative and Administrative Requirements .. 43
8.4.2. Strategy: Reduce Young Drivers’ Involvement in Fatal and Serious
Injury Crashes...................................................................................... 44
8.4.3. Strategy: Introduce Training Support for Parents of Young Drivers .. 45
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
xi
8.4.4. Strategy: Increase Young Drivers’ Safety Awareness ........................ 46
9. Emphasis Area 3: Speeding........................................................................................ 49
9.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 49
9.2. Speeding Goal ................................................................................................. 51
9.3. Strategy Development ..................................................................................... 51
9.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 51
9.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 53
9.3.3. Summary of Speeding Crash Data ...................................................... 55
9.4. Speeding Strategies and Countermeasures...................................................... 56
9.4.1. Strategy: Reduce the Incidence of Speeding....................................... 56
9.4.2. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Chronic Speeders ............................ 58
9.4.3. Strategy: Reduce Effects of Speeding Related Crashes ...................... 59
10. Emphasis Area 4: Impaired Driving .......................................................................... 60
10.1. Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 60
10.2. Impaired Driving Sub- Goal Statement ............................................................ 61
10.3. Strategy Development ..................................................................................... 62
10.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 62
10.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 65
10.3.3. Summary of Impaired Driving Data.................................................... 67
10.4. Impaired Driving Strategies and Countermeasures......................................... 68
10.4.1. Strategy: Deter Impaired Driving Through Effective Enforcement.... 68
10.4.2. Strategy: Reduce Excessive Drinking and Underage Drinking .......... 69
10.4.3. Strategy: Prosecute and Impose Sanctions on DUI Offenders............ 71
10.4.4. Strategy: Control and Reduce the Number of Repeat Offenders ........ 71
11. Emphasis Area 5: Roadway / Roadside – Introduction.............................................. 73
12. Emphasis Area 5: Roadway / Roadside – Lane Departures....................................... 74
12.1. Problem Statement – Lane Departure.............................................................. 74
12.2. Sub- Goal Statement – Lane Departure............................................................ 76
12.3. Strategy Development – Lane Departure ........................................................ 76
12.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 76
12.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 79
12.3.3. Summary of Lane Departure Data....................................................... 81
12.4. Lane Departure Strategies and Countermeasures............................................ 81
12.4.1. Strategy: Reduce the Incidence and Severity of Head- on Collisions.. 82
12.4.2. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Vehicles Leaving the Roadway ...... 83
12.4.3. Strategy: Minimize the Effects of Vehicles Leaving the Roadway .... 84
13. Emphasis Area 5: Roadway / Roadside – Intersections............................................. 86
13.1. Problem Statement – Intersections .................................................................. 86
13.2. Sub- Goal Statement – Intersections ................................................................ 87
13.3. Strategy Development – Intersections............................................................. 88
13.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ............................................ 88
13.3.2. Seasonality........................................................................................... 91
13.3.3. Summary of Intersection Data............................................................. 93
13.4. Intersection Strategies and Countermeasures.................................................. 93
13.4.1. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Intersection Related Fatalities
Through Improved Operations and Traffic Control ............................ 93
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
xii
13.4.2. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Intersection Related Fatalities
Through Improved Geometric Configuration ..................................... 94
13.4.3. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Intersection Related Fatalities by
Increasing Driver Compliance with Traffic Control Devices ............. 95
13.4.4. Strategy: Reduce the Number of Potential Conflicts at Intersections
Through Improved Access Management ............................................ 97
14. Emphasis Area 6: Data Improvement ........................................................................ 98
14.1. TRCC Strategic Plan for Traffic Safety Data.................................................. 98
14.2. TRCC Role in the SHSP ................................................................................. 99
14.3. Data Requirements for Restraint Usage .......................................................... 99
14.4. Data Requirements for Young Drivers.......................................................... 100
14.5. Data Requirements for Speeding................................................................... 100
14.6. Data Requirements for Impaired Driving...................................................... 101
14.7. Data Requirements for Roadway / Roadside ................................................ 102
15. Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 103
15.1. Introduction to SHSP Implementation and Evaluation ................................. 103
15.2. SHSP Implementation Plan ........................................................................... 104
15.3. SHSP Evaluation and Updating .................................................................... 106
15.3.1. Evaluation Process ............................................................................ 106
15.3.2. SHSP Public Outreach....................................................................... 106
16. Appendix A – Data Queries ..................................................................................... 108
17. Appendix B – GTSAC Charter ................................................................................ 112
18. Appendix C – Injury Severity by Posted Speed....................................................... 113
List of Tables
Table 1: Population Estimates by County, 2006 ...................................................................... 6
Table 2: Five Scenarios for the Number of Fatalities in 2010................................................ 17
Table 3: Fatality Reduction Goal versus Base Year Data ...................................................... 17
Table 4: Comparison of the Selection of Emphasis Areas ..................................................... 20
Table 5: Emphasis Area Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005 ..................................... 22
Table 6: Fatalities versus Weather by Emphasis Area, 2001– 2005 ....................................... 25
Table 7: Urban versus Rural Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries,
2001– 2005.............................................................................................................. 26
Table 8: Urban versus Rural Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005...... 27
Table 9: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Driver versus
Passenger, 2001– 2005............................................................................................ 28
Table 10: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005... 28
Table 11: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001–
2005........................................................................................................................ 28
Table 12: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Collision Manner,
2001– 2005.............................................................................................................. 30
Table 13: Maximize Restraint Use by All Vehicle Occupants: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 34
Table 14: Educate the Public on the Proper Use of Child Restraints: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 36
Table 15: Urban versus Rural Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005..... 37
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
xiii
Table 16: Urban versus Rural Young Driver Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005 .................... 38
Table 17: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Driver versus Passenger, 2001–
2005........................................................................................................................ 39
Table 18: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005 ................... 39
Table 19: Young Driver Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001– 2005..... 39
Table 20: Young Drivers Fatalities and Serious Injuries Collision Manner, 2001– 2005 ...... 40
Table 21: Strengthen Legislative and Administrative Requirements: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 44
Table 22: Reduce Young Drivers’ Involvement in Fatal Crash and Serious Injury Crashes:
Summary of Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance
Measures................................................................................................................. 44
Table 23: Introduce Training Support for Parents of Young Drivers: Summary of
Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..... 45
Table 24: Increase Young Drivers’ Safety Awareness: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 47
Table 25: Urban versus Rural Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005 ............ 50
Table 26: Urban and Rural Speeding Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005 ................................ 50
Table 27: Speeding Fatalities by Casualty Type, 2001– 2005 ................................................ 51
Table 28: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005........................... 51
Table 29: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005..................... 52
Table 30: Speeding Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001– 2005 ............ 53
Table 31: Reduce the Incidence of Speeding: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures,
Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures .................................................. 57
Table 32: Reduce the Number of Chronic Speeders: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 59
Table 33: Reduce the Effects of Speeding Related Crashes: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 59
Table 34: Urban versus Rural Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 200561
Table 35: Urban and Rural Impaired Driving Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005 ................... 61
Table 36: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Casualty Type, 2001– 2005 .. 62
Table 37: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005.............. 62
Table 38: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005........ 63
Table 39: Impaired Driving Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001– 200564
Table 40: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries Collision Manner, 2001– 2005 .. 64
Table 41: Deter Impaired Driving Through Effective Enforcement: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 69
Table 42: Reduce Excessive Drinking and Underage Drinking: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 70
Table 43: Prosecute and Impose Sanctions on DUI Offenders: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 71
Table 44: Control and Reduce the Number of Repeat Offenders: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 72
Table 45: Urban versus Rural Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005 .. 75
Table 46: Urban versus Rural Lane Departure Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005 ................. 75
Table 47: Lane Departure Fatal and Serious Injuries by Casualty Type, 2001– 2005............ 76
Table 48: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005................. 76
Table 49: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005 .......... 77
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
xiv
Table 50: Lane Departure Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001– 2005 .. 78
Table 51: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Collision Manner, 2001– 2005 78
Table 52: Lane Departure Serious Injuries and Fatalities by Light Condition, 2001– 2005... 81
Table 53: Reduce the Incidence and Severity of Head- on Collisions: Summary of
Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..... 82
Table 54: Reduce the Number of Vehicles Leaving the Roadway: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 83
Table 55: Minimize the Effects of Vehicles Leaving the Roadway: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 84
Table 56: Urban versus Rural Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005 ........ 87
Table 57: Urban versus Rural Intersection Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005........................ 87
Table 58: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Casualty Type, 2001– 2005 ........... 88
Table 59: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005....................... 88
Table 60: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005................. 89
Table 61: Intersection Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001– 2005 ........ 90
Table 62: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Collision Manner, 2001– 2005 ...... 90
Table 63: Reduce the Number of Intersection Related Fatalities Through Improved
Operations and Traffic Control: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures, Focus
Area, Timing, and Performance Measures............................................................. 94
Table 64: Reduce the Number of Intersection related Fatalities Through Improved
Geometric Configuration: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area,
Timing, and Performance Measures....................................................................... 95
Table 65: Reduce the Number of Intersection Related Fatalities by Increasing Driver
Compliance with Traffic Control Devices: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures..................... 96
Table 66: Reduce the Number of Potential Conflicts at Intersections Through Improved
Access Management: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area,
Timing, and Performance Measures....................................................................... 97
Table 67: Restraint Usage Data Requirements: Summary of Proposed Data Requirement,
Focus Area, and Timing ....................................................................................... 100
Table 68: Speeding Data Requirements: Summary of Proposed Data Requirement, Focus
Area, and Timing.................................................................................................. 101
Table 69: Impaired Driving Data Requirements: Summary of Proposed Data Requirement,
Focus Area, and Timing ....................................................................................... 101
Table 70: Roadway / Roadside Data Requirements: Summary of Proposed Data
Requirement, Focus Area, and Timing ................................................................ 102
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: SHSP Process and Activities ................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 2: Change in Population and the Number of Drivers’ Licenses by County, 2000–
2006.......................................................................................................................... 7
Exhibit 3: Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2001– 2005, and Number of Drivers’
Licenses, 2001– 2006................................................................................................ 8
Exhibit 4: Map of Counties and Indian Reservations............................................................. 10
Exhibit 5: Arizona Leading Causes of Death ( Ages 1- 39), 2000– 2004................................. 12
Exhibit 6: Crash Mortality Rates for Arizona and American Indians, 1980– 2005 ................ 13
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
xv
Exhibit 7: Annual Fatalities versus Population Growth, 1991– 2006 ..................................... 14
Exhibit 8: Annual Serious Injuries versus Population Growth, 2001– 2005........................... 14
Exhibit 9: Arizona versus United States Fatality Rate, 2001– 2005 ....................................... 15
Exhibit 10: Fatality Rate versus Number of Fatalities, 2001– 2005 ....................................... 16
Exhibit 11: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Lack of Restraint Usage, 2001– 2005 .26
Exhibit 12: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001–
2005........................................................................................................................ 29
Exhibit 13: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year,
2001– 2005.............................................................................................................. 31
Exhibit 14: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week,
2001– 2005.............................................................................................................. 31
Exhibit 15: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001–
2005........................................................................................................................ 32
Exhibit 16: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Young Drivers, 2001– 2005 ................ 37
Exhibit 17: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001– 2005..... 41
Exhibit 18: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005 ....... 41
Exhibit 19: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005........ 42
Exhibit 20: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Speeding, 2001– 2005 ......................... 49
Exhibit 21: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005.................. 52
Exhibit 22: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001– 2005 ............ 54
Exhibit 23: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005............... 54
Exhibit 24: Speeding Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005 ............... 55
Exhibit 25: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Impaired Driving, 2001– 2005 ............ 60
Exhibit 26: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005..... 63
Exhibit 27: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001– 200565
Exhibit 28: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005 .66
Exhibit 29: Impaired Driving Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005 .. 67
Exhibit 30: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Lane Departure, 2001– 2005 ............... 74
Exhibit 31: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005........ 77
Exhibit 32: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001– 2005.. 79
Exhibit 33: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005 .... 80
Exhibit 34: Lane Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005 ..... 80
Exhibit 35: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Intersections, 2001– 2005.................... 86
Exhibit 36: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group, 2001– 2005.............. 89
Exhibit 37: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001– 2005 ........ 91
Exhibit 38: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005 .......... 92
Exhibit 39: Intersection Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005 ........... 92
Exhibit 40: SHSP Four Basic Cyclic Phases ........................................................................ 103
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
In 2004, the Governor of Arizona established the Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory
Council ( GTSAC). The mission of GTSAC is to develop, promote, and implement
effective traffic safety investments to save lives and prevent injuries through a reduction in
vehicle crashes.
In response to this mission, GTSAC championed the development of the Transportation
Safety Plan ( TSP) for the State. The TSP was released in 2005 and had a broad
perspective that discussed safety investments in the areas of engineering, education,
enforcement, and emergency medical services ( EMS) ( the 4E’s).
In July 2005, after the completion of Arizona’s TSP, the United States Congress passed
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for
Users ( SAFETEA– LU). This Act contains a number of new and continued funding
sources for safety related projects, programs, and initiatives. Section 148 of the Act
provides funding for the Highway Safety Improvement Program ( HSIP) and elevates the
safety program from a set- aside to a core program. To access HSIP funds, states are
required to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan ( SHSP).
1.2. Arizona’s Commitment to Traffic Safety
The development and maturation of the Arizona SHSP process started in 2004 with the
creation of GTSAC, and continued through the production and publication of the 2005
Arizona TSP. The Arizona SHSP process is being fine- tuned through the nationwide
SHSP initiative.
SAFETEA– LU is a major new initiative that requires states to change how they set and
achieve traffic safety goals and objectives. Accomplishing this change takes strong
leadership, an inspiring vision, achievable goals, a dedicated team, and healthy oversight
to jump the gap from where states are now to where states want and need to be. This is
certainly the approach taken for Arizona’s SHSP. In Arizona, the SHSP is not just a
legislative requirement, it is the right thing to do and, over time, it will enable Arizona to
reduce its traffic- related fatalities and serious injuries.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
2
1.2.1. SHSP Leadership
The GTSAC 3 is the designated body responsible for leading traffic safety on a statewide
level. GTSAC has the authority to establish committees or teams to deal with specific
traffic safety issues, and may designate staff within the members’ respective agencies to
assist with or serve on these committees or teams. GTSAC’s mandate to develop cost
effective strategies to improve traffic safety on Arizona’s federal, state, county, and local
roads through the 4E’s response is consistent with the intent and requirements of the
SHSP initiative.
The GTSAC mandate, through the Governor’s Executive Order, includes:
Identifying best practices
Recommending safety legislation and educational materials for driver education
Analyzing laws and programs governing motor carrier safety
Establishing a matrix of indicators that objectively measure progress in reducing
serious injuries and fatalities due to vehicular crashes
Reporting the state’s progress in reducing serious injuries and fatalities due to
vehicular crashes
GTSAC commits to meeting regularly and sponsors a
variety of subcommittees. Each subcommittee is
sponsored by a Council Member and supported by a
technical staff person from one of the Executive
Transportation Safety Committee agencies.
Current GTSAC Subcommittees, roles and efforts
include:
Communications – Elevates the awareness of the
general public and the Legislature regarding
transportation safety issues in Arizona. Acts as a
resource for the Council in developing an overall
media plan, and in supporting the technical
subcommittees in the development of safety
campaigns. Created and maintains the GTSAC
website.
Driver Education – Improves driver behavior and
reduces the number of crashes through quality driver
education and targeted testing procedures. Reviews
and recommends specific educational materials that
could be incorporated into existing or new driver
training and high school driver education classes or
courses.
3 See Appendix B for GTSAC Charter
GTSAC Members
1. AAA of Arizona
2. Arizona Chapter National Safety
Council
3. Arizona County Sheriff’s
Association
4. Arizona Department of Public
Safety
5. Arizona Department of
Transportation
6. Arizona Driver and Safety
Education Association
7. Arizona Police Chiefs Association
8. Federal Highway Administration
Arizona Division
9. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration Arizona Division
10. Governor’s Office of Highway
Safety
11. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
( ITCA)
12. Maricopa Association of
Governments ( MAG)
13. Mothers Against Drunk Driving
( MADD)
14. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ( NHTSA)
15. Pima Association of Governments
( PAG)
16. Professional Fire Fighters of
Arizona
17. Safe Kids Arizona, Arizona
Department of Health Services
18. Students Against Destructive
Decisions ( SADD)
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
3
Issue Based Enforcement and Education – Discusses and develops strategies for
specific issues to improve driver safety in the State of Arizona. The four major areas
of responsibility are: DUI enforcement; Reducing underage alcohol / reducing
underage drinking and driving; Supporting the statewide Certified Drug Recognition
Expert ( DRE) program to reduce accidents caused by drug usage; and Promoting
traffic laws
Legislative – Addresses safety concerns that require legislative support. Supports the
overall mission of the Council by providing information, by drafting proposed
legislation impacting transportation safety, and by encouraging support of approved
legislative proposals.
Photo Enforcement – Promotes and assists with the implementation of photo
enforcement technologies, with the focus on improving roadway safety within the
State of Arizona. Participants represent enforcement, engineering, education and
judicial / courts. All Arizona municipalities currently using Photo Enforcement
Technologies ( eight municipalities) are involved in the Photo Enforcement
Subcommittee.
Road Safety Audit – Conducts formal examinations of user safety of a future or
existing roadway, including state, local and tribal road facilities. The examinations are
conducted by an independent multidisciplinary audit team on state, local and tribal
road facilities.
School Based Initiatives – Develops and implements strategies to improve the safety
of children walking and bicycling to / from school.
Traffic Records – The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee ( TRCC) is
responsible for developing, approving, and implementing Arizona’s strategic plan for
traffic records. The strategic plan for traffic records is designed to improve the
timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state
highway safety data.
1.2.2. SHSP Champion
GTSAC has assigned the SHSP Development Plan Champion ( Project Management) role
to the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), in consultation with the Federal
Highway Administration – Arizona Division.
The SHSP initiative has four basic phases:
Phase 1. Producing the Development Plan
Phase 2. Producing the Implementation Plan
Phase 3. Implementation
Phase 4. Evaluation and Updating
These four phases are intended to repeat in a perpetual cycle, and are intended to be
synchronized with the business cycles of existing plans and programs to ensure a true
strategic and tactical integration of effort across the state’s various jurisdictions.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
4
In developing this SHSP, Arizona added a one- time Team Building phase designed to
bring state safety stakeholders ( partners) together to better understand the long- term intent
of the SHSP process, to review common baseline state safety statistics and trends, to
acknowledge that their combined efforts would be more effective than the sum of current
practice, and to decide how they would collectively and successfully deal with Arizona’s
safety trends over time ( Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: SHSP Process and Activities
To achieve the reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injury necessary to attain current
and future state safety goals, the SHSP process does not end with the production of the
SHSP Development Plan. The SHSP process acknowledges that the cycle is just
beginning. In order to be successful, human resources need to be made available for each
activity in each SHSP phase.
• Action Plan
• Lead Agencies
• Prioritization
• Linkage to other Plans and
Programs
• Funding Mechanism
• Project and Program
Evaluation Criteria
• Map Out Workload, Cycles
and Milestones
Implementation
Plan
• Jurisdictional Adoption of
SHSP Strategic Vision and
Goals
• Implement investments
Through Existing Plans and
Programs
• Modify Current Processes
to Institutionalize SHSP
Safety Culture
Implementation
• Legislative Compliance
• Analyze and Interpret Data
• Common State- wide Goals
• Strengthen Partnerships
• Emphasis Area Priorities
• Investment Strategies
• Performance Metrics
• Resource Sharing
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Plan Approval
Development
Plan
• Monitor Process and Investment Implementation
• Evaluate Progress and Support Change
• Regularly and Formally Report Results
• Conduct Public Outreach
• Update SHSP and Existing Plans and Processes
Evaluating and Updating
• Collect Data
• Build Case for
Change
• Gather Partners
• Agree on
Approach
• Agree on Vision
• Agree on Focus
• Commitment
Team
Building
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
5
1.3. Safety Principles and Vision
“ The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein
The SAFETEA– LU legislation and SHSP process have provided the State of Arizona with
the opportunity to try something new, and to build a statewide safety team with a common
focus, commitment, and goals to reverse the growing trend of highway related fatalities.
At the origin of the new vision is the concept of “ One Team” consisting of the government
and the traveling public. Safety is everyone’s responsibility and each individual Arizona
citizen needs to ensure they make it home safely at the end of each day. Together we are
more effective and more efficient than the sum of the parts.
This concept of “ One Team” will not happen overnight, but will continue to pick up
momentum through each SHSP phase and through each annual cycle. This joint effort
enables the State of Arizona to adopt the following safety vision:
“ Zero fatalities on Arizona roads, your life
depends on it”
To achieve this vision of Zero fatalities on Arizona roads, your life depends on it ( Every
One Counts), every Arizona safety team member, every traveling citizen, and every visitor
will need to challenge themselves with regular personal safety goals. These goals should
be developed and marketed through a SHSP public outreach program. The concept of
public outreach program is discussed further in the Next Steps section of this report
( Section 15).
In pursuit of the Every One Counts vision, Arizona has set stretch goals designed to make
annual progress towards the vision through strategies that cover the 4Es, information, and
public outreach. The goals are discussed in Section 4.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
6
2. Arizona Demographics and Geography
2.1. Increase in Population, the Number of Drivers’ Licenses,
and Vehicle Miles Traveled
Arizona’s highway safety challenge is heightened by the state’s dramatic population
growth. During the 12 months ending July 1, 2006 4 , Arizona replaced Nevada as the
fastest- growing state in the union. From 2000– 2006, Arizona’s population increased by
22.9 percent whereas the national average increase in population was 6.4 percent.
Arizona’s population growth was approximately 360 percent greater than the national
average.
The three largest metropolitan areas are the counties of Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. Table
1 shows the 2006 population of Arizona’s counties. Maricopa County 5 is the fastest
growing county in the United States.
Table 1: Population Estimates by County, 2006
County
2006
Population Estimates
Apache 74,515
Cochise 135,150
Coconino 132,270
Gila 56,800
Graham 36,380
Greenlee 8,300
La Paz 21,255
Maricopa 3,792,675
Mohave 198,320
Navajo 113,470
Pima 981,280
Pinal 299,875
Santa Cruz 45,245
Yavapai 213,285
Yuma 196,390
Total 6,305,210
4 US Census Bureau
5 US Census Bureau
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
7
The increase in population growth has led to an increase in the number of drivers’ licenses
and the number of vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). Exhibit 2 shows the change in
population and the number of drivers’ licenses for each county between 2000 and 2006.
Many counties experienced increases in population and the number of drivers’ licenses of
more than 10 percent and some experienced increases of more than 20 percent. Only
Greenlee ( which has very small population) experienced declines.
Exhibit 2: Change in Population and the Number of Drivers’ Licenses by County,
2000– 2006
- 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohav e
Nav ajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yav apai
Yuma
Population Change Drivers License Change
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
8
Exhibit 3 shows the increase in vehicle miles traveled ( 2001– 2005) and the increase in the
number of drivers’ licenses ( 2001– 2006).
Exhibit 3: Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2001– 2005, and Number of Drivers’
Licenses 6 , 2001– 2006
2.2. Population Diversity
This SHSP recognizes the rich cultural diversity of Arizona. Arizona ancestry groups
include 21 federally recognized tribes 7 . These are:
1. Ak- Chin Indian Community 12. Navajo Nation
2. Cocopah Tribe 13. Pascua Yaqui Tribe
3. Colorado River Indian Tribes 14. Salt River Pima- Maricopa
Indian Community
4. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 15. San Carlos Apache Tribe
5. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 16. San Juan Southern Paiute
6. Fort Yuma – Quechan Tribe 17. Tohono O'odham Nation
7. Gila River Indian Community 18. Tonto Apache Tribe
8. Havasupai Tribe 19. White Mountain Apache Tribe
9. Hopi Tribe 20. Yavapai- Apache Nation
10. Hualapai Tribe 21. Yavapai- Prescott Indian Tribe
11. Kaibab- Paiute Tribe
6 US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
7 http:// ag. arizona. edu/ edrp/ tribes. html, sponsored by the University of Arizona with support provided by
the U. S. Department of Commerce- Economic Development Administration
44,000
46,000
48,000
50,000
52,000
54,000
56,000
58,000
60,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
VMT ( millions)
3,000,000
3,200,000
3,400,000
3,600,000
3,800,000
4,000,000
Drivers Licenses
Drivers Licenses VMT
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
9
The tribes are sovereign nations within Arizona and have expressed an interest in
developing their own SHSPs in close association with the Arizona SHSP. The tribal
SHSPs will give special attention to the unique safety issues of tribal lands. As the SHSP
is implemented, GTSAC will work with the tribal governments and tribal communities to
provide expertise and assistance so that the tribal governments may develop their own
implementation plans designed to improve safety in tribal areas. The expertise and
assistance should include, for example, police officer standards and training, public
education packages, and establishing systems / policies to support data sharing.
Arizona ancestry groups also include Mexican- Americans. According to the U. S. Census
Bureau, Mexican- Americans make up about 21 percent of Arizona’s population.
In order to reach the greatest numbers of people, it is clearly important for the SHSP to
offer all education and outreach packages in multiple languages. The issues surrounding
education and outreach packages in relation to cultural diversity are discussed further in
the appropriate strategy.
2.3. Geography
Arizona is the sixth largest state in area. Reservations and tribal communities comprise
over a quarter of Arizona's lands ( Exhibit 4). Due to Arizona’s great expanses of desert,
Arizona's major urban centers are separated by large rural areas. Addressing Arizona’s
safety concerns will require the integrated efforts of state, local and tribal governments
and agencies to cover the full roadway network with careful consideration of the rural
network in reservations and tribal areas.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
10
Exhibit 4: Map of Counties and Indian Reservations
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
11
3. Safety Challenges and Trends
3.1. Data Challenges
Unless otherwise referenced, all safety data presented in this SHSP are Arizona Accident
Location Information Surveillance System ( ALISS) data supplied by ADOT. Before
examining the central safety trends presented in Section 3.2, it is important to note that
safety data represent a considerable challenge for the SHSP. High quality data are
essential for establishing safety patterns and trends.
Data challenges are a natural phenomenon of change. During the preparation of this
report, several data availability issues arose and some are listed below. Data
improvements are discussed in greater detail in Section 14 of this report.
Current data problems include the following issues:
• ALISS does not include all accident data available from all local governments.
• 4E safety data are limited in terms of access and analytical capability, and need
improvement. Examples include data limitations affecting EMS, CODES 8 , citations,
and convictions.
• Only some tribal data are currently available for analysis. While most tribal fatalities
are included, serious injuries data may not be included. Typically, crashes occurring
on routes within a Tribal Reservation may not be included, especially when the injured
person is a tribal member. ADOT is working with the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
( ITCA) to obtain data from tribal areas and to share data with tribal governments.
• The Motor Vehicle Division Traffic Records Section is experiencing difficulties
catching up and keeping up with the data workload.
3.2. Safety Challenges and Trends
This Section identifies four basic safety challenges that Arizona’s SHSP needs to take into
account:
• Young people
• American Indians
• Increasing number of fatalities in Arizona
• Arizona’s high fatality crash rate ( compared with average for United States)
8 See http:// www. gtsac. org/ GTSAC/ Studies_ Reports/ index. asp for The Economic and Injury Burden of
Motor Vehicle Crashes in Arizona for 2005, reported by the Arizona CODES Project, July 2007.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
12
Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in Arizona, especially among young
people. As shown in Exhibit 5, from 2000– 2004, motor vehicle crashes were the leading
cause of death for people in Arizona between the ages of one and 39. Motor vehicle
crashes claimed more lives during this period than homicide, suicide, or poisoning. The
groups most affected were the 15- 19 and 20- 24 age groups.
Exhibit 5: Arizona Leading Causes of Death ( Ages 1- 39), 2000– 2004 9
Exhibit 6 shows that traffic fatalities among American Indians in Arizona are
disproportionately high. From 1980– 2005, the motor vehicle crash mortality rate was two
to three times higher for American Indians ( yellow- brown bars) than for other members of
the Arizona population ( blue- dark blue bars). Exhibit 6 underlines the importance of
working with tribal governments when developing and implementing the SHSP.
The information for Exhibit 6 was provided by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. The
source for this information is the Arizona Health Status and Vital Statistics 2005. The
Healthy People 2010 10 objective ( HP 15- 15) is to reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle
crashes to no more than 16 per 100,000.
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Web-based
Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System ( WISQARS) [ online]. ( 2005) [ cited Apr 10, 2007].
Available from URL: www. cdc. gov/ ncipc/ wisqars
10 See www. healthypeople. gov/
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 34
35 to 39
Number of Deaths
Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Drowning Congenital Anomaly
Homicide Malignant Neoplasm Poisoning
Heart Disease Suicide
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Age- Adjusted Mortality Rate
( Deaths per 100,000 population)
Arizona AI/ AN HP 2010 Objective
Exhibit 6: Crash Mortality Rates for Arizona and American Indians, 1980– 2005 11
Exhibit 7 shows that for the 16 year period from 1991– 2006, the number of traffic
fatalities in Arizona has been steadily increasing: from about 800 in 1991 to nearly 1,300
in 2006. Fatalities increased from 1,057 in 2001 to 1,288 in 2006, an increase of 21.5
percent over five years, and an increase of 9 percent in a single year ( from 2005 to 2006).
Exhibit 7 also shows population growth in Arizona from 1991– 2006. Some of the
increase in traffic fatalities may be attributed to recent population increases.
11 AI/ AN refers to American Indian/ Alaska Native. The information can be found at the following site:
http:// www. azdhs. gov/ plan/ report/ hspam/ hspam05/ part_ 2. pdf
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
14
Exhibit 7: Annual Fatalities versus Population Growth, 1991– 2006 12
Exhibit 8 shows that although the population increased from 2001– 2005, the number of
serious injuries decreased: from 8,203 in 2001 to 6,970 in 2006, a decrease of 15 percent
in five years. However, this trend has been slowing since 2003.
Exhibit 8: Annual Serious Injuries versus Population Growth, 2001– 2005
12 Unless otherwise referenced, all population information is from the Population Statistics Unit, Research
Administration, Department of Economic Security
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of Fatalities
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Population
Population Fatalities
6,600
7,000
7,400
7,800
8,200
8,600
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Serious Injuries
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Population
Population Serious Injuries
Arizona
Population
Forecast
2010 – 6,637,381
2015 – 7,495,238
2020 – 8,456,448
2025 – 9,531,537
2030 – 10,712,397
US Census Bureau
March 28, 2006
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
15
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Rate per 100 million VMT
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
Population
Population Arizona Rate US Rate
Exhibit 9 compares the annual fatality crash rate 13 of Arizona with the average for the
United States over the five year period from 2001– 2005. In 2005, the annual fatality crash
rate in Arizona was 2.0, approximately 33 percent higher than the United States rate of
1.5.
Exhibit 9: Arizona versus United States Fatality Rate, 2001– 2005
Data for 2001– 2005 show that the Arizona fatality rate has been decreasing at an average
rate of 0.04 fatalities per 100 million VMT per year. As the number of fatalities is actually
increasing, this decrease in the fatality rate is due to the annual increase in vehicle miles
traveled in Arizona ( see Exhibit 9). This is a very important distinction, as the SHSP
objective is to reduce the absolute number of fatalities and serious injuries, not the rate at
which they occur.
13 A crash rate is the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled ( VMT).
“ A child born today
can expect to live an
average of 78 years.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is that
one out of every 90
children born today
will die violently in a
motor vehicle crash.
And 70 of every 100
will be injured in a
highway crash at some
point during their
lives, many more than
once.”
AASHTO Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
16
4. Arizona Safety Goal
This Section discusses the safety goals set for the SHSP: the statewide goal, and the
supporting sub- goals.
The Arizona safety goal was developed at the SHSP Goal and Emphasis Area Workshop
( Workshop) held on May 30, 2007, and was attended by representatives from the key
safety jurisdictions in the State 14 . The purpose of the Workshop was to establish a
statewide safety goal, a sub- goal for each emphasis area, and a set of emphasis areas.
( Section 5 discusses the selection of the emphasis areas.) The Workshop ensured that the
safety goal selected for Arizona, and the sub- goals selected for the emphasis areas are
completely integrated.
Attendees first debated the pros and cons of whether a safety rate or an absolute number
would be more appropriate for the goal, and what length of time or term it would take to
achieve the goal.
The adoption of an absolute number was preferred over the use of a rate for two main
reasons:
1. An absolute number would be more understandable for the public, and would be more
effective as an outreach and communications tool.
2. Arizona’s number of fatalities continues to grow, even though there has been a
reduction in the fatality rate, as shown in Exhibit 10.
Exhibit 10: Fatality Rate versus Number of Fatalities, 2001– 2005
14 See the Workshop’s, Setting Safety Goal and Emphasis Areas for the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Report ( 2007)
2.13
2.18
2.08
2.01
1.98
1,057
1,132
1,121
1,151
1,183
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Rate per 100 million VMT
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Population ( x 1000)
Population Arizona Rate Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
17
To select the appropriate magnitude and term for the Arizona safety goal, five scenarios
were presented and discussed at the Workshop. The five scenarios are shown in Table 2.
For simplicity, each scenario adopted 2005 as its base year, and the analysis examined the
implications of each scenario for the five year period 2006– 2010. The comparison of the
scenarios focused mainly on the implications for the change in the number of fatalities in
2010.
Table 2: Five Scenarios for the Number of Fatalities in 2010
Scenario Description 2006– 2010 Change
Status Quo Trend Number of fatalities grows at existing average rate from
2006– 2010
+ 9.0%
No Change in
Annual Fatalities
Number of fatalities remains constant from 2006– 2010 0.0%
Modest
Improvement
Number of fatalities reduced by 5 percent from 2006– 2010 - 5.0%
Earnest
Improvement
Number of fatalities reduced by 10 percent from 2006– 2010 - 10.0%
No fatalities by 2050 Number of fatalities reduced to zero by 2050. To achieve
this, a decrease of about 11 percent is required from 2006–
2010.
- 11.1%
After considering the five scenarios shown in Table 2, the Workshop decided that the fifth
scenario offered the best match with Arizona’s long term vision of “ Zero fatalities on
Arizona roads, your life depends on it.” The fifth scenario, “ No fatalities by 2050,” implies
the adoption of a “ stretch” fatality goal with a reduction in the number of fatalities of
approximately 11 percent from 2006– 2010.
It is, however, important to note that Arizona’s safety vision and goal will be pursued in
five year increments using 2007 as the base year. The first five year period will be 2008–
2012.
As the base year for the SHSP will be 2007 ( not 2005), implementation of the SHSP
strategies will not start until 2008, and as fatalities may continue to increase at the 2005–
2006 rate of 9%, working towards Arizona’s fatality goal will require a five year reduction
( 2008– 2012) of approximately 12% from the number of fatalities estimated for the 2007
base year, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Fatality Reduction Goal versus Base Year Data
Base Year Data Fatalities
Annual Reduction for
Zero Fatalities Goal
Five Year Reduction for
Zero Fatalities Goal
2005 1,183 2.2% 11.1%
2006 1,288 2.3% 11.4%
2007 15 1,406 2.3% 11.6%
The Workshop also considered sub- goals for each emphasis area. These sub- goals had to
be completely integrated with the Arizona safety goal.
15 Estimate only. Based on 2006 fatality level plus 9%
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
18
To achieve the Arizona safety goal, a 15 percent stretch sub- goal for the reduction in the
number of fatalities was assigned to each emphasis area for the five year period from
2008– 2012. The 15 percent target was chosen to take into account overlaps in the
emphasis areas. For example, a fatality reduction in an emphasis area such as young
drivers could also be counted as a fatality reduction in emphasis areas such as speeding,
and impaired driving. As a result, the 15 percent stretch sub- goals for the emphasis areas
are expected to lead to a total statewide reduction in the number of fatalities of less than
15 percent. The reductions achieved in each emphasis area will be monitored, evaluated
and modified as required to achieve Arizona’s vision of “ Zero fatalities.” Individual
agencies and organizations may also continue to address the needs of areas that do not
appear in the list of six emphasis areas, and will contribute to achieving the “ Zero
fatalities” vision.
Fatalities have been increasing ( Exhibit 7), and serious injuries have been decreasing
( Exhibit 8). To focus on the major undertaking of achieving zero fatalities, the Workshop
decided that, for this iteration of the SHSP, Arizona would have a goal only for fatalities.
It was also felt that efforts to reduce the number of fatalities would have a positive effect
on the number of serious injuries and non- serious injuries, and on the number of property
damage only crashes. As time enables the state safety partners to effectively adopt SHSP
guidance and direction into current planning and programming processes, and to
collectively make progress towards reducing the annual number of fatalities, an additional
SHSP goal addressing serious injuries may be added.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
19
5. Arizona Emphasis Areas
The FHWA Office of Safety suggests that states start with four to eight manageable
emphasis areas. As SHSPs are data driven, emphasis areas must be related directly to data
available and to the goal and term selected. The choice of emphasis areas must also take
into account the availability of suitable staff, and the availability of staff to work on each
phase of the SHSP 16 . The emphasis areas are expected to change over time as goals are
achieved or modified.
The focus on selected emphasis areas resists the natural tendency to try to address every
safety issue. If every issue is addressed and described as a high priority, it is likely that the
resulting plan will fall short of expectations as it tries to deliver too much, too quickly.
With a zero fatality vision, all emphasis areas will have to be addressed, but by focusing
resources on the areas with the greatest potential return, Arizona’s safety goal will be
achieved more quickly and will allow the next generation of emphasis areas and strategies
to be addressed earlier.
As each emphasis area will contain multiple crash attributes, addressing the emphasis
areas with the most fatalities is likely to provide benefits in general safety and in other
specific emphasis areas. For example, the selection of lane departure fatalities and
intersection fatalities as emphasis areas would also address:
23 percent of Arizona’s pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries
46 percent of Arizona’s bicycle fatalities and serious injuries
55 percent of Arizona’s truck fatalities and serious injuries
59 percent of Arizona’s motorcycle fatalities and serious injuries
61 percent of Arizona’s speeding fatalities and serious injuries
64 percent of Arizona’s older driver fatalities and serious injuries
67 percent of Arizona’s unrestrained fatalities and serious injuries
68 percent of Arizona’s young driver fatalities and serious injuries
70 percent of Arizona’s impaired fatalities and serious injuries
5.1. Process for Selecting Emphasis Areas
The list of potential emphasis areas is long. As mentioned in the introduction to Section 4,
the emphasis areas used in this report were selected during the SHSP Goal and Emphasis
Area Workshop held on May 30, 2007. The Workshop was attended by representatives
from the key safety jurisdictions in the State 17 .
Selection of the emphasis areas was based on the analysis of the data and Arizona’s ability
to effectively manage the emphasis areas chosen.
16 Arizona has already implemented or is in the process of implementing several of the emphasis area
strategies contained in this report, they are re- iterated within this report to capture the associated
performance measures and identify any data enhancements necessary to be able to assess their effectiveness.
17 See the Workshop’s, Setting Safety Goal and Emphasis Areas for the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Report ( 2007)
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
20
5.2. Arizona Emphasis Areas
Prior to the workshop, a Safety Survey was developed to engage key safety stakeholders
in the SHSP development process, to obtain their opinions on Arizona’s current safety
planning / programming process, and to gather their input as to which emphasis areas
should be the focus of the SHSP. In total, 21 safety stakeholder organizations, 12 GTSAC
members, and 9 non- GTSAC organizations participated in the survey, and 32 responses
were received ( larger organizations provided multiple responses).
Table 4 compares the emphasis areas selected by the 2005 TSP, the 2007 Safety Survey,
and the SHSP data driven approach. The table shows that there was little agreement
among the groups.
The diversity between the processes underscores the importance of a data- driven
approach. All three processes selected only three of the potential emphasis areas:
intersection safety, lane departure, and pedestrian safety. Two processes selected two of
the potential emphasis areas: seat belt use, impaired driving, older drivers ( age greater
than 65 years), motorcycles, trucks and data improvement. Only one process selected
young drivers ( age less than 25 years), speeding, driver behavior, aggressive driving, and
EMS.
Table 4: Comparison of the Selection of Emphasis Areas
Source of Selection
Seat Belt Use
Young Drivers
Intersection Safety
Speeding
Lane Departure
Impaired Driving
Older Drivers
Motorcycles
Pedestrians
( bicycles)
Trucks
Driver Behavior
Data Improvement
Aggressive Driving
EMS
2005 TSP
Safety Survey
Data Driven
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
21
To clarify the selection process and to ensure that it was data driven, workshop
participants reviewed the five year fatality and serious injury trends for the following 16
emphasis areas:
1. Person without seat belt
2. Lane departure
3. Speeding
4. Young drivers ( age less than 25 years)
5. Impaired driving
6. Intersection
7. Older drivers ( age greater than 65 years)
8. Pedestrians
9. Trucks
10. Motorcycle
11. Aggressive driving
12. Keeping drivers alert
13. Bicycle
14. Work zones
15. Animals
16. Vehicle- train crashes
After reviewing the data, the workshop participants selected six high priority emphasis
areas for the SHSP:
1. Restraint Usage
2. Young Drivers ( age less than 25 years)
3. Speeding
4. Impaired Driving
5. Roadway / Roadside
6. Data Improvement
In selecting these six emphasis areas, the Workshop clarified the following points:
The Restraint Usage emphasis area includes all types of occupant protection.
Young Drivers are defined as less than 25 years old.
The Roadway / Roadside emphasis area combines lane departure and intersection
fatalities.
The data improvement emphasis area addresses data collection and sharing challenges.
Strategies for the Data Improvement emphasis area will be developed, implemented,
and monitored by the Traffic Records Coordinating Subcommittee ( TRCC) of
GTSAC.
The SHSP’s primary focus will be on the six emphasis areas listed above, but individual
agencies and organizations may continue to address the needs of other areas. Each of the
SHSP’s emphasis areas offers many opportunities to improve safety using the 4E’s
approach. The Roadway / Roadside emphasis area has an engineering emphasis. The
Restraint Usage, Young Drivers, Speeding, and Impaired Driving emphasis areas have a
behavioral emphasis.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
22
Table 5 shows the number of fatalities and serious injuries recorded for each of the
emphasis areas in the five year period from 2001– 2005 ( when a total of 5,644 fatalities
and 37,265 serious injuries occurred). As discussed in Section 4, the sum of the fatalities
and serious injuries for the individual emphasis areas is higher than the totals for the
period due to overlaps between emphasis areas.
Table 5: Emphasis Area Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001– 2005
Emphasis Area Number of Fatalities Number of Serious
Injuries
Lack of Restraint Use 3,437 15,100
Young Drivers 1,766 15,386
Speeding 2,194 12,670
Impaired Driving 2,385 5,728
Roadway / Roadside: Lane Departure
Roadway / Roadside: Intersections
2,958
1,271
10,957
16,365
Data Improvement Not applicable Not applicable
As progress is made with the six high priority emphasis areas, it will be possible for the
SHSP to adopt and pursue additional emphasis areas.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
23
6. Introduction to the Emphasis Areas Analysis
and Emphasis Area Strategies
The Sections that follow discuss each emphasis area individually:
Restraint Usage ( Section 7)
Young Drivers ( Section 8)
Speeding ( Section 9)
Impaired Driving ( Section 10)
Roadway / Roadside ( an introduction to the Roadway / Roadside emphasis area is
provided in Section 11)
• Lane Departures ( Section 12)
• Intersections ( Section 13)
Data Improvements ( Section 14)
Each Section is organized according to FHWA guidance for the preparation and
presentation of a SHSP. With the exception of the Data Improvement emphasis area which
follows NHTSA guidance for the development of a strategic plan for traffic safety data,
each emphasis area is presented under five sub- headings:
1. Problem Statement
2. Sub- Goal Statement
3. Strategy Development
4. Summary of Findings from the Data
5. Strategies
The data presented are the most recent data available, usually the five year period from
2001– 2005. Wherever possible, the same analyses are provided for each emphasis area.
There is some repetition in the separate Sections to allow each Section to be read
independently.
6.1. Problem Statement
The problem statement sets out the number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries
involving the emphasis area during the five year period from 2001– 2005. The problem
statement also gives the number of fatalities and serious injuries to be expected if recent
trends continue. These data are followed by an analysis of fatalities and serious injuries by
urban versus rural areas 18 , and by Arizona county.
18 For a rural and urban definitions see http:// tpd. azdot. gov/ gis/ fclass/ FC_ GUIDE. pdf
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
24
6.2. Sub- Goal Statement
The sub- goal statement states the sub- goal for each emphasis area.
As discussed in Section 4, each emphasis area has a stretch sub- goal of reducing fatalities
by 15 percent in the five year period following 2007. The stretch goal of 15 percent was
considered appropriate as some emphasis areas overlap. For example, some fatalities
involve both young drivers and impaired driving. By selecting the 15 percent sub- goals,
there is an allowance for double counting. The reductions achieved in each emphasis area
will be monitored, evaluated and modified as required to achieve Arizona’s vision of
“ Zero fatalities.”
6.3. Strategy Development
The strategy development section analyzes the number of fatalities and serious injuries in
detail as a basis for selecting strategies. There are two main headings:
1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner
2. Seasonality
Drivers, vehicles, and collision manner analyzes the number of fatalities and serious
injuries by:
• driver versus passenger
• gender
• age group
• type of vehicle ( e. g. passenger cars, pick- up truck, motorcycle, etc.)
• collision manner ( e. g. angle collisions, head- on collisions, etc.)
Seasonality analyzes the number of fatalities and serious injuries by:
• month of the year
• day of week
• time of day
It was originally intended to include weather conditions as a third heading. Arizona’s
weather, however, is dominated by clear conditions, and the analysis found that between
77 percent and 83 percent of fatalities for each emphasis area occurred during clear
weather, as shown in Table 6. As a result, the weather heading was not included under the
discussion of emphasis area strategies.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
25
Table 6: Fatalities versus Weather by Emphasis Area, 2001– 2005
Weather Conditions
Restraint
Usage
Fatalities
Young
Drivers
Fatalities
Speeding
Fatalities
Impaired
Driving
Fatalities
Roadway
/
Roadside
Fatalities
Not Reported, No Adverse Conditions 9% 3% 1% 4% 3%
Clear 77% 83% 82% 83% 81%
Cloudy 10% 10% 11% 10% 11%
Sleet / Hail 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Rain 2% 2% 4% 2% 3%
Snow 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Other 2% 2% 0% 1% 0%
Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6.4. Strategies
The section on strategies recommends a set of strategies designed to achieve the emphasis
area’s sub- goal.
For each strategy, between one and nine detailed supporting countermeasures are listed
and discussed. The countermeasures are then summarized in a table that shows the focus
area ( state or county), timing of implementation and performance measure( s).
The type of performance measure that is most appropriate varies, and it is not always
possible to express a performance measure as a reduction in the number of fatalities. In
some cases, the number of fatalities is not the most appropriate performance measure, and
in some cases, the link between a countermeasure, treatment or safety approach has not
yet been well established. For example, the impact on the number of fatalities of a media
or enforcement campaign is not well quantified. In the case of seat belts, it is clear that
seat belts save lives, but the safety effect of a one percent or five percent increase in seat
belt usage is very difficult to quantify.
Wherever possible and feasible, the countermeasures proposed in GTSAC’s Action Plan
and ADOT’s Transportation Safety Plan have been included within the appropriate
emphasis area strategy.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
26
3,142
3,197
2,889
2,922
2,950 612
691
701
710
723
2,700
2,750
2,800
2,850
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
3,200
3,250
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Serious Injuries
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
7. Emphasis Area 1: Restraint Usage
7.1. Problem Statement
In the five years from 2001– 2005, lack of restraint usage was a contributing factor to
3,437 fatalities and 15,100 serious injuries in Arizona.
Exhibit 11 shows the number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries involving
lack of restraint usage in Arizona in each year from 2001– 2005.
Exhibit 11: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Lack of Restraint Usage, 2001–
2005
The number of fatalities involving the lack of restraint use increased by 18 percent: from
612 in 2001 to 723 in 2005. If this trend continues, the number of annual lack of restraint
use related fatalities will increase from 723 in 2005 to 904 in 2012 ( an increase of 25
percent).
Table 7 shows that most lack of restraint use fatalities ( 60 percent) occur in rural areas,
and most severe injuries ( 66 percent) occur in urban areas.
Table 7: Urban versus Rural Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious
Injuries, 2001– 2005
Roadway Serious Injuries Fatalities Total
Urban 66% 40% 53%
Rural 34% 60% 47%
Totals 100% 100% 100%
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
27
Table 8 analyzes the number of lack of restraint usage fatalities by Arizona county from
2001– 2005. The table also shows the breakdown by urban versus rural location within
each county from 2001– 2005.
Maricopa and Pima counties account for 52 percent of all lack of restraint usage fatalities.
Whereas most fatalities ( 60 percent) occur in rural rather than urban areas (
Table 8), in Maricopa County, most restraint usage fatalities occur in urban areas ( 73
percent).
Table 8: Urban versus Rural Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities by County, 2001–
2005
County
Total
Fatalities
by County
County as
% of Total
for
Arizona
Urban
Fatalities
by County
Urban
Fatalities
as % of
County
Total
Rural
Fatalities
by County
Rural
Fatalities
as % of
County
Total
Apache 171 5% 0 0% 171 100%
Cochise 148 4% 16 11% 132 89%
Coconino 184 5% 20 11% 164 89%
Gila 78 2% 4 5% 74 95%
Graham 37 1% 1 3% 36 97%
Greenlee 3 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Maricopa 1342 40% 1,008 73% 334 16%
Mohave 173 5% 33 19% 140 81%
Navajo 175 5% 10 6% 165 94%
Pima 408 12% 159 39% 249 61%
Pinal 287 8% 56 20% 231 80%
Santa
Cruz
32 1% 6 19% 26 81%
Yavapai 219 6% 44 20% 175 80%
Yuma 87 3% 18 21% 69 79%
La Paz 93 3% 0 0% 93 100%
Totals 3437 100% 1,375 2062
7.2. Restraint Usage Sub- Goal Statement
The sub- goal statement for restraint usage is: Reduce number of fatalities related to lack of
restraint usage by 15 percent from the 2007 level over the five year period from 2008–
2012.
7.3. Strategy Development
The data available to assist with strategy development are discussed under two headings:
1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ( Section 7.3.1)
2. Seasonality ( Section 7.3.2)
The data are then summarized ( Section 7.3.3).
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
28
7.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner
Table 9 shows that the majority of fatalities involving lack of restraint usage are drivers
( 63 percent) rather than passengers ( 37 percent). The majority of serious injuries involving
lack of restraint usage are also drivers ( 63 percent) rather than passengers ( 37 percent).
Table 9: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Driver versus
Passenger, 2001– 2005
Casualty Serious Injuries
Serious Injuries
%
Fatalities Fatalities %
Driver 9,484 63% 2,163 63%
Passenger 5,616 37% 1,274 37%
15,100 100% 3,437 100%
Table 10 shows that the majority of fatalities involving lack of restraint usage involve
males ( 71 percent) rather than females ( 29 percent). The majority of serious injuries
involving lack of restraint usage also involve males ( 66 percent) rather than females ( 34
percent).
Table 10: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001–
2005
Gender Serious Injuries
Serious Injuries
%
Fatalities Fatalities %
Female 5,177 34% 995 29%
Male 9,913 66% 2,441 71%
Unknown 10 0% 1 0%
Totals 15,100 100% 3,437 100%
The age distribution for crashes involving lack of restraint usage is shown in Table 11 and
Exhibit 12. The 16- 24 age group accounts for the largest group of restraint use fatalities
( 26 percent), followed by the 25- 34 age group ( 20 percent), and the 35- 44 age group ( 18
percent). In the case of serious injuries related to lack of restraint usage, the 16- 24 age
group also accounts for the largest group ( 32 percent), followed by the 25- 34 age group
( 20 percent), and the 35- 44 age group ( 15 percent).
Table 11: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group,
2001– 2005
Age Group Serious Injuries Serious Injuries % Fatalities Fatalities %
15 and under 1,356 9% 223 6%
16- 24 4,815 32% 897 26%
25- 34 2,969 20% 683 20%
35- 44 2,317 15% 607 18%
45- 54 1,755 12% 440 13%
55- 64 855 6% 236 7%
65- 74 362 2% 162 5%
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
29
Age Group Serious Injuries Serious Injuries % Fatalities Fatalities %
75- 84 223 1% 118 3%
85 and older 60 0% 41 1%
Unknown 388 3% 30 1%
Totals 15,100 100% 3,437 100%
Exhibit 12: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Age Group,
2001– 2005
Table 12 analyzes fatalities and serious injuries in crashes involving lack of restraint
usage by the type of collision. Single vehicle collisions account for the largest group of
lack of restraint usage fatalities ( 54 percent) and serious injuries ( 40 percent). Three other
types of collision account for at least 10 percent of fatalities or serious injuries involving
lack of restraint usage: angle crashes account for 12 percent of the fatalities and 21 percent
of the serious injuries; left- turn crashes account for 7 percent of the fatalities and 14
percent of the serious injuries; and head- on crashes account for 12 percent of the fatalities
and 5 percent of the serious injuries.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
15 & under
16- 24
25- 34
35- 44
45- 54
55- 64
65- 74
75- 84
85 & older
unknown
Serious Injuries
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
30
Table 12: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Collision
Manner, 2001– 2005
Collision Manner
Serious
Injuries
Serious Injuries % Fatalities Fatalities %
Angle 3,138 21% 408 12%
Backing 6 0% 0 0%
Head- On 752 5% 408 12%
Left Turn 2,122 14% 227 7%
Non- Contact ( mc) 19 10 0% 1 0%
Non- Contact ( not mc) 18 0% 6 0%
Other 357 2% 133 4%
Rear- End 1,812 12% 213 6%
Sideswipe ( opposite) 230 2% 54 2%
Sideswipe ( same) 529 4% 97 3%
Single Vehicle 5,981 40% 1,873 54%
U- Turn 145 1% 17 0%
Totals 15,100 100% 3,437 100%
7.3.2. Seasonality
To assist in the timing of education and enforcement campaigns, the data for lack of
restraint usage were analyzed to determine whether lack of restraint usage crashes tend to
occur at particular times ( month, day, or time of day).
Exhibit 13 shows that fatalities related to lack of restraint usage tend to peak over the
summer months of July and August. Serious injuries peak in March and April, and again
in October.
19 ( mc) means motorcycle
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
31
Exhibit 13: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of
Year, 2001– 2005
Exhibit 14 shows that fatalities and serious injuries related to lack of restraint usage are
most numerous on weekends and Fridays. Fatalities related to lack of restraint usage
increase by 92 percent from Wednesday to Saturday.
Exhibit 14: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week,
2001– 2005
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Sunda y
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Day of Week
Serious Injuries
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
1,000
1,050
1,100
1,150
1,200
1,250
1,300
1,350
1,400
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month of Year
Serious Injuries
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
32
Exhibit 15 shows that lack of restraint usage fatalities tend to occur at particular times of
day: the middle of the night, between midnight and 1: 00am; and the afternoon peak period
from 4: 00pm to 6: 00pm. A smaller peak in fatalities occurs in the morning from 5: 00am to
7: 00am.
Serious injuries related to lack of restraint usage tend to increase in the morning from
around 10: 00am, and peak in the late afternoon at 5: 00pm.
Exhibit 15: Lack of Restraint Usage Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day,
2001– 2005
7.3.3. Summary of Lack of Restraint Usage Data
The following bullets provide a summary of the data in Section 7:
In the five years from 2001– 2005, lack of restraint use contributed to 3,437 fatalities
and 15,100 serious injuries in Arizona.
Fatalities related to lack of restraint usage are increasing.
Maricopa and Pima Counties account for 52 percent of all lack of restraint usage
fatalities.
Most fatalities ( 60 percent) occur in rural areas.
Most fatalities are drivers ( 63 percent) rather than passengers ( 37 percent)
Most fatalities involve males ( 71 percent).
The 16- 24 age group accounts for the largest group of fatalities ( 26 percent), followed
by the 25- 34 age group ( 20 percent), and the 35- 44 age group ( 18 percent).
Single vehicle collisions account for 54 percent of fatalities.
Fatalities tend to peak in July and August.
Fatalities are most numerous on weekends and Fridays.
Fatalities tend to occur in the middle of the night, between midnight and 1: 00am, and
during the afternoon peak period from 4: 00pm to 6: 00pm.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
12am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm
Time of Day
Serious Injuries
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
33
7.4. Restraint Usage Strategies and Countermeasures
The following strategies are recommended to achieve the restraint usage goal.
7.4.1. Strategy: Maximize Restraint Use by All Vehicle Occupants
The following countermeasures are proposed to maximize restraint usage by all vehicle
occupants in Arizona:
Countermeasure 1. Enact a primary seat belt law to increase restraint usage 20 .
According to NHTSA, 25 States and the District of Columbia have
enacted primary enforcement of seat belt laws. Primary
enforcement provisions permit law enforcement officers to stop a
vehicle solely on the basis of an observed seat belt violation.
Enacting a primary seat belt law increases occupant seat belt use.
Enact the legislative change either through legislation or through a
referendum. The law should cover all seating positions, the type of
vehicle, and all occupants regardless of age. Other legislative
changes should include:
Requiring booster seats for children aged 5- 8, or weighing
approximately 80 pounds, or standing less than 4- feet, 9-
inches tall
Requiring safety belts for children aged 9 and older, or
standing 4- feet, 9- inches or taller
Requiring that all children 12 and under ride in back seat of
vehicle
Providing immunity from civil liability for certified Child
Passenger Safety technicians who install car seats. Agencies
such as AAA have discontinued providing such services in
Arizona because of liability concerns
Countermeasure 2. Increase the penalties for the non- use of restraint.
Countermeasure 3. Conduct short- term high visibility seat belt law enforcement
campaigns at selected locations.
Countermeasure 4. Ensure sustained enforcement in counties with 10 percent or more
of the state’s fatalities attributed to non- use of occupant restraints.
Countermeasure 5. Increase the perception that violators will be caught and pay the
consequences. Use public relation programs and the media to
increase the perception.
20 Four Arizona tribal communities have already implemented a primary seat belt law.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
34
Countermeasure 6. Develop educational and public information campaigns for different
audiences to support enforcement strategies on restraint usage 21 .
Ensure that educational programs are multi- lingual and sensitive to
Arizona’s tribal communities and other cultures. Some cultures, for
example, find the mention of death or discussions of death
unwelcome. Develop a campaign targeting 16- 24 year olds as this
group accounts for 26 percent of fatalities related to lack of restraint
usage, and 32 percent of serious injuries related to lack of restraint
usage. Develop programs where employers, schools, and similar
institutions can relay the importance of using occupant restraint.
Increase awareness by highlighting the short- term medical costs,
and long- term societal loss and burden caused by lack of restraint
usage fatalities and injuries.
Continue to promote the Arizona Trucking Association’s 3- year,
Share the Road program that promotes increased seat belt usage by
truck drivers. This is a successful program and educational insights
from it may be transferable to new educational and public
information campaigns developed under this countermeasure 22 .
The six countermeasures designed to maximize all vehicle occupants’ use of restraints are
summarized in Table 13 which also provides information about the area of focus, timing,
and performance measures.
Table 13: Maximize Restraint Use by All Vehicle Occupants: Summary of Proposed
Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures
Countermeasure
Description
State or County
Focus Area
Timing of
Implementation
Performance
Measure( s)
Enact changes in
seatbelt legislation
Statewide Immediately Change in state laws
Change in seat belt
usage
Increase penalties for
non- use
Statewide Year round Number of citations
issued
Conduct high-visibility
enforcement
campaign
High crash location March, April, August,
October
Friday, Saturday, Sunday
12: 00pm – 6: 00pm
12: 00am – 2: 00am
Number of lack of
restraint usage fatalities
reduced in targeted
locations
Number of citations
issued
21 Where feasible, training and “ train the trainer” programs should be shared to make the best use of limited
resources and expertise.
22 The Share the Road program also has a module for training passenger car drivers about the operating
characteristics of large trucks, and how to drive safely around them. This information could be incorporated
into the educational components of the Young Drivers and Roadway / Roadside emphasis areas.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
35
Countermeasure
Description
State or County
Focus Area
Timing of
Implementation
Performance
Measure( s)
Ensure sustained
enforcement in
counties with high
percentage of fatalities
Maricopa
Pima
Friday, Saturday, Sunday
12: 00pm – 6: 00pm
12: 00am – 2: 00pm
Number of lack of
restraint usage fatalities
reduced in targeted
counties
Number of citations
issued
Increase the
perception that
violators will be
caught and face the
consequences
Statewide Year round Change in public
perceptions ( as indicated
in population surveys)
Number of lack of
restraint usage fatalities
reduced in targeted
counties
Conduct educational
and public information
campaign to support
all strategies
Statewide Year round Campaigns targeting
different audience
produced and marketed
Number of lack of
restraint usage fatalities
reduced in targeted
locations
7.4.2. Strategy: Educate the Public on the Proper Use of Child
Restraints
The following countermeasures are proposed to educate the public on the proper use of
child restraints:
Countermeasure 1. Conduct high- profile child restraint inspection events at various
locations across each community.
Countermeasure 2. Train law enforcement and others to check for proper child restraint
usage.
Countermeasure 3. Develop a restraint usage intervention program, and determine
venues for most appropriate implementation ( e. g. Trauma Centers,
parenting classes).
The three countermeasures designed to educate the public on the proper use of child
restraints are summarized in Table 14 which also provides information about the area of
focus, timing, and performance measures.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
36
Table 14: Educate the Public on the Proper Use of Child Restraints: Summary of
Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures
Countermeasure
Description
State or County Focus Area
Performance
Measure( s)
Conduct high- profile child
restraint inspection events
Statewide with focus on:
Maricopa
Pima
Number of inspections carried
out
Train law enforcement and
others to check for proper child
restraint use
Statewide Number of checks carried out
Develop restraint usage
intervention program
Statewide Program developed
Number of interventions
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
37
8. Emphasis Area 2: Young Drivers
8.1. Problem Statement
In this report, young drivers are drivers less than 25 years of age. In the five years from
2001– 2005, young drivers were involved in 1,766 fatalities and 15,386 serious injuries in
Arizona.
Exhibit 16 shows the number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries involving
young drivers in Arizona in each year from 2001– 2005.
Exhibit 16: Fatalities and Serious Injuries Involving Young Drivers, 2001– 2005
The number of fatalities increased from 326 in 2001 to 371 in 2005 ( an increase of 14
percent). If this trend continues, the number of young driver fatalities will increase from
371 in 2005 to 458 by 2012 ( an increase of 23 percent).
Table 15 shows that young driver fatalities are split evenly between the rural and urban
areas. Most serious injury crashes ( 76 percent) occur in urban areas.
Table 15: Urban versus Rural Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2001–
2005
Roadway Serious Injuries Fatalities Total
Urban 76% 50% 63%
Rural 24% 50% 37%
Totals 100% 100% 100%
3475
3345
2862
2858
2846
326
359
325
385
371
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Serious Injuries
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
38
Table 16 analyzes the number of young driver fatalities by Arizona county from 2001–
2005. The table also shows the breakdown by urban versus rural location within each
county from 2001– 2005.
Maricopa and Pima counties account for 60 percent of all young driver fatalities. Whereas
most fatalities ( 73 percent) occur in rural rather than urban areas ( Table 16), in Maricopa
County, young driver fatalities occur mainly in urban areas ( 80 percent), and in Pima
County, about half of young driver fatalities occur in urban areas ( 49 percent).
Table 16: Urban versus Rural Young Driver Fatalities by County, 2001– 2005
County
Total
Fatalities
By County
County as
% of Total
For
Arizona
Urban
Fatalities
By County
Urban
Fatalities
as % of
County
Total
Rural
Fatalities
By County
Rural
Fatalities
as % of
County
Total
Apache 73 4% 0 0% 73 100%
Cochise 73 4% 13 18% 60 82%
Coconino 82 5% 10 12% 72 88%
Gila 20 1% 1 5% 19 95%
Graham 11 1% 0 0% 11 100%
Greenlee 1 0% 0 0% 1 100%
Maricopa 859 49% 691 80% 168 20%
Mohave 76 4% 11 14% 65 86%
Navajo 65 4% 5 8% 60 92%
Pima 198 11% 97 49% 101 51%
Pinal 124 7% 20 16% 104 84%
Santa Cruz 11 1% 1 9% 10 91%
Yavapai 96 5% 22 23% 74 77%
Yuma 42 2% 13 31% 29 69%
La Paz 35 2% 0 0% 35 100%
Totals 1,766 100% 884 882
8.2. Young Drivers Sub- Goal Statement
The sub- goal statement for young drivers is: Reduce young driver related fatalities by 15
percent from the 2007 level over the five year period from 2008– 2012.
8.3. Strategy Development
The data available to assist with strategy development are discussed under two headings:
1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner ( Section 8.3.1)
2. Seasonality ( Section 8.3.2)
The data are then summarized ( Section 8.3.3).
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
39
8.3.1. Drivers, Vehicles, and Collision Manner
Table 17 shows that most fatalities from crashes involving young drivers are drivers ( 59
percent) rather than passengers ( 41 percent). Most serious injuries involving young drivers
are also the drivers ( 64 percent) rather than passengers ( 36 percent).
Table 17: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Driver versus Passenger,
2001– 2005
Casualty Serious Injuries
Serious Injuries
%
Fatalities Fatalities %
Driver 9,834 64% 1,050 59%
Passenger 5,552 36% 716 41%
15,386 100% 1,766 100%
Table 18 shows that most young driver fatalities are males ( 67 percent). The gender
difference for serious injuries is less pronounced, with 53 percent of young drivers with
serious injuries being males.
Table 18: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Gender, 2001– 2005
Gender Serious Injuries
Serious Injuries
%
Fatalities Fatalities %
Female 7,239 47% 588 33%
Male 8,140 53% 1,178 67%
Unknown 7 0% 0 0%
15,386 100% 1,766 100%
Table 19 analyzes young driver fatalities and serious injuries by the type of vehicle
involved in the crash. ( The data are based on crashes involving young drivers rather than
fatalities and serious injuries involving young drivers as in the previous Tables.)
Most young driver fatalities involve passenger cars ( 67 percent) and pick- up trucks ( 23
percent). Most young driver serious injuries also involve passenger cars ( 73 percent) and
pick- up trucks ( 20 percent). Motorcycle crashes also involved in 6 percent of young driver
fatalities and 5 percent of young driver serious injuries.
Table 19: Young Driver Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Vehicle Type, 2001–
2005
Vehicle Type Serious Injury Crashes % Fatal Crashes %
Not Reported 0% 2%
Passenger Car 74% 67%
Pick- Up Truck 20% 23%
Truck Tractor 0% 1%
Bus ( including school bus) 0% 0%
Motorcycle ( two or three wheel) 5% 6%
Emergency Vehicle 0% 0%
Other Vehicle 1% 1%
100% 100%
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
40
Table 20 analyzes fatalities and serious injuries involving young drivers by the type of
collision.
Single vehicle crashes account for the largest group of young driver fatalities ( 40 percent).
Two other types of collision account for at least 10 percent of young driver fatalities:
angle crashes ( 18 percent), and head- on crashes ( 18 percent).
Angle vehicle crashes account for the largest group of young driver serious injuries ( 25
percent). Three other types of collision account for at least 10 percent of young driver
serious injuries: single vehicle crashes ( 22 percent), left- turn crashes ( 19 percent), and
rear- end crashes ( 19 percent).
Table 20: Young Drivers Fatalities and Serious Injuries Collision Manner, 2001–
2005
Collision Manner
Serious
Injuries
Serious Injuries
%
Fatalities Fatalities %
Single Vehicle 3,369 22% 711 40%
Sideswipe ( same) 597 4% 66 4%
Sideswipe ( opposite) 218 1% 38 2%
Angle 3,915 25% 311 18%
Left Turn 2,939 19% 154 9%
Rear- End 2,931 19% 119 7%
Head- On 852 7% 293 18%
Backing 12 0% 0%
Other 376 2% 63 4%
Non- Contact ( mc) 0% 0%
Non- Contact ( not
mc)
16 0% 4 0%
U- Turn 161 1% 7 0%
Totals 15,386 100% 1,766 100%
8.3.2. Seasonality
To assist in the timing of education and enforcement campaigns, the young driver data
were analyzed to determine whether crashes involving young drivers tend to occur at
particular times ( month, day, or time of day).
Exhibit 17 shows that young driver fatalities tend to increase from March through August
with a peak in July and August.
Young drivers serious injuries tend to occur at a fairly constant rate throughout the year,
as shown by the bold dashed linear trend line in Exhibit 17. There are small peaks in
serious injuries in March and October.
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
41
Exhibit 17: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Month of Year, 2001–
2005
Exhibit 18 shows that young driver fatalities and serious injuries are most numerous on
weekends and Fridays. The chance of a young driver becoming a fatality increases by 110
percent from Wednesday to Saturday.
Exhibit 18: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Day of Week, 2001– 2005
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month of Year
Serious Injuries
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities Linear ( Serious Injuries)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Day of Week
Serious Injuries
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
42
Exhibit 19 shows that young driver fatalities peak in the very early morning, around
1: 00am. Fatalities increase throughout the afternoon, building to a second peak between
6: 00pm and 8: 00pm.
The number of young driver serious injuries has a small peak in the early morning hours,
and begins increasing substantially at 11am with a peak occurring between 2: 00pm and
6: 00pm.
Exhibit 19: Young Driver Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Time of Day, 2001– 2005
8.3.3. Summary of Young Drivers Data, 2001– 2005
The following list provides a summary of the data for young drivers presented in Section
8:
Young drivers accounted for 1,766 fatalities and 15,386 serious injuries in the five
year period from 2001– 2005.
Young driver fatalities are increasing.
Fatalities are split evenly between the rural and urban areas.
Maricopa and Pima counties account for 60 percent of all young driver fatalities.
Most fatalities are drivers ( 59 percent) rather than passengers ( 41 percent).
Most fatalities are males ( 67 percent).
Most fatalities involve passenger cars ( 67 percent) and pick- up trucks ( 23 percent).
Single vehicle collisions account for the largest group of fatalities ( 40 percent).
Fatalities tend to peak from March through August.
Fatalities are most numerous on weekends and Fridays.
Fatalities tend to peak around 1: 00am with a second peak between 6: 00pm to 8: 00pm.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
12am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm
Time of Day
Serious Injuries
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fatalities
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
43
8.4. Young Drivers Strategies and Countermeasures
The following strategies are recommended to achieve the young drivers’ goal.
8.4.1. Strategy: Strengthen Legislative and Administrative
Requirements
In addition to the data presented above, legislation and administrative requirements related
to young drivers need to take in to account the following: nighttime driving increases the
fatal crash risk among teenage drivers; and teenage driving with passengers increases the
risk of crashing, and this risk grows with the number of passengers 23 .
The following countermeasures are proposed to strengthen legislation and administrative
requirements related to young drivers in Arizona:
Countermeasure 1. Establish a Study Committee composed of former members of the
Teenage Driver Safety Act ( TDSA) Coalition to meet regularly to
review and evaluate the success of the new graduated license law
that goes into effect on July 1, 2008.
Countermeasure 2. Require drivers’ licenses to be renewed every five years with a
written test. Also, require each person to pass a written test to move
from a class G license to a class D license, but give exemptions to
drivers who have not had a citation or collision.
Countermeasure 3. As part of the graduated licensing program, implement mandatory
defensive driving classes to be taken and mastered prior to
graduating to the next phase of licensing.
Countermeasure 4. Align the Arizona Driver’s Manual with the SHSP goals, objectives
and strategies.
Countermeasure 5. Remove conflicting directives, for example, the air quality directive
that requires schools to encourage young drivers to carpool
( whereas graduated licensing requirements do not encourage young
drivers to have passengers).
The five countermeasures designed to strengthen legislative and administrative
requirements related to young drivers are summarized in Table 21 which also provides
information about the area of focus, timing, and performance measures.
23 NHTSA Countermeasures That Work
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
44
Table 21: Strengthen Legislative and Administrative Requirements: Summary of
Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and Performance Measures
Countermeasure
Description
State or County
Focus Area
Timing of
Implementation
Performance
Measure( s)
Establish a Graduated
License Study
Committee
Statewide One time
implementation
Committee established
Committee findings linked to
legislative change process
Make renewal of drivers’
licenses more stringent
Statewide Year round Legislation developed and
enacted
Consider making
mandatory defensive
driving classes part of
the graduated licensing
program
Statewide Year round Program developed and
implemented
Students trained per year
Align Arizona Driver’s
Manual with SHSP
Statewide Ensure linkage with
each SHSP update
Integration process
implemented
Remove conflicting
directives
Statewide As required Number of conflicting
directives changed
Number of conflicting
directives not changed
8.4.2. Strategy: Reduce Young Drivers’ Involvement in Fatal and
Serious Injury Crashes
The following countermeasure is proposed to reduce young drivers’ involvement in fatal
and serious injury crashes in Arizona.
Countermeasure 1. Introduce enforcement campaigns that are tailored to enforce and
enhance awareness of graduated licensing conditions, zero-tolerance
( alcohol / DUI) laws, and the life- saving benefits of
wearing a safety belt.
The countermeasure designed to reduce young drivers’ involvement in fatal and serious
injury crashes is summarized in Table 22 which also provides information about the area
of focus, timing, and performance measures.
Table 22: Reduce Young Drivers’ Involvement in Fatal Crash and Serious Injury
Crashes: Summary of Proposed Countermeasures, Focus Area, Timing, and
Performance Measures
Countermeasure
Description
State or County
Focus Area
Timing of
Implementation
Performance
Measures
Introduce enforcement
campaigns tailored to
young drivers
Statewide Friday, Saturday,
Sunday
12: 00pm – 6: 00pm
12: 00am – 2: 00am
Number of young
drivers citations issued
Number of young driver
fatalities per year
Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Plan
45
8.4.3. Strategy: Introduce Training Support for Parents of Young
Drivers
The following countermeasures are proposed to introduce training support for parents of
young drivers in Arizona.
Countermeasure 1. Enlist the support of parents to teach driving skills and manage the
driving behavior of their children. Link to existing programs, for
example, AAA’s Dare to Prepare, and / or insurance company
programs such as Steer Clear, Wrecked and TeenSmart 24 .
Countermeasure 2. Develop and implement a website that acts as a parent and young
driver safety clearinghouse by providing easy access to various
driver safety sites for parents and young drivers. The website will
provide links to where parents and young drivers can find more
information on driver safety, and private and public driver
education programs. The website will also provide an opportunity
to exchange ideas and provide feedback. The website should be part
of the current GTSAC website and could be managed through the
Communications subcommittee.
Countermeasure 3. Provide teens and parents with an information package that includes
tools and resources that will assist parents who are teaching teens to
drive, and that informs teens and their parents of the website
( Countermeasure 2). T
