If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. DOT HS-805 876 pp~ ,_ 2n o 3 5R , v "~m TRAFFIC LAW SANCTIONS J. Thomas McEwen John P. McGuire Public Management Services, •Inc. 1764 Old Meadow Lane McLean, Virginia 22101 Contract No. DOT-HS-7-01508 Contract Amt. $216,037 MARCH 1981 FINAL REPORT This document is available to the U.S. public through the J National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Washington, D.C. 20590 I .. '.~ .. n " .,. ~ .~i .iiii. ~ This document is disseminated under the sponsorship - , . ~' ."":~ , , ~of!:the' ~ Department , of Transportation. in the interest .. .... :,"Oflinformation exchange, The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use • • .. • ~ <.. thereof. :i :i~I ~: : ~ :'i. i i iii!~ i:~ii~i~i:i i ':I: i <il ~•'• T i I'~ ! "~¸ i •• • • " i: i • i Technical Report Documentation Page ' |. Report No. 2. Government Accession No, 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT-I-IS-805-876 ~4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Traffic Law Sanctions MARCH 1981 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author!s) J. Thomas McEwen and John P. McGuire 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work~Unit No. (TRAIS) Public Management Services, Inc. 1764 Old Meadow Lane 11. Contra'ct or Grant No. McLean, Virginia 22101 DOT-HS-7-01508 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report U.S. Department Of Transportation September 1977 thru National Highway Traffic Safety Administration February 1981 400 7th Street, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washinqton, D.C. 20590 1.5. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Surveys of the driver population were conducted n Colorado, Maryland, and North Carolina for the purpose of determining driver perceptions on several dif- ferent subjects, including (I) the chances of being Caught by the'police for specific unsafe driving actions, (2) the chances of being found guilty by the courts if a challenge were made, (3) the fine for a first violation of an of- fense, (4) the perceived severity of the fine, and (5) other related topics of interest of a deterrence nature. Questions on these topics were asked on seven different offenses which had been identified in previous NHTSA research as being the primary unsafe driving actions associated with accident causation. The seven offenses were speeding i0 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, speeding 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, driving while intox- icated, running a traffic light or stop sign, following a moving car too closely, turning in front of oncoming traffic, and crossing the center line of the roadway. Through an independent data collection effort, it was also possible to obtain the citation history of all survey respondents and whether they had ap, peared in court for a particular violation. The number of citations for each ,41 type of offense was obtained for a three-year period prior to the survey. A total of over 2,600 drivers participated in the survey. The Final Report pro- vides details on the surVey responses as related tocitation histories. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Traffic Law Sanctions, Violation Document is available to the public Deterrence, Drivers Perceptions through the National Technical Infor- mation Serwice, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Securi'ty Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages J 22. Price UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSI FIE D 222 I Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduct authorized METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS 0 Apprenimlte Convorsiell hel Metric Meeeulee Appedanete ColvefdeM Is Metric Measures llulol Symbol Wken Yon Knew Multiply bY le Find Mnlliid~ by To Find lvnkol Ilnnkol Whtl Yon Im ----:. L ; .LENGTH m -= 8 arm sdlllmetiws 0,04 mches le LE,IIUT. cm ceadmelife 0.4 inches in Is m avwOws .3.$ goel vd meters 1.1 yards icc~os - ~2.| I:ontlmllsls sm S~ clmlilllt el! -4 ~m kihunol4wS o.e miles IS ioo~ 310<" va~l e O.| "' SNdOlS vd kibNte~s mi mils 1 .I ARIA m2 Ani A IqulS clntmlelms 0.|| ~ inches .--~ ~ J mluae motifs | .| IquM! vifds iu2 squifO :Inubee - 6.6 IKIIIlll Clllt illlllll" ~U | squ~e kilomet~s 0.4 squme miles 0.09 ~ ..,or. m: It~ equme loot ha beetles 110.000 all 2.1 sues equan vide 0.8 equ~e mos~s equslo kilomlllle : Im~ sqmms wilss 2.6 luclKes ba 14;111 0.4 MASS |mipt! MASS |weinktl p~ O.OaS oun,s el e Ib kiloFIms 2.1 pou~s ~| -" pine 0 ko ~s IonMs IIO00 k9i I.I shod ton ~o.ds 0.46 • . kilopams _ kg -: :----- i dtm ms "0.0 tennis t moo m VOLUME VOLUME mi millilitus 0°03 fluid ounces II el | millililifs ml I lite. 2.1 pin. P tsl) Ioslq)oons tablespoans 16 milliliters ml l liters .1.04 qua.s qS Sbsp milliliters ml w I lies 0.211 0ellen| ~1 II oz fluid ouncoe 30 cups 0.24 lites I m: cubic mMlrs 35 Cubic IO01 Vdl c m3 cubic motifs 1.3 • . cubic vwde pints 0.41 lltws I P lime I * = qe q! quam 0.96 eellons LI lilml I cub~ !eel 0.03 cub0c nllws in] TEMPERATURE ~olect~ cubic enetws n~) ---: --_~ Vd] cubic yards 0.71 *p Celsius 0/15 Itkoo Fdweuboit "C TEMPERATURE ioxKtI tempoqsturo odd )2| tea~pifaduau uF sF F~r~--i, S/9 iel~ ' Celsius "c temp~,alms subusclkl llm~etalife --: :----- -40°' 0 • • e .o'*L' . I|Q ,.o | • , • i • • • • • • • j • i';_;o , ~ , ;o, I~o ' ,'o ' ;o ' l~ " I 0. • 2F'4 ia~¢tlyl. F,i uthol uia(:l (~,vms.m~ ,ill mule dulaol~t IAblub. ~ N0$ ido~,t;. Pi~bl. 2fro. -40 . ST °C UIMb Ul Illehlb lldd MbibufOS. P~ I(I 02.~5. ~ C41al~l flU. C I 3.t U:~05. *C L ,k ..' .. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authorsof this final reportwould like to acknowledge ~i the efforts of many individuals who have contributed to this study over the past three years. The study could not have been conducted without the excellent cooperation of the three participating juris- dictions: Denver, Colorado; Anne Arundel County, Maryland; and• Raleigh (Wake County), North Carolina. Many persons at the state and local level gave their support in allowing the surveys to be conducted and in providing enforcement data for analysis. In •Denver, Colorado, we are indebted to Mr. William Smythe, Department . •.• .... • •i~,~I~~ of Revenue; Mr. Larry Karsten, Division of Highway Safety; and Chief Arthur Dill, Denver Police Department. Key assistance in Maryland was provided by Mr. Lynn Kestler and Mr. Bruce Schifflett of the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. In North carolina, we received support and assistance from many members of the Divi- sion of Motor Vehicles including Commissioner Elbe~t Peters, Mr. - ......... ~ ~ Zeb Hocutt, and Mr. Laeron Roberts. The surveys of drivers were conducted under a subcontract to Opinion Research Corporation located in Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. Ben Phillips, Vice President, was responsible for the survey per- sonnel at each of the Jurisdictions. We are also particularly grateful for the services of Ms. Cheryl Rogers on the Public Man- agement Services, Inc. staff for her assistance in setting up the surveys and in collecting data at the jurisdictions. There has also been excellent support from the National High- way Traffic Safety Administration's Contract Technical Managers: James F. Frank, Ph.D.; Theodore E. Anderson; and Michael J. Good- man, Ph.D. Dr. Goodman was the CTM for much of the contract ........ period and took an active involvement in the project. J. Thomas McEwen, Ph.D. John P. McGuire Principal Investigator Principal Investigator ill lit, CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................... CHAPTER TWO SURVEY DEVELOPMENT, SITE SELECT'ION AND DATA COLLECTION.. Survey Development ................. 7 Site Selection ....... ...... ...... 13 Data Collection ................... 16 CHAPTER THREE DETERRENCE THEORY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ........... 23 Introduction .................... 23 Research Approaches to Deterrence .... ...... 26 Implications for the Current Study ......... 32 CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES . , ............ 37 Introduction ........... ......... 37 Perceptions of Violation Detection ......... 41 Perceptions of Court Convictions .......... 48 Research Recommendations .............. 58 CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSlS OF COLORADO SURVEY ............. , . 63 Characteristics of Respondents ...... .... 63 Survey Responses .................. 71 Analysis of Estimated Fines and Sanction Severity. 85 Analysis of Other Sanctioning Issues ........ 95 Data on Speeds ................... 102 CHAPTER SiX ANALYSIS OF MARYLAND SURVEY ............... 109 C~ Characteristics of Respondents ........... 109 Survey Responses .................. 117 Analysis of Estimated Fines and Sanction Severity. 133 Analysis of Other Sanctioning Issues ........ .142 Data on Speeds ................... 148 Y Preceding page. blank,' CONTENTS (Cont.) Page CHAPTER SEVEN ANALYSIS OF NORTH CAROLINA SURVEY ..... ........ 157 Characteristics of Respondents ......... ~... 157 Survey Responses ....... ............. 165 Analysis of Estimated Fines and Sanction Severity. , 178 Analysis of Other Sanctioning Issues ......... 187 Data on Speeds ........ ............ 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........ .................199 APPENDIX A DKIVERUUESIIONNAIRE_ ........ ............ 203 vi , ~ i,~. ~ ~ /. ~1 .... "•. • " i'1~•'~;•°;~'~i.•'~'~i}~:~';~'. :, .~ iL'~ •.~, .:C~:;:. • .. " ..i ' ',1.1,".= ":,•: i. :.,L:,£':...; " " ' :... - .. • , . , . ... .. -. " ;. LISTOF~-FIGURES • . ,., .... , .... Illustration of the Sequence of Enforcement,.. 'Adjudication,Sanctioning Activities and Associated InterviewMeasures. .. II