People Saving People National Center for Statistics & Analysis Reporting Thresholds Source: SDS data, 1990-1999 1 A Comparative Analysis of Reporting Thresholds

People Saving People

National Center for Statistics & Analysis

Reporting ThresholdsReporting Thresholds Source: SDS data, 1990-1999Source: SDS data, 1990-1999 1

A Comparative Analysis of A Comparative Analysis of Reporting Thresholds Using the Reporting Thresholds Using the

NHTSA State Data SystemNHTSA State Data System

Gary RinehartGary RinehartALCOSYS, Inc.ALCOSYS, Inc.

Crystal Gateway 3, Ste 910Crystal Gateway 3, Ste 910

1215 Jefferson Davis HWY1215 Jefferson Davis HWY

Arlington, VA 22202-4342Arlington, VA 22202-4342

703-883-1883703-883-1883




OutlineOutline

The NHTSA State Data System (SDS)The NHTSA State Data System (SDS) Crash DefinitionsCrash Definitions Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study Severity of SDS CrashesSeverity of SDS Crashes Description of Towaway Indicator VariablesDescription of Towaway Indicator Variables Crash Severity Analysis Using Towaway IndicatorsCrash Severity Analysis Using Towaway Indicators Detailed Property Damage Only Crash Analysis Detailed Property Damage Only Crash Analysis

Using Selected VariablesUsing Selected Variables SummarySummary




SDSSDS




NHTSA State Data SystemNHTSA State Data System

A collection of crash data received directly from the A collection of crash data received directly from the seventeen states participating in the program. NHTSA seventeen states participating in the program. NHTSA adheres to strict confidentiality agreements with the adheres to strict confidentiality agreements with the participating states. participating states.

The data consists of all state-reported crashes. The The data consists of all state-reported crashes. The census data are received annually.census data are received annually.

Each state uses a unique data structure. The data are Each state uses a unique data structure. The data are converted into a standard SAS format at the National converted into a standard SAS format at the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), and used for Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), and used for research purposes.research purposes.

NCSA plans to expand the program. The goal is to NCSA plans to expand the program. The goal is to ultimately have all 50 states participate.ultimately have all 50 states participate.




State Data SystemState Data System

CaliforniaCalifornia FloridaFlorida GeorgiaGeorgia IllinoisIllinois IndianaIndiana KansasKansas MarylandMaryland MichiganMichigan MissouriMissouri

New MexicoNew Mexico North CarolinaNorth Carolina OhioOhio PennsylvaniaPennsylvania TexasTexas UtahUtah VirginiaVirginia WashingtonWashington




DefinitionsDefinitions

Fatal Crash – A crash in which at least one fatality Fatal Crash – A crash in which at least one fatality occurs.occurs.

Injury Crash – A crash in which at least one injury, Injury Crash – A crash in which at least one injury, but no fatalities, occurs.but no fatalities, occurs.

Property Damage Only (PDO) Crash – A crash Property Damage Only (PDO) Crash – A crash without fatalities or injuries.without fatalities or injuries.

PDO-Towaway – A PDO crash in which at least one PDO-Towaway – A PDO crash in which at least one vehicle was towed, generally indicative of a severe vehicle was towed, generally indicative of a severe PDO crash.PDO crash.

PDO – No Towaway – A PDO crash in which no PDO – No Towaway – A PDO crash in which no vehicles were towed.vehicles were towed.

Towaway Criterion – A reporting threshold where Towaway Criterion – A reporting threshold where only fatal, injury, and PDO-towaway crashes are only fatal, injury, and PDO-towaway crashes are reported.reported.




Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study

Assuming that states adopt a towaway Assuming that states adopt a towaway criterion for reportable crashes, this study criterion for reportable crashes, this study attempts to answer the following questions:attempts to answer the following questions:

1.1. What proportion of crashes will be lost?What proportion of crashes will be lost?

A crash severity analysis was conducted A crash severity analysis was conducted using sixteen states and appropriate using sixteen states and appropriate towaway indicator variables.towaway indicator variables.




Purpose of Study (cont.)Purpose of Study (cont.)

2.2. What changes in the basic composition of What changes in the basic composition of the crash data will occur?the crash data will occur?

Since fatal and injury crash data will Since fatal and injury crash data will not be affected by the towaway not be affected by the towaway criterion, the emphasis of the research criterion, the emphasis of the research was on the change in composition of was on the change in composition of PDO crashes.PDO crashes.




Analysis VariablesAnalysis Variables

The following variables from six states were The following variables from six states were used in the analysis:used in the analysis:

Urban/Rural CrashUrban/Rural Crash Single/Multiple Vehicle Crash Single/Multiple Vehicle Crash First Harmful EventFirst Harmful Event Manner of Collision (Motor Vehicle in Manner of Collision (Motor Vehicle in

Transport Crashes)Transport Crashes) Vehicle TypeVehicle Type




Severity of SDS CrashesSeverity of SDS Crashes




Fatal CrashesFatal Crashes

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data Fatal Crashes Fatal Crashes (thousands)(thousands)

Percentage of Percentage of All Crashes All Crashes

in Statein State

California: 1990-1999California: 1990-1999 36.636.6 0.70.7

Florida: 1990-1999Florida: 1990-1999 24.924.9 1.11.1

Georgia: 1990-1998Georgia: 1990-1998 11.911.9 0.50.5

Illinois: 1990-1999Illinois: 1990-1999 12.512.5 0.30.3

Indiana: 1990-1999Indiana: 1990-1999 8.68.6 0.40.4

Kansas: 1990-1999Kansas: 1990-1999 4.04.0 0.60.6

Maryland: 1990-1999Maryland: 1990-1999 6.06.0 0.60.6

Michigan: 1990-1999Michigan: 1990-1999 12.812.8 0.30.3

Missouri: 1990-1999Missouri: 1990-1999 9.59.5 0.50.5




Fatal Crashes (cont.)Fatal Crashes (cont.)

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data Fatal Fatal Crashes Crashes

(thousands)(thousands)


in Statein State

New Mexico: 1990-1999New Mexico: 1990-1999 4.04.0 0.80.8

N. Carolina: 1992-1999N. Carolina: 1992-1999 10.410.4 0.60.6

Ohio: 1990-1999Ohio: 1990-1999 13.113.1 0.30.3

Pennsylvania: 1990-1999Pennsylvania: 1990-1999 14.014.0 1.01.0

Texas: 1990-1999Texas: 1990-1999 29.029.0 0.80.8

Utah: 1990-1999Utah: 1990-1999 2.82.8 0.60.6

Virginia: 1990-1999Virginia: 1990-1999 8.38.3 0.60.6

Washington: 1990-1996Washington: 1990-1996 4.34.3 0.50.5




Injury CrashesInjury Crashes

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data Injury Crashes Injury Crashes (millions)(millions)


in Statein State

California: 1990-1999California: 1990-1999 2.0 2.0 41.6 41.6

Florida: 1990-1999Florida: 1990-1999 1.4 1.4 62.2 62.2

Georgia: 1990-1998Georgia: 1990-1998 0.7 0.7 29.0 29.0

Illinois: 1990-1999Illinois: 1990-1999 0.9 0.9 23.2 23.2

Indiana: 1990-1999Indiana: 1990-1999 0.5 0.5 22.7 22.7

Kansas: 1990-1999Kansas: 1990-1999 0.2 0.2 28.6 28.6

Maryland: 1990-1999Maryland: 1990-1999 0.4 0.4 43.5 43.5

Michigan: 1990-1999Michigan: 1990-1999 0.9 0.9 23.5 23.5

Missouri: 1990-1999Missouri: 1990-1999 0.50.5 27.3 27.3




Injury Crashes (cont.)Injury Crashes (cont.)

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data Injury Injury Crashes Crashes (millions)(millions)


in Statein State

New Mexico: 1990-1999New Mexico: 1990-1999 0.2 0.2 36.0 36.0

N. Carolina: 1992-1999N. Carolina: 1992-1999 0.7 0.7 40.0 40.0

Ohio: 1990-1999Ohio: 1990-1999 1.2 1.2 33.1 33.1

Pennsylvania: 1990-1999Pennsylvania: 1990-1999 0.9 0.9 63.6 63.6

Texas: 1990-1999Texas: 1990-1999 1.9 1.9 53.4 53.4

Utah: 1990-1999Utah: 1990-1999 0.2 0.2 35.5 35.5

Virginia: 1990-1999Virginia: 1990-1999 0.5 0.5 41.2 41.2

Washington: 1990-1996Washington: 1990-1996 0.4 0.4 40.9 40.9




PDO CrashesPDO Crashes

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data PDO Crashes PDO Crashes (millions)(millions)


in Statein State

California: 1990-1999California: 1990-1999 2.8 2.8 57.6 57.6

Florida: 1990-1999Florida: 1990-1999 0.8 0.8 36.7 36.7

Georgia: 1990-1998Georgia: 1990-1998 1.7 1.7 70.5 70.5

Illinois: 1990-1999Illinois: 1990-1999 2.9 2.9 76.4 76.4

Indiana: 1990-1999Indiana: 1990-1999 1.8 1.8 76.9 76.9

Kansas: 1990-1999Kansas: 1990-1999 0.5 0.5 70.8 70.8

Maryland: 1990-1999Maryland: 1990-1999 0.50.5 55.9 55.9

Michigan: 1990-1999Michigan: 1990-1999 3.0 3.0 76.1 76.1

Missouri: 1990-1999Missouri: 1990-1999 1.3 1.3 72.2 72.2




PDO Crashes (cont.)PDO Crashes (cont.)

State: Years of DataState: Years of Data PDO PDO Crashes Crashes (millions)(millions)


in Statein State

New Mexico: 1990-1999New Mexico: 1990-1999 0.3 0.3 63.2 63.2

N. Carolina: 1992-1999N. Carolina: 1992-1999 1.1 1.1 59.4 59.4

Ohio: 1990-1999Ohio: 1990-1999 2.5 2.5 66.5 66.5

Pennsylvania: 1990-1999Pennsylvania: 1990-1999 0.5 0.5 35.4 35.4

Texas: 1990-1999Texas: 1990-1999 1.6 1.6 45.8 45.8

Utah: 1990-1999Utah: 1990-1999 0.3 0.3 63.9 63.9

Virginia: 1990-1999Virginia: 1990-1999 0.8 0.8 58.2 58.2

Washington: 1990-1996Washington: 1990-1996 0.5 0.5 58.7 58.7




Variability in Crash Variability in Crash CompositionComposition

Type Of CrashType Of Crash Percentage RangePercentage Range

Fatal Crash Fatal Crash 0.3 – 1.10.3 – 1.1

Injury Crash Injury Crash 22.7 – 63.622.7 – 63.6

PDO CrashPDO Crash 35.4 – 76.9 35.4 – 76.9

The only state with a true towaway criterion, Pennsylvania has the highest percentage of injury crashes and the lowest percentage of PDO crashes.




SDS Towing Indicator SDS Towing Indicator VariablesVariables

TowawayTowaway

Damage SeverityDamage Severity

Damage ScaleDamage Scale




TowawayTowaway

CaliforniaCalifornia GeorgiaGeorgia IllinoisIllinois IndianaIndiana

MissouriMissouri North CarolinaNorth Carolina OhioOhio PennsylvaniaPennsylvania




Towaway: Typical Towaway: Typical Variable ValuesVariable Values

Towed / Not DrivableTowed / Not Drivable Not Towed / DrivableNot Towed / Drivable Remained at Scene (optional)Remained at Scene (optional)




Damage SeverityDamage Severity

FloridaFlorida GeorgiaGeorgia KansasKansas

MarylandMaryland New MexicoNew Mexico WashingtonWashington




Damage Severity: Typical Damage Severity: Typical Variable ValuesVariable Values

Destroyed, Totaled (optional)Destroyed, Totaled (optional) Disabling Damage: Any damage to a motor vehicle Disabling Damage: Any damage to a motor vehicle

such that either it cannot be driven, or if driven, it such that either it cannot be driven, or if driven, it would be further damaged.would be further damaged.

Functional Damage: Any damage to a motor vehicle Functional Damage: Any damage to a motor vehicle that affects its operation or the functioning of its that affects its operation or the functioning of its parts, but is not disabling.parts, but is not disabling.

Other Vehicle Damage: Any damage to a motor Other Vehicle Damage: Any damage to a motor vehicle, which is neither disabling nor interferes vehicle, which is neither disabling nor interferes with the function of the vehicle (cosmetic).with the function of the vehicle (cosmetic).

No Damage.No Damage.




Damage ScaleDamage Scale

MichiganMichigan TexasTexas Virginia (repair cost)Virginia (repair cost)




TAD Scale: Typical TAD Scale: Typical Variable ValuesVariable Values

1.1. Minor damage, less than element value 2.Minor damage, less than element value 2.2.2. Minor damage, limited to dents and gouges in Minor damage, limited to dents and gouges in

body sheet metal or trim.body sheet metal or trim.3.3. Moderate damage, less than element value 4.Moderate damage, less than element value 4.4.4. Moderate damage, considerable crumpling of Moderate damage, considerable crumpling of

body sheet metal, little or no distortion of basic body sheet metal, little or no distortion of basic structure or frame. (Towaway at this level and structure or frame. (Towaway at this level and above.)above.)

5.5. Severe damage, crumpled or torn sheet metal, Severe damage, crumpled or torn sheet metal, less than element value 6.less than element value 6.

6.6. Damage severe, not total. Sheet metal severely Damage severe, not total. Sheet metal severely distorted, crumpled or torn.distorted, crumpled or torn.

7.7. Vehicle totally damaged.Vehicle totally damaged.




Example of TAD 1Example of TAD 1People Saving People



Michigan Traffic Accident Report, 8/87




Example of TAD 4 Example of TAD 4 People Saving People







Example of TAD 7Example of TAD 7People Saving People







Towaway Indicator Towaway Indicator VariablesVariables

Using Towaway indicator variables, the Using Towaway indicator variables, the Property Damage Only crashes can be divided Property Damage Only crashes can be divided into three categories:into three categories:

TowawayTowaway No TowawayNo Towaway Towaway Status UnknownTowaway Status Unknown

A revised Crash distribution can then be A revised Crash distribution can then be determined.determined.




Crash SeverityCrash Severity(sample size 30.3 million)(sample size 30.3 million)

Crash Crash SeveritySeverity

FrequencyFrequency PercentPercent Cumulative Cumulative PercentPercent

Fatal CrashFatal Crash 181,085181,085 0.600.60 0.600.60

Injury CrashInjury Crash 11,614,67611,614,676 38.3238.32 38.9238.92

PDO-PDO-TowawayTowaway

5,017,8825,017,882 16.5616.56 55.4755.47

PDO-No PDO-No TowawayTowaway

12,838,32212,838,322 42.3642.36 97.8397.83

PDO PDO (Towaway?)(Towaway?)

446,195446,195 1.471.47 99.3099.30

UnknownUnknown 211,727211,727 0.700.70 100.00100.00




Crashes LostCrashes Lost

Using a towaway criterion:Using a towaway criterion: Approximately 42% of all Approximately 42% of all

crashes would be lost.crashes would be lost. Approximately 70% of property Approximately 70% of property

damage only crashes would be damage only crashes would be lost.lost.




Contribution by State Contribution by State (sample size 30.3 million)(sample size 30.3 million)

StateState YearsYears SizeSize %% StateState YearsYears SizeSize %%

CACA 90-9990-99 4,890,5214,890,521 16.116.1 MOMO 90-9990-99 1,813,0831,813,083 6.06.0

FLFL 90-9990-99 2,212,3992,212,399 7.37.3 NCNC 92-9992-99 1,797,8331,797,833 5.95.9

GAGA 9898 280,579280,579 0.90.9 NMNM 90-9990-99 485,746485,746 1.61.6

ILIL 96-9996-99 1,133,3621,133,362 3.73.7 OHOH 90-9990-99 3,759,1963,759,196 12.412.4

ININ 90-9990-99 2,296,8502,296,850 7.67.6 PAPA 90-9990-99 1,383,9631,383,963 4.64.6

KSKS 90-9990-99 693,722693,722 2.32.3 TXTX 90-9990-99 3,514,0623,514,062 11.611.6

MDMD 90-9990-99 965,479965,479 3.23.2 VAVA 98-9998-99 275,710275,710 0.90.9

MIMI 90-9990-99 3,898,8063,898,806 12.912.9 WAWA 90-9690-96 908,576908,576 3.03.0

Utah does not have a towaway indicator variable.




Crash Severity by StateCrash Severity by State

Type Of CrashType Of Crash CACA FLFL GAGA ILIL ININ KSKS

Fatal Crash Fatal Crash 0.70.7 1.11.1 0.50.5 0.30.3 0.40.4 0.50.5

Injury Crash Injury Crash 41.641.6 62.262.2 28.928.9 22.222.2 22.722.7 27.727.7

PDO-Towaway PDO-Towaway 18.618.6 16.116.1 18.118.1 16.816.8 17.717.7 20.120.1

PDO-No TowawayPDO-No Towaway 39.139.1 19.519.5 52.252.2 60.060.0 58.758.7 49.449.4

PDO (Towaway?)PDO (Towaway?) 0.00.0 1.01.0 0.30.3 0.70.7 0.00.0 2.02.0

Unknown Unknown 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.50.5 0.30.3

TotalTotal 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0




Crash Severity Crash Severity by State (cont.)by State (cont.)

Type Of CrashType Of Crash MDMD MIMI MOMO NCNC NMNM

Fatal Crash Fatal Crash 0.60.6 0.30.3 0.50.5 0.60.6 0.70.7

Injury Crash Injury Crash 43.543.5 22.622.6 27.327.3 39.939.9 35.235.2

PDO-TowawayPDO-Towaway 21.421.4 8.88.8 17.217.2 19.719.7 13.013.0

PDO-No TowawayPDO-No Towaway 28.428.4 63.963.9 52.552.5 37.037.0 49.949.9

PDO (Towaway?)PDO (Towaway?) 3.23.2 1.31.3 2.32.3 0.50.5 0.80.8

Unknown Unknown 2.82.8 3.13.1 0.30.3 2.42.4 0.40.4

TotalTotal 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0




Crash Severity Crash Severity by State (cont.)by State (cont.)

Type Of CrashType Of Crash OHOH PAPA TXTX VAVA WAWA

Fatal Crash Fatal Crash 0.30.3 1.01.0 0.80.8 0.60.6 0.50.5

Injury Crash Injury Crash 32.932.9 63.663.6 53.453.4 39.939.9 40.940.9

PDO-Towaway PDO-Towaway 19.419.4 34.934.9 7.77.7 19.419.4 16.716.7

PDO-No TowawayPDO-No Towaway 46.946.9 0.50.5 35.735.7 40.140.1 24.024.0

PDO (Towaway)PDO (Towaway) 0.40.4 0.00.0 2.42.4 0.00.0 18.018.0

Unknown Unknown 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0

TotalTotal 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0100.0




Towaway States?Towaway States?

PA: Data confirms that Pennsylvania does PA: Data confirms that Pennsylvania does use a towaway criterion; hence the high use a towaway criterion; hence the high percentage of injury crashes and the low percentage of injury crashes and the low percentage of PDO crashes.percentage of PDO crashes.

MD: Although Maryland has a towaway MD: Although Maryland has a towaway policy, Maryland data appears similar to policy, Maryland data appears similar to states without a towaway criterion. At least states without a towaway criterion. At least 28% of crashes do not meet towaway 28% of crashes do not meet towaway criterion.criterion.

FL: Crashes reported by Florida are at the FL: Crashes reported by Florida are at the officer’s discretion. Data suggests that officer’s discretion. Data suggests that Florida’s reporting criterion may Florida’s reporting criterion may approximate a towaway criterion.approximate a towaway criterion.




Crashes Lost Using a Crashes Lost Using a Towaway CriterionTowaway Criterion

StatesStates Approximate Approximate Percentage LostPercentage Lost

IN, IL, MIIN, IL, MI 60%60%

GA, KS, MO, NM, OHGA, KS, MO, NM, OH 50%50%

CA, NC, TX, VA, WA*CA, NC, TX, VA, WA* 40%40%

*Assuming large percentage of unknowns for Washington are PDO-Not Towaway




Analysis of Property Analysis of Property Damage Only CrashesDamage Only Crashes

Methodology involves comparison Methodology involves comparison of three data sets:of three data sets:

PDO crashes from CA, FL, MO, NC, PDO crashes from CA, FL, MO, NC, and OHand OH

PDO-Towaway crashes from CA, PDO-Towaway crashes from CA, FL, MO, NC, and OHFL, MO, NC, and OH

PDO-Towaway crashes from PAPDO-Towaway crashes from PA




Variables UsedVariables Used

The composition of each data set was The composition of each data set was examined using the following examined using the following variables:variables:

Urban/Rural CrashUrban/Rural Crash Single/Multiple Vehicle CrashSingle/Multiple Vehicle Crash First Harmful EventFirst Harmful Event Manner of Collision (Motor Vehicle in Manner of Collision (Motor Vehicle in

Transport Crashes)Transport Crashes) Vehicle TypeVehicle Type




State Selection CriteriaState Selection Criteria

Presence of towaway indicator variables over an Presence of towaway indicator variables over an extended period:extended period:• CA, FL, MO, OH, PA = 1990-1999CA, FL, MO, OH, PA = 1990-1999• NC = 1992-1999NC = 1992-1999

Presence of Rural/Urban and/or Population Group Presence of Rural/Urban and/or Population Group variables.variables.

Presence of First Harmful Event and Manner of Presence of First Harmful Event and Manner of Collision variables with categories approximating Collision variables with categories approximating the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).(MMUCC).

Low percentage of unknowns for analysis Low percentage of unknowns for analysis variables.variables.




Contribution by StateContribution by State(Sample Size 8.5 million)(Sample Size 8.5 million)

StateState FrequencyFrequency PercentPercent

CACA 2,818,3442,818,344 33.2733.27

FLFL 812,379812,379 9.599.59

MOMO 1,303,3911,303,391 15.3915.39

NCNC 1,028,2801,028,280 12.1412.14

OHOH 2,507,5642,507,564 29.6129.61




Crash TypeCrash Type

Crash TypeCrash Type CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH:NC, OH:

PDOPDO

CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: PDO-NC, OH: PDO-

TOWAWAYTOWAWAY

PA: PDO-PA: PDO-TOWAWAYTOWAWAY

Multiple VehicleMultiple Vehicle 78.178.1 65.765.7 52.552.5

Single VehicleSingle Vehicle 21.921.9 34.334.3 47.547.5

PDO Crashes (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH) – Sample size 8.5 million.

PDO-Towaway Crashes (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH) – Sample size 2.7 million.

PDO-Towaway Crashes (PA) – Sample size 0.48 million.




Population DensityPopulation Density

PopulationPopulation

DensityDensity

CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: PDONC, OH: PDO


TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


UrbanUrban 70.070.0 64.264.2 59.659.6

RuralRural 30.030.0 35.735.7 40.340.3

UnknownUnknown 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.1







Population DensityPopulation Density

PopulationPopulation

DensityDensity

Crash TypeCrash Type CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH:NC, OH:

PDOPDO


TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


UrbanUrban Multiple Multiple VehicleVehicle

60.760.7 49.249.2 38.238.2

UrbanUrban Single VehicleSingle Vehicle 9.39.3 15.015.0 21.521.5

RuralRural Multiple Multiple VehicleVehicle

17.417.4 16.416.4 14.314.3

RuralRural Single VehicleSingle Vehicle 12.512.5 19.319.3 26.026.0







First Harmful EventFirst Harmful Event

First Harmful EventFirst Harmful Event CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: PDONC, OH: PDO


TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


Motor Vehicle In Motor Vehicle In TransportTransport

66.4366.43 57.2957.29 51.2051.20

Fixed ObjectFixed Object 15.3115.31 27.5327.53 35.5135.51

AnimalAnimal 4.484.48 2.622.62 2.942.94

Parked Motor VehicleParked Motor Vehicle 9.309.30 5.675.67 3.913.91

PedalcyclistPedalcyclist 0.260.26 0.100.10 0.020.02

PedestrianPedestrian 0.100.10 0.020.02 0.000.00







First Harmful Event (cont.)First Harmful Event (cont.)

First Harmful EventFirst Harmful Event CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: PDONC, OH: PDO

CA, FL, MO, NC, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: PDO-OH: PDO-

TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


TrainTrain 0.040.04 0.070.07 0.060.06

Moving ObjectMoving Object 1.431.43 1.591.59 1.641.64

RolloverRollover 1.121.12 2.792.79 1.481.48

Other Other

Non-collisionNon-collision

1.031.03 1.741.74 3.243.24

UnknownUnknown 0.510.51 0.580.58 0.010.01







Manner of CollisionManner of Collision(Motor Vehicle in Transport)(Motor Vehicle in Transport)

Collision TypeCollision Type CA, FL, CA, FL, MO, NC, MO, NC,

OH: PDOOH: PDO


TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


Angle / TurningAngle / Turning 35.235.2 45.145.1 52.352.3

Head OnHead On 3.23.2 5.25.2 6.06.0

Rear EndRear End 37.237.2 35.535.5 31.231.2

SideswipeSideswipe 17.817.8 11.411.4 9.59.5

Other / UnknownOther / Unknown 6.66.6 2.92.9 1.11.1







PDO Vehicle Distribution:PDO Vehicle Distribution:CA, FL, MO, NC, OHCA, FL, MO, NC, OH

Vehicle TypeVehicle Type FrequencyFrequency PercentPercent

Passenger CarPassenger Car 10,807,72810,807,728 68.5468.54

Light TruckLight Truck 3,473,7073,473,707 22.0322.03

Large TruckLarge Truck 669,475669,475 4.254.25

MotorcycleMotorcycle 34,16834,168 0.220.22

BusBus 105,531105,531 0.670.67

OtherOther 678,993678,993 4.314.31

Sample size 15.8 million vehicles.




PDO-Towaway Vehicle PDO-Towaway Vehicle Distribution: CA, FL, MO, NC, OHDistribution: CA, FL, MO, NC, OH


Passenger CarPassenger Car 3,370,3783,370,378 71.3471.34

Light TruckLight Truck 1,057,6551,057,655 22.3922.39



BusBus 16,50416,504 0.350.35

OtherOther 88,85088,850 1.881.88





PDO-Towaway Vehicle PDO-Towaway Vehicle Distribution: PADistribution: PA


Passenger CarPassenger Car 534,862534,862 69.8869.88

Light TruckLight Truck 190,708190,708 24.9224.92



BusBus 2,8032,803 0.370.37

OtherOther 4,9404,940 0.650.65





Vehicle Type ComparisonVehicle Type Comparison

Vehicle TypeVehicle Type CA, FL, MO, CA, FL, MO, NC, OH: NC, OH:

PDOPDO


TOWAWAYTOWAWAY


Passenger CarPassenger Car 68.5468.54 71.3471.34 69.8869.88

Light TruckLight Truck 22.0322.03 22.3922.39 24.9224.92

Large TruckLarge Truck 4.254.25 3.843.84 4.024.02

MotorcycleMotorcycle 0.220.22 0.210.21 0.170.17

BusBus 0.670.67 0.350.35 0.370.37

OtherOther 4.314.31 1.881.88 0.650.65







Percent Vehicles Retained Percent Vehicles Retained PDO-Towaway (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH)PDO-Towaway (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH)

Vehicle TypeVehicle Type Percentage RetainedPercentage Retained

Passenger CarPassenger Car 31.231.2

Light TruckLight Truck 30.430.4

Large TruckLarge Truck 27.127.1

MotorcycleMotorcycle 29.029.0

BusBus 15.615.6

OtherOther 13.113.1

Percentage Retained = Number of Vehicles (PDO-Towaway) Number of Vehicles (PDO)




Changes in Vehicle TypeChanges in Vehicle Type PDO-Towaway (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH)PDO-Towaway (CA, FL, MO, NC, OH)

Small increase in the proportion of Small increase in the proportion of passenger cars and light trucks.passenger cars and light trucks.

Small decrease in the proportion of large Small decrease in the proportion of large trucks and motorcycles.trucks and motorcycles.

Moderate decrease in proportion of buses Moderate decrease in proportion of buses and other vehicles (motor homes, and other vehicles (motor homes, farm/construction equipment, farm/construction equipment, police/emergency vehicles, etc.).police/emergency vehicles, etc.).




SummarySummary

Using the NHTSA State Data System, Using the NHTSA State Data System, adoption of a towaway criterion would adoption of a towaway criterion would have the following effects:have the following effects:

A significant decrease in the total A significant decrease in the total number of reportable crashes. number of reportable crashes.

The data shows that at least 42% of the The data shows that at least 42% of the reportable crashes would be lost.reportable crashes would be lost.

The data shows that at least 70% of the The data shows that at least 70% of the reportable PDO crashes would be lost.reportable PDO crashes would be lost.




Summary (cont.)Summary (cont.)

Low severity PDO crashes would be lost, changing the Low severity PDO crashes would be lost, changing the composition of the remaining PDO crashes as follows:composition of the remaining PDO crashes as follows:

The proportion of Urban crashes decreases.The proportion of Urban crashes decreases. The proportion of Single Vehicle crashes increases, with an The proportion of Single Vehicle crashes increases, with an

increase in Fixed Object, Rollover, and Other Non-Collision increase in Fixed Object, Rollover, and Other Non-Collision crashes.crashes.

The proportion of Multiple Vehicle crashes decreases, both The proportion of Multiple Vehicle crashes decreases, both for Motor Vehicle in Transport and Parked Motor Vehicle for Motor Vehicle in Transport and Parked Motor Vehicle crashes.crashes.

The proportions of Angle and Head-on collisions increase, The proportions of Angle and Head-on collisions increase, while Rear End and Sideswipe collisions decrease.while Rear End and Sideswipe collisions decrease.

The proportions of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks The proportions of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks increase slightly, Large Trucks and Motorcycles decrease increase slightly, Large Trucks and Motorcycles decrease slightly, and Buses and Other Vehicles exhibit a moderate slightly, and Buses and Other Vehicles exhibit a moderate decrease.decrease.




Questions or Comments?Questions or Comments?

Questions/Comments can be sent to:

[email protected]

Documents

People Saving People National Center for Statistics & Analysis Reporting Thresholds Source: SDS data, 1990-1999 1 A Comparative Analysis of Reporting Thresholds