Benefits of Adopting MMUCC Guidelines:

A Logical Step Towards a National A Logical Step Towards a National Crash Reporting FormCrash Reporting Form

Presented at thePresented at the2828thth International Traffic Records International Traffic Records

ForumForumOrlando, Florida – August 5, 2002Orlando, Florida – August 5, 2002

Some of us, it seems, are always thinking about food . . Since we had such a nice lunch today

(or did we?) it’s hard to think about

pie. But we need to think about pie

(and I’m not talking about peach, key

lime or sour cream raisin here)

But the Transportation Pie (and our place in it)

FHWA Annual Budget 255 Billion

FHWA Safety 731 Million

NHTSA 500 Million

Traffic Records 9 Million

Annual U.S. DOT Road Funds distributed to the states

As the Pie hopefully illustrates: We in the greater highway

safety community compete for funding resources.

And on the state (and federal) level, these resources are becoming increasing scarce.

In order to compete, we have to be able to make our case

Make my day

We can only bluff or B.S. our way so far

New NHTSA Administrator Runge

Has made a strong case for the need

for data – data which can justify (or

refute) the efficacy of our safety

belt, child restraint, and impaired

driving programs just to name a few.

Unfortunately (or fortunately)

There is one H_ _ _ of a lot more to

highway safety data than “dwelling

in the land of our failures.”

Come on people – less than 1 crash

in 150 results in a fatality yet . . .

If you look at our (collective) highway

safety data collection, analysis and,

ultimately, our program justification

we spend far too much time and

energy focusing on those .6 of 1% of

the crashes in this country which

comprise our ultimate failures - - - our

fatalities

Serious, life-threatening injuries in traffic crashes outnumber deaths nearly 10 to 1.

Overall traffic injuries outnumber deaths nearly 100 to 1, but . . .

350,000

41,000

0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,000

Injuries

SeriousInjuries

Fatalities

3,500,000

Despite well over a decade of CODES and a push for capturing, analyzing and utilizing trauma data by former NHTSA Administrator Martinez, our collective efforts in analyzing traffic crash injury data are marginal (if not downright woeful and pathetic)

We (data) geeks love to get in there and MMUCC around with the data

Well, we need to MMUCC around a lot more with the crash data for the 99.4% of crashes which do not result in the loss of life and (perhaps) just a little less with the .6% who do

Let’s talk injury data. . . . . . Let’s talk CODESA good start, a good effort, but (shortcomings)A. Only able to match a (relatively) small #

of cases – linkage issues. Nationally, (roughly) just 5% of all injury crashes can be linked to a discharge record. For Iowa, the figure is less than 10%.

B. Problems with “outlyers” especially in small databases- high degree of variability

C. Uneveness in crash matching; certain types may match more frequently

Imputation of missing values issues, so . . . Injury data from crash reports

(while lacking the injury detail, accuracy or medical outcomes associated with CODES) does have the significant advantage of a larger, much more robust and complete database.

The crash database also could (can) accommodate

an analysis of crash severity vs. injury severity

but the one bigthing we lack is:

STATE COMPARABLE CRASH INJURY DATABASES

OR

SC CID

A. Not an abbreviation for a South Carolina economic development initiative

B. No relation to EL CID as far as we know

In order to have SC CID

Barring the full-fledged adoption of a national crash report form anytime soon (sorry to drizzle on your parade Major)

WE MUST –a) Go to the bar and hoist a few tall

ones

b) Continue plodding along with a relative absence of meaningful, comparable injury crash data . . . And suffer the consequences

c) Adopt the MMUCC guidelines and have SC CID coming out our E.A.R.S.

And now for the hard part: selling MMUCC on the “home front” or

Making the

Most out of

Ur

Case for

Comparability

Why MMUCC?

1. Because it makes cents (and dollars as well)

It will (potentially) improve your state’s ability to document crashes causes, crash outcomes and the impact your highway safety programs are having on those causes and outcomes.

Why MMUCC?

2. It will increase your ability to compare your crash causes and outcomes with those of other states (particularly MMUCC compliant states) and help you to see (analyze) what areas your doing well in and what areas may need improvement (i.e. a new highway safety program approach)

Why MMUCC?

3. If your already a CODES states . . . CODES is looking more at multi-state analysis . . . Your MMUCC compliant crash database will put you 1 step ahead of the game . . . or conversely, at least allow you to avoid scrambling to keep up

Why MMUCC?4. A high tide raises all boats . . . If we,

collectively, can improve our ability to analyze crash injury data . . . and document the value of highway safety programs in impacting the number of those injuries which occur (and their severity) these programs will have a better opportunity for optimal funding (what’s good for the goose)

Or

we can ignore this opportunity

and gamble with our future