Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 13-36

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 13...
... 3-1 3. Focus Groups and Interviews 3.1 Overview and Background Building on the literature review in Section 2, the research team conducted a series of interviews and focus groups to collect additional information on the state of practice around zero-fatality programming and to begin testing recommendations for our road map to implementation.
From page 14...
... 3-2 3.2.3.1 Zero Vision and Goal Setting When exploring state and local agency processes for setting goals, the following key discussion subthemes emerged: • Method for setting the goal • Approach for interim targets • Implication and changes to current approaches The process for setting the TZD/Vision Zero (VZ) goals varied among agencies, with some beginning their programs in 2008 while others started more recently.
From page 15...
... 3-3 of the safety culture survey will help improve roadway design for all users but especially for bicycles and pedestrians. 3.2.3.3 Supporting Program Structure The following key discussion subthemes surrounding TZD supporting program structure emerged: • SHSP executive committee and emphasis area teams are primarily used for supporting TZD structure.
From page 16...
... 3-4 3.2.3.5 Technical Assistance and Training The following key discussion subthemes surrounding TZD technical assistance and training emerged and are integrated in the text below: • Improve access to high-quality, timely data • Agency provides technical training to support the overall program initiatives throughout the state and for local partners Timely, high-quality data were noted several times as key to managing a zero-fatality goal program. In particular, Minnesota developed MnCMAT, a crash records database that is available to local agencies and private-sector researchers and analysts.
From page 17...
... 3-5 Most agencies track implementation progress through measuring and tracking the five-year rolling average for fatalities and serious injuries, fatality rate, and serious-injury rate. Agencies break down data by state versus local roadways and by SHSP emphasis area to determine priorities and understand trends.
From page 18...
... 3-6 the use of the HSM for engineering staff would again enhance the types of safety projects developed and implemented. 3.2.4 Other Notes The state and local agencies interviewed had a variety of experience with their agency programs.
From page 19...
... 3-7 Washington, Minnesota, and Nevada partners/stakeholders described their respective states as having a "mature" program with at least a decade of formal TZD/VZ program adoption in addition to its SHSP. The states' zero-fatality goal program has clearly articulated interim safety goals supported by regular program meetings to engage multidisciplinary safety partners along with a dedicated website to facilitate information sharing.
From page 20...
... 3-8 program leadership component. To this end, Minnesota employs eight regional TZD leadership teams, led by a coordinator, who works with partners/stakeholders in the four Es to implement regional TZD initiatives.
From page 21...
... 3-9 • For nearly all states, there is not enough public awareness of statewide TZD. Overall, interviewees generally agreed that agency leadership intentionally seeks to engage all traffic safety (four E)
From page 22...
... 3-10 partners; however, they generally agreed that access to timely crash data was a concern. For example, California's SHSO provides collision ranking data, enabling cities to compare crash data with cities of comparable population size -- which the interviewees noted as helpful although somewhat dated.
From page 23...
... 3-11 Minnesota, meanwhile, has a separate, yet complimentary, one-page TZD strategic document. Titled Minnesota TZD Strategic Direction, it features a set of priority goals and focused strategies designed to strengthen the statewide TZD Program and foster partner engagement.
From page 24...
... 3-12 3.3.3.8 Barriers to TZD Implementation The following key discussion subthemes surrounding TZD partner/stakeholder perceived barriers to TZD vision implementation emerged: • Dated crash data and limited capability inhibited partners' data queries and comparative analysis; critical injury data are not linked to crash data, resulting in an incomplete crash story. • More funding and staffing are needed to further reduce fatalities.
From page 25...
... 3-13 The partners/stakeholders were passionate about roadway safety and their respective organization's contributions and were eager to discuss the merits of their state TZD implementation efforts. Consequently, project interviewers had to probe to elicit more objective responses to some of the interview questions.
From page 26...
... 3-14 implementation and in one state (Washington) , over 80 percent of the state recognizes the Zero Fatalities brand.
From page 27...
... 3-15 with a rotating leadership position. Florida DOT staffs, facilitates, and leads the effort, while Washington DOT's Traffic Safety Commission develops priorities with the SHSHP process.
From page 28...
... 3-16 equipment requirements and will need to partner with the private sector for support in staying current with data collection and developing technology. 3.4.3.6 Focused Safety Priorities and Strategies The following key discussion subthemes surrounding TZD-focused safety priorities and strategies emerged: • Driving distractions are a big issue.
From page 29...
... 3-17 3.4.3.9 Other Discussion Interviewees generally agreed that there is collaboration among the four Es. While not specifically asked, the CEOs referenced other key partners engaged in helping to convey the TZD message or working on coalitions or implementation.
From page 30...
... 3-18 ProAct staff review safety procedures prior to beginning their workday and each task has a written procedure on how to perform it. They also conduct topical training as needed.
From page 31...
... 3-19 State and Local Agency Representatives California • Gretchen Chavez, California DOT • Chris Cochran, California Office of Traffic Safety • Thomas Schriber, California DOT • Randy Weissman, California Office of Traffic Safety Clackamas County • Joe Marek, Clackamas County DOT and Development, Oregon • John Tomlinson, Idaho DOT Minnesota • Brad Estochen, Minnesota DOT Nevada • Amy Davey, Nevada Department of Public Safety • Ken Mammen, Nevada DOT New Jersey • Sophia Azam, New Jersey DOT Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety (BTDS) New Mexico • Jessica Griffen, New Mexico DOT • Tamera Haas, New Mexico DOT New York City • Rob Viola, New York City DOT • Christina Blackstone, New York City DOT Juan Martinez, New York City DOT Washington State • John Milton, Washington State DOT Safety Partners and Stakeholders Representatives California • Leah Shahum, Vision Zero Network • Ana Validzic, San Francisco Department of Public Health • Wendy Alfsen, California Walks • Jill Cooper, University of California Berkeley • Dr.
From page 32...
... 3-20 • Dr. Blythe McCance, Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP)
From page 33...
... 3-21 13. What do you think is contributing to either the success or lack thereof?
From page 34...
... 3-22 5. As a partner, do you feel you are in a reactive or proactive mode in implementing road safety and/or zero-fatality initiatives?
From page 35...
... 3-23 Leadership and Safety Culture 1. Safety culture within an organization is defined as "the shared values and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to safety over competing goals." The TZD initiative can be a key element of an organization's safety culture.
From page 36...
... 3-24 c. Strategy used by your organization to achieve success of your safety program?

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.