EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On January 22-23, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) brought together an array of public safety, legal, and adjudication representatives to participate in an "Aggressive Driving and the Law" Symposium. The symposium sought to derive action steps toward solving the problem of aggressive driving, approached from six different perspectives: (1) statutory approaches, (2) applied technology, (3) charging decisions, (4) sentencing strategies, (5) community leadership, and (6) enforcement strategies. These six categories served as topic areas for framing participant discussions and resulting recommendations developed in breakout sessions (see below).

Phil Recht, NHTSA Deputy Administrator 1, strongly encouraged participants to put energy into implementing these recommendations in their own communities, emphasizing that state and local levels must work together with national resources and assistance. He said NHTSA would focus on eliciting media attention for this effort; proceeding with an aggressive driving working group; developing stock speeches for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and others to use in the community; and implementing other participant recommendations as its authority and resources would allow.

In addition to breakout sessions, plenary sessions featured remarks by the Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, FHWA Administrator Kenneth Wykle, and a victim of an aggressive driving collision. Paper presenters reported on the results of preconference focus groups and provided background and overview information on the problem of aggressive driving. Panel presentations focused on issues, research, and approaches of other national organizations addressing driving-related issues.

1 Phil Recht is no longer at NHTSA. Frank Seales, Jr., is the new Acting Deputy Administrator.

Participant Findings and Recommendations
Participants working in breakout groups made the following recommendations for each of the six main topic areas covered in relation to aggressive driving.

Statutory Approaches
This breakout group recommended that states look at their own laws to determine whether they can adequately deal with the aggressive driving problem at both the misdemeanor and felony levels. The group felt that most states should consider an aggressive driving law, if only for its social aspects, believing this to be a state and not a Federal issue, i.e., states need to come up with their own individual statutes, as did California and Arizona. The group recommended the following points for states to consider when enacting aggressive driving or related statutes:

• Conviction for an aggressive driving violation should involve a significant number of points and/or a minimum license suspension.
  
  
• Enhanced penalties should accompany repeat violations or those that cause serious injury or death.
  
  
• States and the Federal Government should pass enabling legislation to permit use of advanced technology for enforcement.
  
  
• All states should implement public information and driver education programs that cover aggressive driving and rage management training.
  
  
• Steps should be taken to have the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO) develop a model provision pertaining to aggressive driving for consideration by the states. (NCUTLO publishes the Uniform Vehicle Code).
  
  
• An analysis of each state's misdemeanor and felony statutes on aggressive driving should be prepared and made available to other states.

Applied Technology
The Applied Technology breakout group highlighted highway construction building more roads to alleviate congestion--as a top priority, while recognizing that this may not be a realistic option. It also recommended investigating the use of new laser technology and promoting the wider use of photo red light enforcement cameras and unmanned radar speed display devices. These and other of the group's recommendations follow:

• Investigate the feasibility of using new laser equipment, currently in use in Europe, that can measure the distance between approaching vehicles.
  
  
• Promote the wider use of photo red light enforcement cameras.
  
  
• Promote the wider use of unmanned radar speed display devices as a good preventive measure.
  
  
• Expand the use of observation platforms, such as aircraft, in-car video, and other equipment that aids the apprehension and prosecution of traffic violators in situations that would otherwise be difficult to testify about.
  
  
• Establish "tip lines" for witnesses to report aggressive driving.
  
  
• Encourage jurisdictions with 911 systems to add *77 or 311 systems to facilitate handling of non-emergency traffic-related communications.
  
  
• Establish data links (automated reporting) from traffic officers' reports to the prosecutor's office, and otherwise facilitate better communications among different disciplines.
  
  
• Promote the use of electronic report writing.
  
  
• Create or adopt crash reconstruction software.
  
  
• Explore the use of variable speed limit signs.
  
  
• Encourage communities to take advantage of computer-based distance learning and other techniques, in light of diminishing school-based driver education programs.
  
  
• Promote ITS technology for its congestion relief benefits.

Charging Decisions
Defaulting to the NHTSA definition of aggressive driving to guide its discussions, the Charging Decisions breakout group felt that no new aggressive driving statutes were needed, recommending instead the development of written guidelines to govern prosecution and law enforcement actions in aggressive driving cases. The group made the following additional recommendations:

• The definition of aggressive driving should be included under reckless driving statutes and not broadened so as to narrow the definition of reckless driving.
  
  
• Aggressive driving behavior should be a criminal (jailable) act and not a civil infraction. Aggressive driving violations should be in the criminal realm, so information will be disclosed; in the civil realm, a "payout" option exists.
  
  
• Written guidelines for prosecution and law enforcement should be developed by the prosecutor's office.
  
  
• Law enforcement should provide detailed information to prosecutors and prosecutors the same to judges, along with the citation/charging document.
  
  
• Heightened awareness of the aggressive driving issue must be accomplished through professional education of law enforcement, prosecution, and judges.
  
  
• Because of the consequences or potential consequences of aggressive driving, it should have a high priority among law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.
  
  
• The charging decision can rest with the arresting officer at the misdemeanor level, but should be referred to the prosecutor at the felony level.

Sentencing Strategies
This breakout group felt that sentencing strategies should accomplish both traditional and nontraditional objectives, with the manner in which the offense is charged governing the sentencing strategy available. The group felt that the best sentencing options give judges flexibility and provide for the following:

• Withholding adjudication or expungement of conviction.
  
  
• Graduated penalties for first, second, and multiple offenders.
  
  
• Probation so judges can maintain control over offenders.
  
  
• Possibility of incarceration at the option of the prosecutor or judge.
  
  
• Enhancement of penalties for repeat offenders, with mandatory penalties in certain circumstances, at the discretion of states or legislators.
  
  
• Community service, with pre-plea and post-plea options available.
  
  
• Education, e.g., require people to complete certain types of treatment programs such as anger management or driver improvement classes.
  
  
• Restitution.
  
  
• Driver's license suspension and revocation.
  
  
• Restrictions placed on a driver's license as a way for the court to maintain control over an individual.
  
  
• Impoundment or immobilization for repeat offenders, as in "clubbing" or "booting" vehicles.
  
  
• Letters of apology written to those victimized by aggressive driving.

Community Leadership
This breakout group derived the following recommendations touching on several aspects of community leadership, including enforcement, education, message, delivery of message, and resources:

• Rally people in the community to influence executive decisions making enforcement a higher priority.
  
  
• Identify different groups to help educate the public and raise awareness of the aggressive driving issue, such as insurers and insurance consortiums, educators, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, medical community, entertainment and advertising, community-oriented policing, 16-30 year olds, and church and civic groups.
  
  
• Make the message clear and uniform, localized, personalized, and publicized.
  
  
• Bring everyone to the table who is involved in traffic enforcement and solicit opportunities to get the message out to the community through innovative programs, such as art contests and scholarship offerings related to aggressive driving.
  
  
• Make resources readily available to help judges and others speak in the community, e.g., a video, print, and speaker's kit. A national clearinghouse could assist in the collection of innovative ideas. Training materials are needed to sensitize judges and to help prosecutors and law enforcement investigate and articulate aggressive driving concerns (begs the need for adequate Federal funding).

Enforcement Strategies
The Enforcement Strategies breakout group stressed that enforcement must be done in conjunction with other parts of government. It recommended encouraging the provision of Federal funds for programs at the state level, along with the following other recommendations:

• Encourage citizen involvement through cellular phone use and one nationwide, standardized number.
  
  
• Use red light cameras as a means of extending the capabilities of law enforcement.
  
  
• Encourage multijurisdictional enforcement efforts between agencies.
  
  
• Make Federal grant money available to jurisdictions that encourage legislation permitting the use of technology to fight aggressive driving.
  
  
• Encourage the use of computer technology in officers' cars to give them access to driver's license histories and a database listing of previous vehicle stops.
  
  
• Use variable message signs to advise the motoring public of congestion, delays, crashes, etc., as well as detours and alternate routes.
  
  
• Encourage policymakers to take the position of making aggressive driving a priority issue. This push must start at the top and be encouraged--also within law enforcement itself.
  
  
• Provide Federal funds in the form of local grants to support innovative initiatives submitted by law enforcement entities.
  
  
• Mandate training for criminal justice practitioners about the technology that is being used to fight aggressive driving; e.g., radar, laser, auto sensing.
  
  
• Educate the public about situations that precipitate aggressive driving behavior and encourage appropriate responses.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

INTRODUCTION

On January 22-23, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) brought together an array of public safety, legal, and adjudication representatives to discuss traffic safety, specifically the problems associated with aggressive driving. Participants included prosecutors, district court judges, law enforcement and emergency personnel, district and states attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, safety advocates and activists, researchers, and government policy and state public safety personnel. The symposium sought to derive action steps toward solving the problem of aggressive driving as approached from six different perspectives: (1) statutory approaches, (2) applied technology, (3) charging decisions, (4) sentencing strategies, (5) community leadership, and (6) enforcement strategies. These six categories served as topic areas for framing participant discussions and resulting recommendations developed in breakout sessions.

In addition to breakout sessions, plenary sessions featured remarks by the Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, FHWA Administrator Kenneth Wykle, and a victim of an aggressive driving collision. Paper presenters reported on the results of preconference focus groups and provided background and overview information on the problem of aggressive driving. Panel presentations focused on the issues, research, and approaches of other driving-related organizations.

The Problem
According to a NHTSA survey on aggressive driving attitudes and behaviors (released at the conference), more than 60 percent of drivers see unsafe driving by others, including speeding, as a major personal threat to themselves and their families. More than half admitted themselves to driving aggressively on occasion. Although there is not one standard, accepted definition of aggressive driving, NHTSA currently defines it as "the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger persons or property"--a traffic and not a criminal offense like road rage. It can include a range of less serious offenses, such as reckless driving, and does not necessarily require willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others, according to NHTSA. Examples include speeding or driving too fast for conditions, improper lane changing, and improper passing. Some common characteristics of the aggressive driver include the following:

• They are high-risk drivers, more likely to drink and drive, speed, or drive unbelted.
  
  
• Their vehicle provides anonymity, allowing them to take out their frustrations on other drivers.
  
  
• Their frustration levels are high, concern for other motorists, low.
  
  
• They consider vehicles as objects and fail to consider the human element involved; therefore, they seldom consider the consequences of their actions.
  
  
• They run stop signs, disobey red lights, speed, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic, pass on the right, make unsafe lane changes, flash their lights, blow their horns, or make hand and facial gestures.
  

Enforcement Programs and Laws to Curb Aggressive Driving
As of May 1999, 24 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada, have been identified as having active aggressive driving programs aimed at reducing the types of violations an aggressive driver is liable to commit, e.g., speeding, following too closely, improperly changing lanes and passing, and failing to obey traffic signals or to yield the right-of-way. These programs vary in resources and techniques.

While California's "Smooth Operator" program, begun in 1988, was probably the first aggressive driving program in the country, Arizona's legislature was the first to pass a law specifically addressing aggressive driving. The bill, enacted May 26, 1998, requires that violators simultaneously commit a speeding offense and at least two reckless driving offenses before they can be charged. Such violations include failing to obey traffic control devices, overtaking and passing another vehicle on the right by driving off the pavement or main travel portion of the roadway, making unsafe lane changes, following too closely, or failing to yield the right-of-way. Virginia passed a law in March 1998 requiring driver education programs offered through the school system to include aggressive driving instruction.

In 1998, 9 states introduced a total of 26 aggressive driving bills, only 2 of which--the Arizona aggressive driving bill and the Virginia driver education requirement--were enacted. Four states have bills pending this year. Most of these bills attempt to define aggressive driving offenses and establish penalties for them. Some specify characteristics of aggressive drivers, or give those convicted of the offense certain additional penalties, such as mandatory educational classes or loss of their licenses for repeat offenses--similar to impaired driving sanctions. Other options adopted by state legislators to address aggressive driving include the following: improving funding of prosecutorial efforts, increasing fines and penalties, developing state education programs about aggressive driving, emphasizing seatbelt laws, and legislating traffic camera radar devices.

The Solution
A U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Aggressive Driving Team, jointly staffed by NHTSA, FHWA, and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) representatives, will develop recommendations for a coordinated departmental aggressive driving program. The program will seek to provide guidance, technical assistance, and support on aggressive driving-related issues to NHTSA and FHWA field offices, state and local governments, and to the team's many public and private partners. Initiatives will include programs involving enforcement, education, x, traffic engineering, crash analysis, and behavioral research. Efforts will continue to identify and document the pervasiveness, nature, and scope of aggressive driving behavior and its associated consequences.

NHTSA's aggressive driving work plan includes the development of innovative and effective countermeasures and enforcement strategies. Public information and education (PI&E) is another important component of these efforts, as methods, strategies, and programs are developed to inform the public, law enforcement agencies, engineers, and the judiciary of the potential dangers of aggressive driving and the steps being taken to reduce its occurrence and consequences. NHTSA will also continue to hold meetings and other events, such as the present Aggressive Driving Symposium, to bring together all the stakeholders involved to discuss effective legal and other strategies.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

DAY 1

Day One: Opening Charge

Ricardo Martinez, M.D., NHTSA Administrator
Dr. Martinez welcomed participants and thanked them for agreeing to share their thoughts and expertise on the important subject of aggressive driving. He mentioned the growth in statistical data on the problem and the work being done at the state level to generate them, but cited the "human aspect" as the most important part of the equation. He then introduced Cheryle Adams, who told her story about being the victim of an aggressive driver.

Cheryle Adams, Aggressive Driving Victim
Ms. Adams related her heart-rending experience of being hit in June 1993 by a driver who ran a red light, leaving her with her legs pinned to the base of a lamp post. She was spared amputation of her legs, but was left with severe physical and emotional damage. After 10 surgeries over the past 5 years, Ms. Adams must still live each day with pain and the possibility of losing her legs. She noted that one of the drivers responsible for her injuries was given a mere traffic citation. She pleaded for stronger law enforcement to protect people who obey the law and to encourage all drivers nationwide to do the same.

Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation
"Transportation is about people," Secretary Slater began. It is how people get to work, school, the Nation's Capitol, and many other places--safely. Making careless use of this privilege equates to recklessness, he added, expressing his concern for protecting the safety not just of drivers, but of pedestrians and bicyclists, and for being able to continue doing those activities we all enjoy and tend to take for granted.

Secretary Slater thanked Ms. Adams for "standing" for this issue and for inspiring others to take action. He thanked participants for engaging in this "honorable endeavor" to strengthen our communities and help ensure the safety of their residents. He also thanked the symposium organizers, calling safety this Administration's highest priority. "Safety is our North Star," he commented, "by which we'll be guided and judged." DOT is directing $6.8 billion over the next several years toward increasing safety on the Nation's highways, Secretary Slater noted, adding that participants' commitment and finding of solutions will ensure that this money is put to productive use.

Aggressive driving is one of the leading safety concerns among America's drivers. Who are the aggressive drivers? he asked. They are us. As the NHTSA telephone survey showed, two-thirds of drivers surveyed admitted to driving unsafely for a variety of reasons. Secretary Slater hoped the symposium would drive home the point that where there is cause, there is effect, and that we must "raise the bar higher."

He called for a three-pronged approach to include (1) education, (2) enforcement, and (3) judicial efforts. Aggressive driving programs in the District of Columbia and the states that have them are generating results, as are other demonstration projects. Through education and enforcement, the number of crashes is decreasing. The progress of these programs is prompting communities to continue them, even absent Federal funding. Court systems, too, must be an integral part of the solution, Secretary Slater continued, and must impose equal and mandatory enforcement penalties, with stiffer guidelines for sentencing aggressive drivers.

Secretary Slater believed participants to have a great opportunity to formulate a national policy that recognizes the seriousness of aggressive driving by suggesting more uniform and appropriate penalties--as occurred with drunk and impaired driving. "We must be visionary and vigilant," he concluded, in addressing the three prongs. He urged participants, when trying to reconcile the wishes of all involved, to come forth with recommendations for solutions that "focus on the people."

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

Day One: Opening Remarks

Ricardo Martinez, M.D., Administrator, NHTSA
Kenneth Wykle, Administrator, FHWA

Ricardo Martinez, M.D., Administrator, NHTSA
Dr. Martinez provided additional background information about who aggressive drivers are, how big the problem is, and what is being done about it. His remarks are summarized below:

• Who are aggressive drivers? NHTSA survey results indicate that aggressive drivers think of driving as an aggressive sport. They generally blame others and do not see themselves as a problem. They think they are in control when they are not, and admit to being impatient--e.g., they do not like to let others pass.
  
  
• How big is the problem? Dr. Martinez said that high-risk behavior is overrepresented in violent and fatal crashes. Approximately 42,000 people die each year in road deaths. Vehicle crashes are the "Number 1" cause of death for young children, teens, and young adults, and the primary cause of head and spinal injuries for everyone. These facts have been true for a long time and reflect how huge this problem is for our society. Dr. Martinez expressed his hope that the judicial and legal systems will help secure gains in this area, as occurred for drunk driving.
  
  
• Baby boomers. Baby boomers are flooding the roads, Dr. Martinez observed. However, the level of traffic enforcement is not on the rise and is actually going down.
  
  
• Known solutions. Citing "good news," Dr. Martinez said there do exist known solutions to combat the problems related to aggressive driving. It has been shown, for example, that greater enforcement efforts lead to greater compliance and more deterrence of unwanted driving behaviors. For example, the cities of Modesto, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, saw substantial declines in fatal crashes and in criminal arrests as a result of enforcement programs targeting aggressive drivers and high-risk behaviors on the road. High-risk people engage in high-risk behavior, observed Dr. Martinez, reminding participants that Timothy McVeigh was apprehended after being stopped for a traffic violation.
  
  
• Where is the accountability here? People assaulted with a weapon get punished. Traffic deaths are not punished in accordance with the risk taken and the lives endangered and destroyed thereby.
  
  
• Action steps to effect change. Dr. Martinez suggested the following actions to go toward finding solutions to the problem of aggressive driving: (1) providing national leadership to raise the issue to a higher level, (2) putting a human face on the issue, (3) giving people the tools they need to take responsibility through development of anti-aggressive driving techniques and strategies and commitment of resources to translate dollars into effective programs.

Dr. Martinez concluded his remarks by expressing his appreciation for participants of such high caliber willing to give of their time and insights to work toward finding practical solutions to the serious problem of aggressive driving.

Kenneth Wykle, Administrator, FHWA
Mr. Wykle's remarks, summarized below, focused on the work being done at DOT and its component agencies to address the manifold road problems that can contribute to aggressive and unsafe driving.

• ONE DOT. Mr. Wykle stressed the team effort occurring within DOT, with FHWA responsible for working with the states in operating the Nation's highway infrastructure and for informing the public about highway safety.
  
  
• The congestion problem. Mr. Wykle cited congestion on the roadways as a big contributor to driver frustration and a trigger to aggressive driving behaviors. He called for continued exploration and application of advanced technologies to effect solutions to this problem. We cannot build our way out of the problem, he asserted, or enforce our way out. The numbers of law enforcement officers can never be increased enough. Instead, advanced technology must be integrated with enforcement into any proposed solution.
  
  
• Successful technology programs. Some examples of new technology applications currently in use have shown positive results. These include the Red Light Running (RLR) campaign, which combines technology and public safety awareness. Good preliminary results have been seen at trial sites, with a decrease in the number of crashes (45 percent in some cases), despite the opposite national trend. There has also been a 12-percent increase in public awareness at trial sites through education and enforcement, with many communities continuing and expanding these campaigns on their own. Communities are asking for this technology, and the program, currently in its second phase, has grown from 30 to 200 sites. The RLR campaign is a successful example of a community program achieving good results and attracting the participation of additional partners. It is also known that RLR camera technology is not only effective, but is readily accepted by the public. A report on the first phase of the campaign to combat RLR in 30 communities will soon be available.
  
  
• NOTIS. Mr. Wykle spoke of a new coalition called NOTIS National Organization for Traffic Intersection Safety formed to support legislation allowing use of camera technology at intersections. NOTIS members include law enforcement, safety advocates, insurance companies, camera system manufacturers, Daimler-Chrysler, the American Trauma Society, and DOT.
  
  
• Maryland program. FHWA continues to refine the Maryland State Police Capitol Beltway aggressive driving enforcement project, which targets speeding and other aggressive driving actions by identifying and documenting such behavior.
  
  
• DOT funds available. Money is available from FHWA to fund aggressive driving solutions. Federal-aid funds can help states "engineer" improvements to intersections as well as install advanced technologies to assist enforcement efforts. Federal funds are also available for PI&E and enforcement activities. Two new TEA (Transportation Efficiency Act)-21 incentive grants are worth $500 million each over the life of the reauthorization. In addition, Surface Transportation Project, National Highway Systems, and Interstate Maintenance funds, among others, can help fund intelligent transportation system projects.
  
  
• Cooperative efforts needed. DOT is eager to continue working with communities in promoting emerging and advanced technologies to support and further the efforts of law enforcement to curb aggressive driving behavior. Mr. Wykle said he and others at FHWA and DOT look forward to hearing participants' recommendations and proposed solutions to this problem, and are willing to work cooperatively in this effort.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

Day One: Technical Presentations

Introductions / NHTSA Survey Results / Research Report on Focus Groups
Aggressive Driving Overview and Background / Enforcement Strategies for Aggressive Driving / Audience Questions

Moderator: Philip Recht, J.D., Deputy Administrator, NHTSA
Panelists: Richard Compton, Science Advisor, NHTSA
John Lacey, Principal Scientist, Mid-America Research Institute, Inc.
Janet Goehring, Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures
Chuck Peltier, Division Chief, Traffic Law Enforcement, NHTSA

Introductions
Philip Recht, NHTSA
Mr. Recht remarked on the good turnout for the conference and thanked all participants for their involvement. He reviewed the six topical areas that they would address in the breakout sessions as follows: (1) statutory approaches, (2) applied technology, (3) charging decisions, (4) sentencing strategies, (5) community leadership, and (6) enforcement strategies. He expressed his eagerness to hear participants' recommendations on these issues following the breakout discussions, then proceeded to introduce the technical panel members, whose presentations are summarized below.

NHTSA Survey Results
Richard Compton, NHTSA
Mr. Compton provided summary highlights of NHTSA's public opinion survey on aggressive driving, conducted for NHTSA by a national survey firm. The main points of his overhead presentation are summarized below.

• What the driving public thinks. The survey sought to elicit a view of a wide range of unsafe driving behaviors, laws, and enforcement of laws. It also sought to obtain aggressive driver characteristics, demographics, and opinions for addressing this problem.
  
  
• Rating of driving behaviors. The "top" aggressive driving behaviors identified by respondents included the following: passing a stopped school bus (95 percent had observed this behavior), racing another driver, and driving through stop signs and red lights.
  
  
• Public attitudes telling. Only 14 percent of those surveyed felt it was "extremely dangerous" to drive 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. Younger drivers consistently felt particular aggressive driving behaviors to be less dangerous than did older drivers. And only 6 percent of respondents thought driving was safer today, with results varying by age and gender. (Males believe it is less dangerous to drive today than do females.)
  
  
• Why is driving more dangerous today? Several factors were identified among those surveyed: carelessness of drivers, increase in congestion, and increase in the speed limit. About 30 percent of respondents said they felt their safety was threatened in the last month, while 67 percent felt this threat during the last year. Weaving, tailgating, distracted drivers, and unsafe lane changes were some of the unsafe behaviors identified.
  
  
• Speeding is consequential. Only 3 percent of respondents said that speeding was not a threat to themselves or their families. Only 6 percent said they rarely see cars traveling at unsafe speeds. The majority of those surveyed (52 percent) said it was "very important" to do something about speeding. Ninety-eight percent of respondents thought it "important" that something be done to reduce speeding and unsafe driving.
  
  
• Riding with unsafe drivers. Fifty-six percent of 16-20 year olds said they had driven with unsafe drivers, while 13 percent of those over 65 years old gave that response.
  
  
• Why are people driving aggressively? Some of the reasons given by those surveyed include the following: people being in a hurry; congestion; careless and inconsiderate drivers; and angry, frustrated, and hostile drivers.
  
  
• Self-report responses surprising. Fifty percent of those surveyed said they had driven recklessly, had sped, and/or engaged in other unsafe or illegal driving behaviors. More than twice the number of men as women said they had driven while affected by alcohol. In fact, men consistently engaged in substantially more unsafe driving behaviors than did women.
  
  
• Likely effectiveness of measures to reduce aggressive driving. Those surveyed ranked the following countermeasures, in order, as most likely to reduce aggressive and unsafe driving behaviors: (1) more police assigned to traffic control, (2) more frequent ticketing of traffic violations, (3) higher fines, and (4) increased insurance costs.
  
  
• Acceptability to public. The following measures, in rank order, were identified as likely to have the greatest public acceptance: (1) awareness raising, (2) increased ticketing, (3) encouraging people to say something to drivers whom they believe to be driving aggressively, and (4) more law enforcement in traffic control.
  
  
• Conclusions. Major conclusions from the survey included the following:
  - Many people admit to driving illegally or unsafely for many reasons.
  - The problem of aggressive and unsafe driving reflects clear gender and age factors.
  - Increased police enforcement was rated "Number 1," both for effectiveness and as a measure acceptable to the public to reduce unsafe and illegal driving.
  

Research Report on Focus Groups
John Lacey, Mid-America Research Institute, Inc.
Mr. Lacey reported on the research results from focus groups, organized in preparation for the present symposium. Participants included individuals charged with apprehending, prosecuting, and sanctioning offenders, as well as those who defend persons arrested for aggressive driving offenses. Six focus groups were held, one composed of judges, two of prosecutors, one of public defenders and defense attorneys, and two composed of police supervisors and officers in the field. Mr. Lacey stressed that these groups did not represent a lot of people and did not presume to offer definitive answers; they merely provide a sampling of opinions from the various fields that have different levels of involvement with aggressive driving. His remarks are summarized below:

• Composition of focus groups. The groups' composition was as follows:
  - The judges group included a superior court associate justice; the chief judge and five associate judges from a district court; the chief judge, two associate justices, and the master court administrator from family court; along with the governor's highway safety representative from Rhode Island.
  - Participants in the public defender/defense attorney focus group held in Massachusetts included five public defenders, two private defense attorneys, and one clinical instructor.
  - Participants in the two police focus groups held in Salt Lake City, Utah, in conjunction with the annual convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), included officers serving on the technical advisory panel to the drug evaluation and classification program who conduct day-to-day traffic law enforcement, as well as police management personnel--all representing agencies from across the country.
  - The prosecutor focus groups included prosecutors from across the country who were attending a course in Leesburg, Virginia, on prosecuting vehicular homicide--and included both faculty and students at that course.
  
  
• Focus group method. Mr. Lacey described the format of the focus groups as 10 people or fewer sitting around the table talking. Major topics included the definition of aggressive driving, data collection, the need for statutes, related factors, sentencing options, issues around enforcement and the relationship of advanced technology, and the role of public infrastructure.
  
  
• On definition. Most focus group participants distinguished between aggressive driving and road rage.
  
  
• Need for statutes. Focus group members said with one voice that legislation already exists to encompass aggressive driving violations and that the tools and the case law exist as well.
  
  
• Related factors. Most participants chose not to link impaired and aggressive driving, Mr. Lacey reported. Poor roadway designs, congestion, and poor time management were cited as contributing factors to people choosing to drive aggressively.
  
  
• Sentencing. The general opinion emerging from the focus groups of judges and prosecutors was that nothing special was required to expand sentencing options, as options already exist. District attorneys and police were less confident, however, on the sentences imposed. A treatment program to address aggressive driving characteristics was thought to be a good idea.
  
  
• Advanced technology/enforcement. Focus group recommendations called for a combination of unmarked (technology) and marked (enforcement) vehicles to address the aggressive driving problem. Police officers voiced the need for a command emphasis on enforcement that is communicated to officers.
  
  
• Public information and education. Focus group participants felt that only the highest quality materials should be developed when it comes to aggressive driving PI&E campaigns.
  
  
• Conclusions. The following general conclusions emerged from the focus group discussions:
  - Confusion exists about what aggressive driving is, except among law enforcement.
  - No hard data exist about the aggressive driving problem or its variance regionally. It is important to know the extent of the problem before devising solutions for it.
  - PI&E campaigns can be effective if materials are of high quality.
  - Increasing enforcement or the public perception of it was the "Number 1" recommendation of focus group participants. A command emphasis on enforcement must be communicated by management to police officers.

Aggressive Driving Overview and Background
Janet Goehring, National Conference of State Legislatures
Ms. Goehring summarized state legislative activities aimed at curbing aggressive driving, beginning by describing the two divergent views generally held by state legislators: (1) that no new legislation is needed, or (2) that laws are needed to close the gap and to account for the special seriousness of aggressive driving offenses. Her remarks are summarized below:

• What happened last year. Last year, 9 states introduced a combination of 26 bills on aggressive driving; 4 states have bills pending this year. Most of these bills attempt to define aggressive driving offenses and establish penalties for them. Some states have specified characteristics of aggressive drivers, with those convicted of the offense facing certain additional penalties, such as mandatory educational classes or loss of license for repeat offenders similar to drunk or impaired driving sanctions.
  
  
• How to define aggressive driving. Many states get hung up on the issue of how to define aggressive driving. This difficulty has led to the death of some bills for being perceived as legally too problematic to define and implement.
  
  
• Some bills specified intent. Some bills introduced last year did propose very specific intent as part of an aggressive driving definition. Another approach was to address aggressive driving through driver education courses. The state of Virginia passed legislation that required school driver education programs to include instruction on aggressive driving (effective 3/13/98).
  
  
• Other options adopted by states. State legislators adopted other options to address aggressive driving, including the following: improving funding of prosecutorial efforts, increasing fines and penalties, developing state education programs about aggressive driving, emphasizing seatbelt laws, and legislating traffic camera radar devices.

Enforcement Strategies for Aggressive Driving
Chuck Peltier, NHTSA
Mr. Peltier began by stressing the need to understand the dilemma faced by law enforcement administrators today. To illustrate, he noted that in the coming months, conferences will be held on such important justice issues as juvenile crime, domestic violence, and community-oriented policing. The public must consider the pressing social issues faced by police and law enforcement officers forced to deal with everything from warring families and fatherless kids to expectations they will counsel juveniles on drugs. We ask police officers to do many things in addition to their routine duties of responding to calls for service and writing traffic tickets. Mr. Peltier said more police officers are needed to respond to issues of the day, because if the violating public does not believe it will get caught, it will go on violating the law. The remainder of Mr. Peltier's remarks are summarized in the following section.

• Paradigm shift in law enforcement. The shift that law enforcement needs to embrace is to make traffic safety the business of every police officer, that is, to take a decentralized approach that makes everyone in a metropolitan police department responsible for conducting the business of traffic safety. Mr. Peltier felt this was an important shift that needed to take place, adding that traffic safety should also be a part of community policing efforts.
  
  
• Specific aggressive driving focus needed. Mr. Peltier felt states needed to place a specific focus on aggressive driving. Currently, 24 states have 37 aggressive driving programs 2, and information continues to be gathered on them. These programs vary in resources and techniques.
  
  
• Various enforcement techniques used. State programs to combat aggressive driving use a variety of techniques: unmarked cars, motorcycles, aircraft, unmarked decoy vehicles, nontraditional vehicles, and automated enforcement.
  
  
• Elements of a successful promotional program. Using the media is vital to the success of an aggressive driving program, as it was with the seatbelt wearing campaign. Additional elements to consider in developing an aggressive driving program--as described in materials distributed at the conference--had to do with getting the word out, assessing one's own knowledge of the problem, enlisting grassroots support, and coping with congestion.

2 Figure is current as of May 18, 1999

Audience Questions
Following the technical presentations, panel members answered participant questions, summarized below.

Q. Are there any examples of prosecutions in Arizona under the new aggressive driving statute?
A. Three criteria must be met for an aggressive driving violation under the Arizona law: there must be a speeding violation together with two or more other violations that present a demonstrated threat to another person or vehicle. If an offender meets those requirements, s/he gets charged only with the aggressive driving offense. Some of the charges, particularly those not caught on camera, are being thrown out by judges for lack of law enforcement proof.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

Day One: Panel Discussion - Issues, Research,
and Approaches of National Organizations

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety / AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Inc
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives
Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving / Audience Questions

Moderator: Judge Karl Grube, Pinellas County Court, Florida
Panelists: Michele Fields, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
David Willis, AAA Foundation, Inc.
Trish Roberts, National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives
Lisa Shiekh, Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving

Judge Grube opened this panel session by asking conference participants to ask themselves what they can do in their own communities to combat the problem of aggressive driving. He then introduced panel representatives from several national organizations who would share their research on and approaches to the pervasive problem of aggressive driving.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Michele Fields
Ms. Fields said the Insurance Institute wants to reduce the number of vehicular crashes and associated deaths and injuries. Its position is to distinguish between road rage and aggressive driving, which it defines loosely as more than one instance of a moving violation within a short period of time. The remainder of her remarks are summarized below.

• Nothing "new" about aggressive driving. Ms. Fields observed that aggressive driving has been a problem since the 1950s and, while difficult to define or quantify, the topic has generated widespread consensus on a number of issues. "You know it when you see it," she explained, "like art." Definitions, however elusive, are important to designing public policy and achieving a common definition of the problem.
  
  
• General consensus of traffic safety community. The traffic safety community generally understands the following, according to Ms. Fields:
  - We do not need any new laws.
  - Excessive speeding and running red lights are major causes of crashes.
  - Enforcement is the answer, as is increasing the public's estimation of the chance of getting caught.
  - Resources must be put behind law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts.
  - New technologies, such as red light cameras, have shown merit in bolstering enforcement efforts and reducing violations. Research statistics show good results from these efforts, which should be expanded. Public support is high as well for red light camera automated enforcement techniques, which have garnered a 42-percent reduction in red light running and earned an 80+ percent public approval rating at trial sites.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Inc.
David Willis
Mr. Willis described AAA as a publicly funded research and education foundation whose goal is to reduce traffic incidents and deaths. He related public reaction to a report on the results of a long-term study on road rage, which provided a snapshot of only the most egregious kinds of "acting out" and violent road behavior. The report, conducted by a trend-tracking firm in crime and terrorism--including "violence on the road" launched a media frenzy over information that was "hardly scientific." However, access to the firm's database of information about driving incidents provided AAA with consistent reporting sources and allowed it to ask the following questions:

Was road rage a national or geographic-specific phenomenon?
Was the problem getting worse?

The database tracked violent incidents on the road before they became the media "cause celeb" that they have become today. Results showed road rage to be a national phenomenon that is getting worse. The remainder of AAA's findings and recommendations on this issue are summarized below.

• What the polls say. Polls find that aggressive drivers are thought the most dangerous kind of driving encounters there are. Impaired drivers come in second. By self-report, half the drivers in New Jersey are angry behind the wheel and/or try to punish others. This result confirms AAA's finding that aggressive drivers are the most serious safety concern. Many personal examples can be found that show how very real aggressive driving is for those who experience it firsthand.
  
  
• What AAA has done. AAA has released several types of public outreach materials designed to raise awareness about and reduce the occurrence of aggressive driving. These include the following:
  - A brochure entitled, "Don't Offend, Don't Engage, Adjust Your Attitude."
  - Four radio public service announcements (PSAs)--two on road rage and two on red light running.
  - An anger management video on aggressive driving. The video is based on a medical doctor's work with "type A" male victims of heart attacks. Mr. Willis hopes the video, entitled "Preventing Road Rage--Anger Management for Drivers," will be used in driver education programs.
  
  
• Will these messages reach their intended audience? Mr. Willis said the anger management course shows very positive results.
  
  
• Simple rules to follow. Mr. Willis related several simple rules to follow on the road:
  - Don't make eye contact.
  - "Back off" and make appropriate apologies when possible.
  - Adopt the attitude of "Be My Guest"--let people pass, for instance.
  
  
• The way to change. Mr. Willis felt it would ultimately take aggressive law enforcement and prosecutorial approaches, along with a responsible judiciary, to change the way things are. Education and enforcement must go hand-in-hand to reduce violence on today's roads.

National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives
Trish Roberts
Ms. Roberts described the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) as a nonprofit organization representing state highway safety agencies. Her remarks on the progress of state programs addressing aggressive driving are summarized below.

• States have central role. States play a central role in aggressive driving programs. They administer Federal highway safety grant funds that support many educational, research, and public awareness efforts, for example.
  
  
• State program goals. Generally, the goals of state aggressive driving programs are to reduce the number of crashes, raise public awareness, and change attitudes. Aggressive driving is at the root of many violent and fatal crashes, and the problem is significant and growing.
  
  
• State program components. State programs generally include an enforcement component, PI&E initiatives, and legislation. Several states have such programs, including Arizona. Delaware has a "Take It Easy" program and Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., have "Smooth Operator" and "Highways or Dieways" programs. Ms. Roberts urged participants to call their state highway safety offices to start or support an aggressive driving program in their states.
  
  
• The enforcement component. The enforcement part of an aggressive driving program targets particular driving offenses by means of high-visibility and zero-tolerance approaches, along with new technologies. High crash and congested areas are targeted.
  
  
• The PI&E component. This part of an aggressive driving program generally focuses on the following behaviors:
  - Emphasizing common courtesy on the road.
  - Changing attitudes and behaviors of drivers.
  - Sharing strategies for dealing with aggressive drivers, including how not to become one.
  - Raising awareness.
  
  
• The legislation component. The following questions should precede new legislation proposals:
  - Are existing traffic laws being enforced and adequately adjudicated?
  - Are aggressive driving laws needed, or are existing laws sufficient?
  
  
• NAGHSR recommendations. Ms. Roberts related NAGHSR's position on aggressive driving as follows: NAGHSR--
  - Believes aggressive driving is a major highway safety problem.
  - Supports the use of advanced technologies.
  - Opposes the use of speed detectors.
  - Supports the Federal Government's RLR campaign.
  - Supports additional research on aggressive driving.

Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving
Lisa Shiekh
Ms. Shiekh, representing Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving (CASAD), a nonprofit activist group working to combat aggressive driving through public awareness and judicial reform, said that crashes occur 54 times a day and cause 3.5 million injuries a year. (Ms. Shiekh said that according to an American Enterprise study, you are 4,000 times as likely to crash in a car than a plane.) Thirty- nine percent of crashes involve alcohol or other drugs, while others, in CASAD's opinion, involve speeding, running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, and failing to yield the right-of- way. She described CASAD as a young and fragile grassroots organization formed to effect change through the following means:

• Creating nationwide education campaigns to remind drivers of the rules of the road. CASAD is working to assemble a safe driving partnership with other government and advocacy organizations. It believes that government will respond to people who come together to work for change. CASAD puts out a quality newsletter called "Road Rights" and has a website for the public to access.
  
  
• Demanding strong enforcement of traffic laws and greatly expanding the use of automated technologies and photo radar to detect speeders.
  
  
• Strengthening judicial enforcement of traffic fines and penalties.

The remainder of Ms. Shiekh's comments are summarized below:

• Current laws are not working. Many examples attest to this fact, particularly the numbers of repeat offenders, insurance-less drivers, and speeders. Crashes often are poorly investigated, with no charges filed.
  
  
• Crashes are usually not "accidents." Many drivers self-report that they are dangerous drivers.
  
  
• Trend is less enforcement. Statistics show a dramatic decrease in traffic law enforcement. For instance, a Philadelphia study, which compared traffic data from 1975 to 1995, found that police issued many more traffic tickets in 1975 than they did 20 years later:
  - In 1975, 16,000 speeding citations were issued, compared to 5,000 in 1995.
  - In 1975, 71,255 traffic signal violations were cited; in 1995, there were only 20,514.
  
  
• Carefree attitudes of courts. The city of Philadelphia is currently owed $334 million in unpaid traffic citations. We must hold drivers accountable, Ms. Shiekh stressed.
  
  
• What needs to happen. Ms. Shiekh suggested the following approaches to effect positive change in the area of speeding and aggressive driving:
  - A strong focus on changing and redressing driving laws getting away from "intent."
  - More accountability for drivers who drive on suspended licenses.
  - Adherence to a simple behavior-modification approach that punishes behavior before and not after things get out of control, i.e., enforcing speeding and red light running laws consistently will curb aggressive driving.

Audience Questions
Following their presentations, panel members fielded questions from participants, which are summarized
below.

Q. From a law enforcement perspective, how can we get our arms around a problem that involves such diverse groups as chronic offenders, those who use a car as a weapon, and reckless speeders and lane changers?
A. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has done much research on speeders and has found red light runners to be a "different body"--more likely to be male, younger, and with significant prior violations. The Insurance Institute believes in a straightforward approach to law enforcement, backed by technology, along with a prohibition on radar detectors and radar-detector detectors.
A. The profile of a violent offender describes one who is male, 18-26 years old, with previous violations and a tendency to use alcohol and drugs.

Comment: I do not believe enough attention is being paid to jurors on whom we depend to convict people. Jurors will "admit" to negligent driving, not to malicious driving, the thought being perhaps, "there for the grace of God go I." So, when you think about aggressive driving, think negligence; about road rage, think malice. A jury will not "cop" to malice.

A. I do believe the tide is turning in our favor. Prosecutors must be willing to keep bringing these cases, however, and not assume that jurors will not convict.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

DAY 2

Day Two: Luncheon Address

Michael Benjamin, Executive Director, Institute for Mental Health Initiatives
Mr. Benjamin spoke following lunch the second day about managing anger through self-examination and self-control, to prevent not only aggressive driving and violence but such negative health consequences as heart attacks and stress-related ailments.

He began by noting his "deja vu" experience upon entering the conference the day before. He was referring to when the National Association of Counties in 1974 launched a movement to decriminalize public inebriation in favor of treatment remedies. His job then was to educate people on alcohol as a treatable disease and on the notion that prevention works. Like people who deal with aggressive driving now, he dealt then with many cross-cultural issues and, as a trainer of law enforcement, empathized with their task of having to maintain public safety while accepting the new paradigm of treatment over arrest. But, continued Mr. Benjamin, the issue is much more than one of law enforcement in that it affects the entire community. He called for the inclusion of complementary perspectives on aggressive driving that would factor in the following elements:

• Violence Prevention.
  
• Understanding aggressive driving through a public health perspective.
  
• Intervention strategies.
  
• Self-examination.

The remainder of Mr. Benjamin's remarks are summarized below:

• The makeup of the aggressive driver. Mr. Benjamin reiterated behaviors identified by speakers the previous day as characteristic of aggressive drivers, namely their high-risk behavior, their often uncontrolled anger, and their propensity, when angered, toward violence. He identified violence as the leading cause of physical injury and emotional distress in the United States and identified aggressive driving as an aspect of violence.
  
  
• Recognition leads to solutions. Mr. Benjamin said that by recognizing violence and aggressive driving as a community problem amenable to public health solutions of prevention and intervention, strategies to combat them can begin to be implemented. These strategies would strive for the same kind of positive results and heightened public awareness attained in anti-smoking and seat belt wearing campaigns.
  
  
• The public health approach. The public health approach is multidisciplinary and invites many different strategies. Aggressive driving can be incorporated into driver education and anger management classes, for example.
  
  
• Modeling good behavior. "Kids have big ears," Mr. Benjamin reminded participants. It is therefore important to model good behavior for them, including behavior behind the wheel. Starting this educational process as early as possible will lead to payoffs in the area of aggressive driving, as well as in the home and community generally.
  
  
• Relationship to heart attacks. Mr. Benjamin distributed a questionnaire to participants, which he described as a tool used to highlight the relationship of anger to heart attacks. Called "Do You Have a Hostile Heart," this self-examination tool sought to get at anger stemming from a hostile outlook and a cynical view of peoples' actions. Questionnaire answers help people determine whether they have a "hostile heart," the message being "lighten up" or you will kill yourself, for internalizing anger hurts people and puts them at risk of heart attack.
  
  
• Tips to take home. Mr. Benjamin concluded his remarks by offering several tips and suggested approaches for dealing with the problem of aggressive driving:
  - Take a public health approach and embrace the wisdom gained from diverse perspectives and methods, which should include all segments of the community.
  - Use scientific data to support strategies and proposed approaches. Be clear on assumptions but know there are no "cookie-cutter" answers.
  - Keep elected officials informed: public dollars are needed to fund programs.
  - "Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate." Accountability is imperative for knowing what works and what does not, particularly in light of scarce resource dollars.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

Day Two: Breakout Session
Findings and Recommendations

Statutory Approaches / Applied Technology / Charging Decisions
Sentencing Strategies / Community Leadership / Enforcement Strategies

Presented by Breakout Session Moderators
The following recommendations and remarks reflect the consolidated comments of the breakout groups--two per topic area--that met over the course of the 2-day conference. Twelve groups met on six topics the first day, then merged into six groups the second day to combine and consolidate their recommendations under each topic area. Presented in plenary session the second day, these combined recommendations are summarized below by topic area.

Statutory Approaches
Heeding the pre-breakout admonition not to get "bogged down" in trying to define aggressive driving, the combined Statutory Approaches breakout group modified the NHTSA definition only to provide a context for its discussions. It defined aggressive driving as "the operation of a motor vehicle involving three or more moving violations as part of a single continuous sequence of driving acts, which is likely to endanger any person or property."

The group advised that states should look at their own laws to determine whether they can adequately deal with the aggressive driving problem at both the misdemeanor (not involving a crash) and felony levels (crash involving serious injury or death). It felt that most states should consider an aggressive driving law, if only for its social aspects. Also, states should examine their laws with the idea of combining offenses to derive a unique aggressive driving charge as something separate and distinct. The group felt this was a state and not a Federal issue and should be addressed by states individually, i.e., states need to come up with their own statutes, as did Arizona. Other states, like Maryland, do not even have a good reckless driving law. The group recommended that states consider the following points when enacting aggressive driving or related statutes:

• Conviction for an aggressive driving violation should involve a significant number of points and/or a minimum license suspension.
  
  
• Enhanced penalties should accompany repeat violations or those involving serious injury or death.
  
  
• The states and Federal Government should pass enabling legislation to permit use of advanced technology for enforcement.
  
  
• All states should implement public information and driver education programs on aggressive driving, to be taken during prelicense driver education classes and again prior to license reinstatement. Initial driver training programs should include aggressive driving and rage management training.
  
  
• Steps should be taken to have the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances--publisher of the Uniform Vehicle Code--develop a model provision pertaining to aggressive driving for consideration by the states.
  
  
• An analysis should be prepared and distributed of each state's statutes, both misdemeanor and felony, that are available to deal with aggressive driving. These statistics should be compiled and made available to other states.

Applied Technology
Highlighting highway construction as a top priority, though not necessarily a realistic option, the Applied Technology breakout group advocated the use of photo red light technology for traffic light violations and cited laser technology as having good possibilities if it is standardized nationally and accepted by the courts. The group also suggested the use of "tip lines" as a good public information and prevention tool. These and its other recommendations follow:

• Investigate the feasibility of using new laser equipment, currently in use in Europe, that can measure the distance between approaching vehicles.
  This technology may enable law enforcement officers to better enforce laws against "following too closely." This device will have to go through the process of establishing its accuracy and reliability to the satisfaction of police and judicial communities. It will need to be standardized nationally and accepted into evidence by courts in order to be effective.
  
  
• Promote the wider use of photo red light enforcement cameras.
  This is a proven technology that has achieved public acceptance and has been shown to reduce crashes. Photo railroad crossing enforcement was also recommended as a good tool.
  
  
• Promote the wider use of unmanned radar speed display devices.
  Some communities find that these machines have a calming effect in high-traffic speed areas and provide a good preventive measure.
  
  
• Expand the use of observation platforms such as aircraft, in-car video, and other equipment that aids the apprehension and prosecution of traffic violators who would otherwise be difficult to contact or to testify about.
  These vary in acceptability across the country, and must be accepted on a regional basis to be helpful.
  
  
• Establish "tip lines" to report aggressive driving. Tip lines allow people to "get it off their chest" and make for a good public information and prevention tool.
  Some members of the group find tip lines beneficial, in that the public feels they are contributing to the solution of a perceived problem. In any event, tip lines are helpful in identifying trouble spots and can assist in targeting traffic enforcement efforts. [An audience participant suggested allowing the witnessing driver to start prosecution against the violating driver via the tip line.]
  

Other (technology-related) Recommendations

• Encourage jurisdictions with 911 systems to add *77 or 311 systems to facilitate handling of nonemergency traffic-related communications.
  
  
• Establish data links (automated reporting) from traffic officers' reports to the prosecutor's office, and otherwise facilitate better communications among different disciplines.
  This innovation would improve the speed and accuracy of officers' citations and complaints and would assist in the discovery process.
  
  
• Promote the use of electronic report writing.
  This technology promises to speed up citation and report processing, improve accuracy, and reduce duplicative effort, and is therefore more time- and cost-efficient. For instance, driving under the influence (DUI) arrests require the completion of multiple forms containing much common information, which would be entered only once. This technology includes "smart licenses."
  
  
• Create or adopt crash reconstruction software.
  The software could be placed on the Internet for all to access. It would have to be standardized to elicit recognition and value from the court system. This approach would provide for cheaper, quicker, and more accurate crash reconstruction reporting and may remove periodic retraining requirements.
  
  
• Explore the use of variable speed limit signs.
  These signs would allow the speed limit to be changed remotely and quickly to accommodate changing traffic conditions. (FHWA soon will conduct a project using this technology.)
  
  
• Encourage communities to take advantage of computer-based distance learning and other techniques, particularly given the national trend away from expensive, school-based driver education programs.
  Driver education is declining across the country, and the Nation's kids are suffering because of it. Through technology, distance learning could help fill in gaps caused by budget cuts.
  
  
• Promote ITS technology for its congestion relief benefits. Better roadway management will reduce congestion and frustration and related aggressive driving behaviors.

Charging Decisions
The Charging Decisions breakout group used the NHTSA definition of aggressive driving to guide its discussions. The group felt that no new statute was needed to deal with aggressive driving violations, as they are already covered by reckless driving laws. It called, instead, for written guidelines for use by prosecutors and law enforcement personnel in charging and disposing of aggressive driving cases. It also advocated education for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges, to raise awareness of the aggressive driving issue. The group made the following additional recommendations:

• The definition of aggressive driving should be included under reckless driving statutes and not broadened so as to narrow the definition of reckless driving. Aggressive driving per NHTSA's definition refers to reckless behavior and wanton disregard for other people. In states requiring legislative action, the aggressive driving behavior should be added to the reckless driving statute. In states that do not require legislative action, the term aggressive driving should be included on the charging document. The burden of proof for this offense should not require specific intent.
  Possible resolution of the decision to charge aggressive driving behavior as reckless could be determined by classification as Reckless I, Reckless II, etc., going from a misdemeanor to a felony, similar to Manslaughter I and II.
  
  
• Aggressive driving behavior should be a criminal (jailable) act and not a civil infraction.
  Handled as a civil case, it is too easy for aggressive driving cases to slip through the cracks. These cases could miss review by a prosecuting attorney and appearance in front of a judge, with negative social consequences. Recordkeeping and data entry would also be better.
  
  
• Written guidelines for prosecution and law enforcement should be developed by the prosecutor's office. Guidelines would provide uniformity and consistency with law enforcement officers in charging and disposing of cases.
  
  
• Law enforcement should provide detailed infromation to prosecutors and prosecutors to judges, along with the citation/charging document. This approach will assist prosecutors in exercising discretion in the charging and disposition decision.
  Detailed investigative reports can either strengthen the prosecution of the case or provide the necessary information for an amended or reduced guilty plea where appropriate. This additional detailed information will also allow judges to more appropriately sentence convicted defendants. There might be a case, for example, where an elderly or inattentive driver is driving recklessly under a technical definition of aggressive driving--though for reasons totally incongruous with an aggressive driving charge. Pre-trial diversion should remain an option when appropriate.
  
  
• Heightened awareness of the aggressive driving issue must be accomplished through professional education of law enforcement, prosecution, and judges.
  Perhaps similar success could be achieved for aggressive driving as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) achieved for impaired driving awareness.
  
  
• Because of the consequences or potential consequences of aggressive driving, it should have a high priority among law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.
  Priority can be elevated through securing additional grant funding and through education and training for prosecutors and judges.
  
  
• The charging decision can rest with the arresting officer at the misdemeanor level but should be referred to the prosecutor at the felony level. The initial discretion should stay with the charging police officer.

Sentencing Strategies
This breakout group felt that sentencing strategies should accomplish both traditional and nontraditional sentencing objectives. The critical question to consider is whether punishment of aggressive driving would best be accomplished through civil or criminal penalties and what the ramifications would be in each case. Whether civil or criminal, it is first necessary to determine how the charge would govern the sentence imposed in each case. While the breakout group was split over the civil versus criminal question, three-quarters believed it should be the prerogative of the officer and the prosecutor, based on the seriousness of the charge. Ninety-five percent of the group believed that if charged as a civil infraction, the aggressive driving offender should still have to face a judge in court. The group's findings, beginning with sentencing objectives, are summarized below.

Sentencing objectives include the following:

• Punishment or retribution.
  
• Rehabilitation.
  
• Deterrence--both general (i.e., public) and specific (i.e., offender), for the violator and society in general.
  
• Restitution.
  
• Protection of the public.
  
• Incapacitation (getting the driver off the road, perhaps by incapacitating the vehicle).
  
• Consistency (demonstrating fairness).
  
• Treating individuals fairly, e.g., not allowing people to "buy their way out."
  
• Fundraising (e.g., through surcharges). An aggressive driving charge should not be used to raise funds for the public coffers.
  
• Moving cases. The sentence should be conducive to moving cases through the court system and preventing backups.
  
• Judicial job security (public perception of judicial decisions). We do not want to turn judges into legislatively mandated "ogres" and, conversely, we do not want to prevent them from sentencing because of public opinion.
  
• Creating a perception that specific consequences follow certain actions.

Treating the offense as criminal will:

• Clog the court system with jury trials.
  
• Require appointment of public defenders. This will impact county and city budgets.
  
• Impose a criminal conviction on the offender.

Sentencing options that give judges flexibility are the best and should provide for the following:

• Withholding adjudication or expungement of conviction.
  
• Graduated penalties for first, second, and multiple offenders.
  
• Probation, so judges can maintain control over offenders.
  
• Possibility of incarceration, at the option of the prosecutor or charging officer.
  
• Enhancement of penalties for repeat offenders and mandatory penalties in certain circumstances, at the discretion of states or legislators.
  
• Community service, with pre-plea and post-plea options available.
  
• Education: Require people to complete certain types of treatment programs, such as the following:
  - anger management,
  - driver improvement,
  - victim impact panels,
  - alcohol/substance abuse, and
  - evaluation and counseling.
  
• Restitution.
  
• Driver's license suspension and revocation, particularly effective with young males.
  
• Restrictions placed on driver's licenses as a way for the court to maintain control over an individual.
  
• Impoundment or immobilization for repeat offenders, through such means as "clubbing" or "booting" vehicles.
  
• Letters of apology written to those victimized by aggressive driving.

Manner in which offense is charged governs sentencing strategy available:

• Half the group believed that aggressive driving should be charged as a criminal offense.
  
• Half believed that it should be charged as a civil (noncriminal) offense.
  
• Seventy-five percent agreed that it should be the prerogative of the prosecutor/officer to charge aggressive driving as a civil or criminal offense.
  
• Ninety-five percent agreed that if charged as a civil infraction, the alleged offender should be required to appear before a judge rather than simply mail in a fine.

Audience Questions
Following the presentation of recommendations from the Sentencing Strategies breakout group, co- presenter Judge Karl B. Grube fielded questions from the audience.

Q. Did anyone bring up the twist on the Immigration law, i.e., that conviction may bring deportation?
A. No, but it's a good question to consider.

Q. How do you impose probation without the offense being criminal?
A. You do not give the option of criminal versus civil to the prosecutor.
A. There could be aspects of a civil case where you require people to do probation-type activities to take off points and/or complete "fixes"--as with child restraint offenses that can be mitigated by showing proof of purchase of a car seat.

Q. As judges, would you prefer to see a defendant's driving record before sentencing?
A. Yes, judges need to see a sentencing report as a prerequisite to sentencing.

Community Leadership
The Community Leadership breakout group derived the following recommendations affecting several aspects of community leadership, including enforcement, education, message, delivery of message, and resources.

Enforcement

People in the community, i.e., the citizenry, can influence executive decisions to make enforcement a higher priority. This approach involves the community, heightens awareness, and results in better compliance. A campaign to increase public awareness can be combined with stiff penalties (e.g., mandatory sentences) for aggressive driving, incorporating lessons learned from DUI campaigns. Uniform enforcement is the key to having an effective statute. Public support can be gained from giving aggressive driving messages a "human face." Victims have a great impact, and all PSAs should show results of noncompliance. Overlooked constituencies that need to get the aggressive driving message include church-goers, soon-to-be drivers, and commercial drivers.

Education

• Identify additional groups for education on aggressive driving issues so they can help "get the word out." These include the following:
  - Insurers and insurance consortiums--could elicit the involvement of health insurers as well, with municipalities.
  - Educators. Aggressive driving behavior involves a personality issue to be brought to educators' attention. School-based educational efforts can be started earlier, with 6-9 year olds. Driver education programs in high schools should be restored as well.
  - Law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. Judges should be educated on the importance of traffic enforcement and encouraged to consider the significant impact that aggressive drivers have on the quality of life in communities. It is imperative to create public support for what law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges can do to address this problem.
  - Medical Community. Energize the medical community to make aggressive driving a public health and community issue, as with impaired driving.
  - Entertainment. Encourage people to make complaining calls to television shows that glorify and glamorize crashes and chases so as to educate the industry on the seriousness of aggressive driving, which tend to get trivialized in the name of entertainment.
  - Advertising. Advertisers need to learn to portray vehicles in a more realistic way, so as not to inadvertently encourage aggressive driving with vehicles designed less for mountains than roads, despite the send-up.
  - Community-oriented policing. People need to empower the police in their communities by telling them that they need local law enforcement.
  - Media and message. Innovative media and other strategies are needed to reach the high-risk population of 16-20 year olds. We must think differently and encourage media strategies that target the right group with the right message. Different media markets should be sought. Public television and radio spots reach wider audiences than newspaper op-eds, for instance.
  - Churches and civic groups. Churches and community-based groups should be made aware of the potentially valuable role they can play in raising awareness, particularly to young drivers, of the dangers of driving aggressively. Churches can also be used to reinforce the moral obligation to be a courteous driver.

Message

• Clear and uniform. We must define the message better and clearly state what aggressive driving is. The message should be cast in "real" terms, not abstract thoughts.
  
  
• Localized. While the basic aggressive driving message should be uniform, it should also be adaptable to meet the needs of a particular region, e.g., a different message may be needed for urban versus rural drivers.
  
  
• Financial cost. Attention to aggressive driving would help to reduce crashes and thereby decrease social costs, workers' compensation costs, etc. Advocates must have statistics ready.
  
  
• Personalized. Victims are willing to participate in programs. Victim involvement is a good part of an outreach strategy.
  
  
• Public transportation. Develop more alternatives to driving a car. Talk to public officials and legislators. Know who is in power and talk to the right people.

Delivery of Message

• Principal's committee. Bring everyone to the table who is involved in traffic enforcement, e.g., county executives, chiefs of police, prosecutors, etc.
  
  
• Speaker's bureau. Assemble and have available a pool of qualified speakers able to articulately and convincingly address the subject of aggressive driving at particular events, as requested.
  
  
• Publicity. Solicit opportunities to get the message out to the community.
  
  
• Innovative programs. Art contests, savings bonds, scholarship offerings, grants, etc., are examples of innovative awareness-raising strategies. Call a local television station and radio to publicize the event and get the message out.

Resources

• Video, print, speaker's kit. Readily available resources are needed to help judges and others speak in the community. Busy prosecutors could have a stock speech on hand, along with other materials adaptable to specific audiences.
  
  
• National clearinghouse. A clearinghouse could assist the collection of innovative ideas.
  
  
• Training materials. Training materials are needed to sensitize judges and to help prosecutors and law enforcement investigate and articulate aggressive driving concerns--so as to best put on the evidence. Adequate Federal Government funding on a national level is needed for this type of training initiative.

Enforcement Strategies
The Enforcement Strategies breakout group stressed that enforcement must be done with other parts of government. The group also encouraged the provision of Federal funds for programs at the state level and the establishment of one national standardized number for cellular phone users to report aggressive driving violations. To further extend the capabilities of law enforcement, the group advocated the use of red light cameras and encouraged multijurisdictional enforcement efforts among agencies. Its recommendations are summarized below:

• Encourage citizen involvement through the use of cellular phones and one nationwide, standardized number. One way to follow up on calls received would be to send a letter to the registered owner of the vehicle advising the owner of the complaint; other letters could be sent based on the number of complaints received or other criteria. Another follow-up possibility is to send an officer out to intercept the driver. Educate the public about recommended behavior when following someone they are reporting. This system allows law enforcement to use the eyes and ears of the public, and also allows the public to vent when they experience aggressive driving behavior. Local jurisdictions would be encouraged to have officers respond, if possible, or to educate the public.
  
  
• Use red light cameras as a means of extending the capabilities of law enforcement.
  
  
• Encourage multijurisdictional enforcement efforts among agencies. There is strength in numbers; agencies can share concerns, solutions, technology, and the media.
  
  
• Make Federal grant monies available to jurisdictions that encourage legislation permitting the use of technology to fight aggressive driving.
  
  
• Encourage the use of computer technology in officer cars. The development and acquisition of on-site information sources for police officers is a good idea and would give officers access to driver's license histories and to a database listing previous vehicle stops. This capability, developed through mobile data terminals and corresponding databases, could help identify chronic aggressive drivers.
  
  
• Utilize variable message signs to advise the motoring public of congestion, delays, and crashes, as well as detours and alternate routes. When no emergency situation exists, the signs could inform the public of positive, safe driving behavior.
  
  
• Encourage policymakers to establish aggressive driving as a priority by starting at the top and within law enforcement itself. CEOs within law enforcement agencies are the "generals" who decide which battles they will fight. Lawmakers, prosecutors, judicial officials, and others should also adopt aggressive driving as a priority issue.
  
  
• Provide Federal funds in the form of local grants to support innovative initiatives submitted by law enforcement entities. These initiatives should address aggressive driving through the application of creative or nontraditional enforcement practices.
  
  
• Mandate training for criminal justice practitioners on the technology being used to fight aggressive driving; i.e. radar, laser, auto sensing.
  
  
• Educate the public about situations that precipitate aggressive driving behavior and encourage appropriate responses. Voluntary compliance cannot be achieved solely by enforcement. Calming techniques, along with better reaction techniques, need to be communicated and shared with the public. It would serve the cause to get people help when they come to court on an aggressive driving charge.

Audience Questions
Following his presentation of recommendations by the Enforcement Strategies breakout group, Sergeant Bud Dulaney of the Prince William County Police Department took questions from the audience.

Q. Are you suggesting there be mandatory training for officers at the local level on the elements of enforcing the law or on the use and capabilities of advanced technologies?
A. Both.

Followup Comment: I (IACP representative) have a strong objection to mandatory training at the local level, and want my opposition on the record.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

Day Two: Summary Remarks

Phil Recht, Deputy Administrator, NHTSA
Mr. Recht provided closing remarks on the meeting, thanking those who helped to make it a success and summarizing some of the key points and recommendations raised by participants. He acknowledged the many different groups involved in bringing this aggressive driving symposium from concept to reality, including the intermodal aggressive driving team, whose members served as recorders. Special recognition was given to Kay Chopard, Office of Communications and Outreach at NHTSA, and to Chuck Peltier, Traffic Law Enforcement at NHTSA, for "keeping the flame burning" in the face of enormous demands and limited resources--a credit to their good relationship with the legal, judicial, and law enforcement communities. Mr. Recht then introduced Rose McMurray, the new Associate Administrator of the Traffic Safety Programs Office at NHTSA, and identified two people in attendance who, along with performing their regular duties, serve pro bono in the Judicial Fellows Program: Judge G. Michael Witte, Dearborn County Court, Lawrenceburg, Indiana, and Judge Karl B. Grube, Pinellas County Court, Florida.

Mr. Recht thanked all participants for their active involvement and their willingness to share their expertise and provide thoughtful recommendations. He said their input reinforced the notion of aggressive driving as a behavioral problem requiring education and good law enforcement solutions. Although recommended solutions may not fit every community, they are no less valid; they need only be adapted to a community's specific needs and makeup. This brought Mr. Recht to his main point: he strongly encouraged participants to put energy into implementing these recommendations, adding that symposium organizers would focus on the following:

• Eliciting media attention for this effort.
  
• Getting the meeting summary out to participants.
  
• Proceeding with the aggressive driving working group.
  
• Developing stock speeches for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and others to use in the community.
  
• Implementing other recommendations as its authority and resources allow, to help participants advance the recommendations that make sense for their communities.

Mr. Recht emphasized that attacking the aggressive driving problem demands a two-way partnership. State and local levels must work together with national resources and assistance. He called on participants to individually exercise their option to start immediately, to do something in their communities to further this effort, such as letting the press know they were here and what transpired. Bring your recommendations to reality, he urged participants, so we can say we participated in an event that led to the saving of countless lives and to solutions that improved our lives and made our communities safer and better places to live.

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

APPENDIX I: Symposium Agenda

Thursday, January 21, 1999

4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Registration
Room: Ballroom Foyer

Friday, January 22, 1999

8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Registration
Room: Ballroom Foyer

8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Moderators' Meeting
Room: Montreal

8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Continental Breakfast
Room: Ballroom Foyer

10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Opening Charge
Room: Salon A

Rodney Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

Remarks by:
Ricardo Martinez, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Kenneth Wykle, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Philip Recht, J.D., Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Technical Presentations
Room: Salon A

Moderator:
Philip Recht, J.D., Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Survey Results
Richard Compton, Science Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Research Report on Focus Groups
John Lacey, Principal Scientist, Mid-America Research

Overview and Background on Aggressive Driving
Janet Goehring, Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures

Enforcement Strategies for Aggressive Driving
Chuck Peltier, Division Chief, Traffic Law Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

12:15 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.
Working Lunch
(Participants seated by working group)
Room: Salon C

1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Panel Discussion: "Issues, Research and Approaches of National Organizations"
Room: Salon A

Moderator:
Judge Karl Grube, Pinellas County Court, Florida

Panelists:
Michele Fields, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
David Willis, AAA Foundation, Inc.
Trish Roberts, National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives
Lisa Shiekh, Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving

3:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Break
Room: Ballroom Foyer

3:15 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Breakout Sessions

Statutory Approaches A, Room: Salon B
Statutory Approaches B, Room: Suite 1509
Applied Technology A, Room: Washington
Applied Technology B, Room: Potomac
Charging Decisions A, Room: Salon A
Charging Decisions B, Room: Vintage
Enforcement Strategies A, Room: Paris
Enforcement Strategies B, Room: New York
Sentencing Strategies A, Room: London
Sentencing Strategies B, Room: Boardroom
Community Leadership A, Room: Montreal
Community Leadership B, Room: Tokyo

6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Reception
Room: Salon A

Saturday, January 23, 1999

7:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Registration
Room: Ballroom Foyer

7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.
Continental Breakfast
Room: Ballroom Foyer

8:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Breakout Sessions
(Subgroups from day one merge)

Statutory Approaches, Room: Salon B
Applied Technology, Room: Washington
Charging Decisions, Room: Salon A
Enforcement Strategies, Room: Paris
Sentencing Strategies, Room: London
Community Leadership, Room: Montreal

11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Professional Caucuses

Defense Attorneys, Room: Montreal
Judges, Room: London
Law Enforcement, Room: Salon A
Prosecutors, Room: Salon B
DOT Staff, Room: Washington

Moderators' Meeting
Room: Paris

12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Lunch with Speaker
Room: Salon C

Michael Benjamin, Executive Director, Institute for Mental Health Initiatives

1:15 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Presentation of Findings and Recommendations
Room: Salon A
By Breakout Session Moderators

3:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Closing Remarks
Room: Salon A

Philip Recht, J.D., Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List

APPENDIX II: Participant List

A-B / C-D / E-F / G-H / I-L / M-N / O-R / S-T / U-Z

Cheryle Adams
Media Events Planner
Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving
1301 15th Street, NW, #515, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 232-3259, Fax: (202) 265-2589

Mr. Richard B. Alpert
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Tarrant County District Attorney's Office
401 West Belknap, Fort Worth, TX 76196
Phone: (817) 884-1918, Fax: (817) 884-2499
E-mail: palpert@tarrantcounty.com

Ms. Marilena Amoni
Director
Office of Traffic Injury Control Programs
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-4913, Fax: (202) 366-7721
E-mail: mamoni@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. Chris P. Andrian
Criminal Defense Attorney
100 Medocino Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Phone: (707) 527-9381, Fax: (707) 526-9051

Mr. Lon Arend
Assistant State's Attorney
State Attorney's Office
Courthouse
115 East Oak Street, 3rd Floor, Arcadia, FL 34266
Phone: (941) 993-4881, Fax: (941) 993-4890
E-mail: slothfeet@aol.com

Major William H. Arrington
Maryland State Police
1201 Reisterstown Road, Pikesville, MD 21208
Phone: (410) 799-2101, Fax: (410) 653-3293

Mr. Emmett Ballard
DUI Assistant Prosecutor
West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney's Institute
1206 Kawawba Boulevard, E, Suite 207, Charleston, WV 25301

Mr. John E. Balser
Highway Safety Specialist
NHTSA, Region VIII
555 Zang Street, Room 430, Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: (303) 969-6917, Fax: (303) 969-6294
E-mail: jbalser@nhtsa.dot.gov

Colonel John F. Bardelli
Commanding Officer
Division of State Police
Connecticut Department of Public Safety
111 Country Club Road, PO Box 2794, Middletown, CT 06457
Phone: (860) 685-8000, Fax: (860) 685-8354

Mr. Michael J. Barrasse
District Attorney
Lackawanna County Courthouse
200 North Washington Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: (717) 963-6717, Fax: (717) 963-6465

Mr. Michael L. Benjamin
Executive Director
Institute for Mental Health Initiatives
4545 42nd Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 364-7111, Fax: (202) 363-3891
E-mail: michael.benjamin@imhi.org

Deputy Chief Thomas A. Blatter
Fitchburg Police Department
5791 Lacy Road, Fitchburg, WI 53711-5363
Phone: (608) 278-2940, Fax: (608) 278-2950

Lt. Colonel James B. Bolger
Deputy Director
Michigan State Police
714 South Harrison Road, East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: (517) 336-6163, Fax: (517) 336-6551

Major Kenneth A. Bouche
Illinois State Police
9511 West Harrison Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Phone: (847) 294-4443, Fax: (847) 294-4440
E-mail: bouche@isphost.state.il.us

Mr. Sean M. Byrne
Executive Director
New York Prosecutors Training Institute
150 State Street, 5th floor, Albany, NY 12207
Phone: (518) 432-1100, Fax: (518) 432-1180

back to top

Mr. Frank Calhoun
Legislation and Regulations
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4223, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-0761

Mr. James L. Camblos, III
Commonwealth Attorney
Albemarle County
410 East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (804) 972-4072, Fax: (804) 972-4093
E-mail: jcamblos@albemarle.org

Mr. James M. Catterson
District Attorney
Sulfolk County
North County Complex
Veteran's Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (516) 853-4169, Fax: (516) 853-5820

Mr. Joseph L. Chambers
Director
Prosecuting Attorney's Council
3200 Highlands Parkway, Suite 420, Smyrna, GA 30082-5192
Phone: (770) 438-2550, Fax: (770) 438-6121
E-mail: jlchambers@worldner.att.net

Judge William D. Chisholm
District Court Judge
District Court 30-2-01
984 Water Street, Meadville, PA 16335
Phone: (814) 724-2736, Fax: (814) 333-6587

Ms. Kay Chopard
Elected Officials Liaison
Office of Communication & Outreach
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5119, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2723, Fax: (202) 366-6916
E-mail: kchopard@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. Timothy E. Clarke
Attorney
Law Office of Timothy E. Clarke
30 Courthouse, #401, Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 217-9379, Fax: (301) 738-5683
E-mail: clarkelaw@aol.com

Mr. Lee G. Cohen
Assistant State's Attorney
State Attorney's Office
201 Southeast Sixth Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 831-8446, Fax: (954) 831-8487

Ms. Janet Coleman
Office of Highway Safety
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3407, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-4668

Mr. Richard Compton
Science Advisor
Office of Research and Traffic Records
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6240, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2699, Fax: (202) 366-7096

Mr. Marty Conboy
Omaha City Prosecutor
City of Omaha
2-West Hall of Justice, Omaha, NE 68183
Phone: (402) 444-5293, Fax: (402) 444-7730
E-mail: mconboy@ci.omaha.ne.us

Mr. Frederick M. Conrad
Attorney
Frederick M. Conrad, Attorney at Law
908 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, FL 32303
Phone: (850) 222-4005, Fax: (850) 224-9335
E-mail: conrad813@aol.com

Mr. Kenneth W. Copeland
Regional Program Manager
NHTSA, Region VI
819 Taylor Street, Room 8A38, Fort Worth, TX 76102-6177
Phone: (817) 978-0120, Fax: (817) 978-8339

Mr. Jack F. Cronan
Executive Assistant State's Attorney
Office of Chief State's Attorney
300 Corporate Place, Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Phone: (860) 258-5919, Fax: (860) 258-5858

Mr. Cabell C. Cropper
Executive Director
National Criminal Justice Association
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 618, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 624-1441, Fax: (202) 508-3859

Chief Sam Dawson
Sandy City Police Department
10000 Centennial Parkway, Sandy, UT 84070
Phone: (801) 568-7214, Fax: (801) 568-7226

Ms. Adele Derby
Associate Administrator
State and Community Services
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5238, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2121
E-mail: aderby@nhtsa.dot.gov

Ms. Angelique Dorsey
Office of the Chief Counsel
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-1824

Chief John M. Douglass
Overland Park Police Department
12400 Foster, Overland Park, KS 66213
Phone: (913) 327-6937
Fax: (913) 327-5735
E-mail: jmdougla@opkansas.org

Ms. Sara L. Drawdy
13th Circuit Solicitor's Office
305 East North Street, Suite 325, Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 467-8625, Fax: (864) 467-8610
E-mail: sdrawdy@greenvillecounty.org

Mr. Joel L. Dryer
Assistant Prosecutor
Fayette County Attorney's Office
120 East Charles Street, Oelwein, IA 50662-1799
Phone: (319) 283-1211, Fax: (319) 283-1213
E-mail: jdryer@trxinc.com

Sergeant Bud Dulaney
National Capitol Smooth Operator Program
Coordinator
Prince William County Police Department
15949 Cardinal Drive, Woodbridge, VA 22191
Phone: (703) 792-7283, Fax: (703) 792-7269
E-mail: bdulaney@pwcgov.org

back to top

Ms. Patty Ellison-Potter
Research and Evaluation Division
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6240, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-5586, Fax: (202) 366-7096

Sergeant James T. Farrell
Suffolk County Police - Highway Patrol
30 Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank, NY 11980
Phone: (516) 854-7300, Fax: (516) 854-7311
E-mail: wtffromli@aol.com

Mr. George M. Ferris
Regional Program Manager for Enforcement
NHTSA, Region V
19900 Governors Drive, Suite 201, Olympia Fields, IL 60461
Phone: (708) 503-8892, Fax: (708) 503-8991
E-mail: gferris@nhtsa.dot.gov

Ms. Michele Fields
General Counsel
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 247-1500, Fax: (703) 247-1588

Mr. Newman Flanagan
Executive Director
National District Attorneys' Association
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 549-9222, Fax: (703) 836-3195

Mr. Maurice Foster
Deputy Executive Director
National Bar Association
1225 11th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 842-3900, Fax: (202) 289-6170

Mr. Jim P. Fox
District Attorney
County of San Mateo
400 County Center, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 363-4671, Fax: (650) 363-4873
E-mail: jfox@co.sanmateo.ca.us

Ms. Nicole Fradette
Office of the Chief Counsel
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-1824

back to top

Captain Donald P. Garrett
Division Commander
Virginia State Police
9801 Braddock Road, Fairfax, VA 22032
Phone: (703) 323-4500, Fax: (703) 323-4565

Mr. Thomas R. Genest
Grant Coordinator (Aggressive Driving)
Institute of Police Technology & Management
12000 Alumni Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224
Phone: (904) 620-4786, Fax: (904) 620-2453
E-mail: trgenest@aol.com

Mr. Bruce George
FRA
1120 Vermont Ave, NW, Stop 25, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-493-6288

Mr. Robert E. George
Prosecuting Attorney - Lawrence County
President, Missouri Association of
Prosecuting Attorneys
PO Box 69, Mt. Vernon, MO 65712
Phone: (417) 466-3747, Fax: (417) 466-3697
E-mail: rsgeorge@dialnet.net

Mr. Randal J. Giannetto
Attorney
Mowry, Irvine & Giannetto
25 North Center Street, PO Box 557, Marshalltown, IA 50158
Phone: (515) 752-4283, Fax: (515) 752-2514

Deputy Chief William E. Gielow
Milwaukee Police Department
749 West State Street, Room 708, Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: (414) 935-7201, Fax: (414) 935-7048

Ms. Janet B. Goehring
Senior Policy Specialist - Transportation
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 830-2200, Fax: (303) 863-8003
E-mail: jan.goehring@ncsl.org

Captain David P. Gonzales
Operations Region Commander
Arizona Department of Public Safety
PO Box 6638, Phoenix, AZ 85005
Phone: (602) 223-2812, Fax: (602) 223-2508

Ms. Susan Gorcowski
Director
Office of Communication and Outreach
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5119, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-9294, Fax: (202) 366-6916
E-mail: sgorcowski@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. George B. Gotschalk
Chief of Standards and Training
Department of Criminal Justice Services
805 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 786-8001, Fax: (804) 692-0948
E-mail: ggotschalk.dcjs@state.va.us

Mr. Peter J. Grady
Assistant Iowa Attorney General
Department of Justice
1300 East Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319
Phone: (515) 281-5428, Fax: (515) 281-4313
E-mail: pgrady@ag.state.ia.us

Judge James A. Gramling, Jr.
Municipal Judge
Milwaukee Municipal Court
951 North James Lovell Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: (414) 286-3809, Fax: (414) 286-3617

Mr. Jack Grant
Technical Management Specialist
International Association of Chiefs of Police
515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 836-6767, Fax: (703) 836-4543

Magistrate Louis A. Gresh
Magistrate Judge
Douglas County Combined Courts
State of Colorado
4000 Justice Way, Castle Rock, CO 80104
Phone: (303) 663-7243, Fax: (303) 688-0802

Judge Patricia W. Griffin
Chief Magistrate
Justice of the Peace Courts
Family Court Building, Suite 120, Georgetown, DE 19947
Phone: (302) 856-5871, Fax: (302) 856-5919
E-mail: patricia_griffin@state.de.us

Judge Karl B. Grube
State of Florida
150 5th Street, North - Room 304, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 582-7880, Fax: (727) 582-7209
E-mail: kgrube@co.pinellas.fl.us

Trooper Douglas R. Haefner
Iowa State Patrol
1510 West 1st Street, Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Phone: (319) 266-2678, Fax: (319) 266-2228

Lt. Judy Hamaker
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2749, Fax: (202) 366-7721

Judge Eugene N. Hamilton
Chief Judge
Superior Court of District of Columbia
500 Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 879-1600, Fax: (202) 879-7830
E-mail: hamilton@yahoo.com

Mr. Earl Hardy
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-4292, Fax: (202) 366-7721

Mr. Michael P. Harty
Resource Attorney
Vermont Department of State's Attorneys
12 Baldwin Street, Montpelier, VT 05633
Phone: (802) 828-2891, Fax: (802) 828-2881
E-mail: mharty@sas.state.vt.us

Mr. William C. Head
Attorney At Law
Head, Thomas & Webb LLC
750 Hammond Drive, Building 12, Suite 100, Atlanta, GA 30328
Phone: (404) 250-1113, Fax: (404) 250-1494
E-mail: wchead@mindspring.com

Chief Robert L. Herndon
Allendale Police Department
290 Franklin Turnpike, Allendale, NJ 07401
Phone: (201) 825-1900, Fax: (201) 825-3555
E-mail: apdadmin@allendalepd.org

Mr. Herman Herzbrun
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney
3031 Torrance Boulevard, Torrance, CA 90503
Phone: (310) 618-2741, Fax: (310) 618-2749

Ms. Jennifer Higley
Office of State and Community Services
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5238, Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Jill Hochman
Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3401, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-5370

Mr. Charles M. Hollis
Chief of Adjudication Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice
810 7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531
Phone: (202) 616-3218, Fax: (202) 616-2421

Mr. Roger R. Holthaus
Attorney
Holthaus Law Office
440 Regency Parkway, Suite 240, Omaha, NE 68114
Phone: (402) 397-2199, Fax: (402) 397-3923
E-mail: rholthaus@msn.com

Colonel M. Wayne Huggins
Superintendent
Virginia Department of State Police
PO Box 27472, Richmond, VA 27472
Phone: (804) 674-2087, Fax: (804) 674-2132
E-mail: suptvsp@sprintmail.com

Chief Harold L. Hurtt
Phoenix Police Department
620 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 262-7000, Fax: (602) 495-0356

back to top

Deputy Chief Jim Johns
Reno Police Department
PO Box 1900, Reno, NV 89501
Phone: (775) 334-3881, Fax: (775) 334-2157

Mr. Cleve Johnson
Attorney of Law
825 South Front Street, Columbus, OH 43206
Phone: (614) 299-8235, Fax: (614) 445-8774

Mr. Denny Judyicki
Director
Research, Development and Technology
FHWA
6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296
Phone: (202) 493-3165, Fax: (202) 493-3170

Mr. John Kaye
Prosecutor
Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office
71 Monument Park, Freehold, NJ 07728
Phone: (732) 431-7204, Fax: (732) 409-3673
E-mail: jkaye@monmouth.com

Chief Terry M. Keefe
West Valley City Police Department
3600 South Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119
Phone: (801) 963-3303, Fax: (801) 963-3555
E-mail: tkeefe@ci.west-valley.ut.us

Ms. Gwen R. Keyes
Solicitor General
DeKalb County
556 N. McDonough, Suite 500, Decatur, GA 30030
Phone: (404) 371-2201, Fax: (404) 371-7048
E-mail: gkeyes@mindspring.com

Judge Connie W. Kittrell
City Judge
City of Gallatin, Tennessee
132 West Main Street, Gallatin, TN 37066
Phone: (615) 452-5400, Fax: (615) 451-5916

Mr. William G. Kootsikas
NHTSA, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 17T30, Atlanta, GA 30127
Phone: (404) 562-3739, Fax: (404) 562-3763

Colonel Neil F. Kurlander
Maryland Heights Police Department
212 Milwell Drive, Maryland Heights, MO 63043
Phone: (314) 298-8700, Fax: (314) 298-9217
E-mail: nkurlander@marylandheights.com

Commander Jim LaMunyon
Washington State Patrol
PO Box 42600, Olympia, WA 98504-2600
Phone: (360) 586-2340, Fax: (360) 586-1628

Mr. Gary E. Lacey
Lancaster County Attorney
Lancaster County (NE) Attorney
555 South 10th Street, Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 441-7341, Fax: (402) 441-7336
E-mail: glacey@ci.lincoln.ne.us

Mr. John H. Lacey
Principal Scientist
Mid-America Research Institute, Inc.
PO Box 3329, Shepherdstown, WV 25443
Phone: (304) 876-1501, Fax: (304) 876-1701
E-mail: jlacey@mid-amer.com

Mr. Ray Larson
Fayette Commonwealth's Attorney
116 North Upper Street, Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (606) 246-2060, Fax: (606) 246-2066
E-mail: rlar843@aol.com

Major Stephen C. Leary
Massachusetts State Police
612 Main Street, Holden, MA 01520
Phone: (508) 829-5336, Fax: (508) 792-7779
E-mail: stephen.leary@pol.state.ma.us

Ms. Sonya J. Leerkamp
Prosecuting Attorney
Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office
1 Hamilton Square, Suite 134, Noblesville, IN 46060-2230
Phone: (317) 776-8595, Fax: (317) 776-8469
E-mail: sjl@co.hamilton.in.us

Judge Samuel Levine
Nassau County District Court
99 Main Street, Hempstead, NY 11550
Phone: (516) 572-2166, Fax: (516) 572-2507

Lt. Colonel John B. Lile
Kentucky State Police
919 Versailles Road, Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: (502) 695-6300, Fax: (502) 573-1479

Mr. Ron Lipps
Maryland State Office of Traffic and Safety
7641 Connolly Drive , Hanover, MD 21076
Phone: (410) 787-4017, Fax: (410) 787-5823

Ms. Cassandra Penn Lucas
Assistant Director
District of Columbia Courts
Center for Education, Training and Development
515 5th Street, NW, Room 103, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 879-0483, Fax: (202) 879-0489

back to top

Mr. John G. Maddox
District Attorney
Eighth Judicial District
Kay County Courthouse, Newkirk, OK 74647
Phone: (580) 362-2571, Fax: (580) 362-2335

Judge Stephen J. Maggio
Municipal Court Judge
City of Gulfport - Mississippi
PO Box 685, Gulfport, MS 39502
Phone: (228) 865-7216, Fax: (228) 865-9137
E-mail: smatty@sunherald.infi.net

Mr. John B. Mancke, Esq.
Mancke, Wagner, Hershey, & Tully
2233 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone: (717) 234-7051, Fax: (717) 234-7080

Colonel J. Thomas Manger
Fairfax County Police Department
4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 246-2195, Fax: (703) 246-3876
E-mail: jmange@co.fairfax.va.us

Major Gary L. Marsden
Field Operations Officer
Wyoming Highway Patrol
PO Box 1708, Cheyenne, WY 82003
Phone: (307) 777-4301, Fax: (307) 777-4282

Ms. Ellen Marshall
Director
District of Columbia Courts
Center for Education, Training and Development
515 5th Street, NW, Rm 103, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 879-0481, Fax: (202) 879-0489
E-mail: marshknop@aol.com

Colonel Kenneth B. Marshall
Superintendent
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223
Phone: (614) 466-2990, Fax: (614) 752-6409

Dr. Ricardo Martinez, MD
Administrator
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5220, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-1836
E-mail: rmartinez@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. John B. McCallum
Washington State Patrol
Law Enforcement Liaison Officer
Office of Safety
FRA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 493-6277, Fax: (202) 493-6265
E-mail: john.mccallum@fra.dot.gov

Mr. James McCauley
Office of Motor Carriers, Safety and Technology
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3419, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-0133
E-mail: jim.mccauley@fhwa.dot.gov

Judge Patrick E. McGann
Supervising Judge
Chicago Traffic Center
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
321 North LaSalle Street, Room 120, Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: (312) 822-3530, Fax: (312) 822-3640

Mr. Odell Gene McGhee
Special Prosecutor
Polk County Attorney's Office
206 6th Avenue, Suite 200, Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: (515) 286-3687, Fax: (515) 286-3428
E-mail: odellmc@attorney.co.polk.ia.us

Mr. Samuel J. McKee
Deputy District Attorney
Sonoma County, California
District Attorney's Office
600 Administration Drive, Room 212J, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Phone: (707) 527-2311, Fax: (707) 527-2762

Sheriff Philip H. McKelvey
Dorchester County Sheriff's Office
829 Fieldcrest Road, Cambridge, MD 21613
Phone: (410) 228-4160, Fax: (410) 228-9869

Superintendent James W. McMahon
New York State Police
1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22, Albany, NY 12226
Phone: (518) 457-6721, Fax: (518) 485-7505

Ms. Rose A. McMurray
Associate Administrator
Traffic Safety Programs
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5125, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-1755, Fax: (202) 366-7149
E-mail: rmcmurray@nhtsa.dot.gov

Ms. Virginia Miller
Special Assistant
Office of Public Affairs
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4207, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-0660

Chief Tommy Moffett
Director
Biloxi Police Department
1045 Howard Avenue, Biloxi, MS 39564
Phone: (228) 435-6100, Fax: (228) 435-6144

Judge Gregory P. Mohr
Justice of the Peace/City Judge
State of Montana
123 West Main Street (Nutter Building), Sidney, MT 59670
Phone: (406) 482-2815, Fax: (406) 482-6885

Ms. Tracy J. Molick
Prosecutor
Cass County State's Attorney's Office
211 9th Street, South, PO Box 2806, Fargo, ND 58108
Phone: (701) 241-5850, Fax: (701) 241-5838
E-mail: molickt@co.cass.nd.us

Mr. Barry E. Morgan
Solicitor General
Cobb State Court
12 East Park Square, Suite 101B, Marietta, GA 30090
Phone: (770) 528-8585, Fax: (770) 528-8536
E-mail: ccgsolicitorgen@mindspring.com

Mr. A. N. Moser, Jr.
Executive Director
National Sheriffs' Association
1450 Duke Street, Suite 205, Alexandria, VA 22314-3490
Phone: (800) 424-7827, Fax: (703) 683-6541

Mr. James Nichols
Director
Office of Research and Traffic Records
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6240, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-9591
E-mail: jnichols@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. Gerald E. Nora
Executive Assistant State's Attorney for Policy
Cook County State's Attorney's Office
541 Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 603-4897, Fax: (312) 603-4708

back to top

Ms. Joe Ann O'Hara
Traffic Law Enforcement Division
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-0321, Fax: (202) 366-7721
E-mail: joe.ann.ohara@nhtsa.dot.gov

Mr. Jack Oates
Division Chief, Implementation
Office of State and Community Services
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5238, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2730

Mr. Chuck Peltier
Division Chief
Traffic Law Enforcement
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-4295, Fax: (202) 366-7721
E-mail: chuck.peltier@nhtsa.dot.gov

Judge Robert K. Pirraglia
Rhode Island District Court
1 Dorrance Plaza, Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 458-5201, Fax: (401) 861-9570
E-mail: rijudge@ids.net

Mr. Joseph N. Ponteen
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Justice
6040 Castle Coakley, Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820
Phone: (340) 773-0295, Fax: (340) 773-1425

Judge J. R. Powell
New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts
708 Lambs Road, Pitman, NJ 08071
Phone: (609) 256-8400, Fax: (609) 582-1699
E-mail: jrp@pitman.net

Captain Steve K. Powell
Colorado State Patrol
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80215
Phone: (303) 239-4532, Fax: (303) 239-4417

Mr. Walter B. Prince
Partner, Peckham, Lobel, Casey, Prince and Tye
585 Commercial Street, Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 367-2202, Fax: (617) 523-0977
E-mail: wbprince@plcpt.com

Sheriff Dwight E. Radcliff
Pickaway County Sheriff's Office
600 Island Road, PO Box 710, Circleville, OH 43113
Phone: (740) 474-2176, Fax: (740) 474-1798

Mr. Robert Ramsey
Burbage & Ramsey
434 Hamilton Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08609
Phone: (609) 396-7979, Fax: (609) 396-9383
E-mail: burbage@nerc.com

Mr. George L. Reagle
Associate Administrator
Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3103, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2519

Mr. Philip Recht
Deputy Administrator
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5220, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2775

Ms. Sandy Richardson
Traffic Law Enforcement Division
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-4294, Fax: (202) 366-7721

Mr. Edward A. Robbins, Jr.
Attorney
Lee, Murray & Robbins, PC
2801 Boulevard, Suite C, Colonial Heights, VA 23834-2323
Phone: (804) 526-4852, Fax: (804) 526-9392
E-mail: earobbins@aol.com

Ms. Trish Roberts
Governor's Highway Safety Representative
Delaware Office of Highway Safety
PO Box 1321, Dover, DE 19903
Phone: (302) 739-5995, Fax: (302) 739-4475

Mr. Henry C. Rockel
Regional Program Manager
NHTSA, Region III
10 South Howard Street, Suite 4000, Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 962-0077, Fax: (410) 962-2770
E-mail: hrockel@nhtsa.dot.gov

Chief MaryAnn Rodgers
General Crimes Section
DC Corporation Counsel
451 Indiana Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 727-9813, Fax: (202) 727-3733

Chief Inspector Roger Rokicki
Westchester County Department of Public Safety
Saw Mill River Parkway, Hawthorne, NY 10570
Phone: (914) 741-4203, Fax: (914) 741-4441

Ms. Patricia M. Rosier
Vice President (Sections & Divisions)
National Bar Association
6188 Oxon Hill Road, Penthouse Suite 801, Oxon Hill, MD 20745
Phone: (301) 567-6700, Fax: (301) 839-3900
E-mail: patmrosier@aol.com

Mr. Alexander M. Ross
Prosecuting Attorney
Upshur County West Virginia
West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney's Association
22 Central Avenue, Buckhannon, WV 26201
Phone: (304) 472-9699, Fax: (304) 472-1452

back to top

Ms. Sue A. Schenning
Deputy State's Attorney
Baltimore County State's Attorney's Office
401 Bosley Avenue, Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 887-6660, Fax: (410) 887-6646

Judge Charles A. Schneider
Franklin County Municipal Court
375 High Street, 13C, Columbus, OH 43215-4593
Phone: (614) 645-8206, Fax: (614) 645-7803

Mr. George Schoene
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3404, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2197

Mr. Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NHTSA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5129, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-9511

Captain Steve Sellers
Fairfax County Police Department
10600 Oage Avenue, Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 280-0551, Fax: (703) 280-0624

Mr. Nicholas F. Sewitch
Assistant Prosecutor
Chief of Fatal Accidents
Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 71, JFK Square, New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Phone: (732) 745-2606, Fax: (732) 745-2089

Ms. Gail Shibley
Director
Office of Public Affairs
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Lisa Shiekh
Citizens Against Speeding and Aggressive Driving
1747 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 265-5380, Fax: (202) 265-5380
E-mail: roadrights@aol.com

Judge Stephen R. Sirkin
County Judge
Wayne County Court
54 Broad Street, Hall of Justice, Lyons, NY 14489
Phone: (315) 946-5443, Fax: (315) 946-5428

Mr. Rodney E. Slater
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 10200, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-1111

Mr. David Smith
Office of Technology Applications
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 6311, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-6614

Judge Steve Smith
361st District Court
300 East 26th Street, Suite 305, Bryan, TX 77803
Phone: (409) 361-4380, Fax: (409) 361-4373
E-mail: ssmith@co.brazos.tx.us

Mr. Tom Smith
Director - Criminal Justice Section
American Bar Association
740 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 662-1510, Fax: (202) 662-1501
E-mail: tcsmith@staff.abanet.org

Ms. Suzanne Stack
Office of Highway Safety
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3407, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-2620
E-mail: suzanne.stack@fhwa.dot.gov

Mr. Keith L. Stoney
West Valley City Prosecuting Attorney
3600 South Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119
Phone: (801) 963-3331, Fax: (801) 963-3241

Mr. Earl M. Sweeney
Director, Chair
Highway Safety Committee - IACP
New Hampshire Police Standards & Training Council
17 Fan Road, Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 271-2133, Fax: (603) 271-1785
E-mail: emsweeney@compuserve.com

Assistant Chief Daniel E. Taber
Prince William County Police Department
1 County Complex Court, Prince William, VA 22192
Phone: (703) 792-6670
E-mail: dtaber@pwcgov.com

Colonel Arthur L. Taggart
National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives
408 Vine Lane, Amherst, NY 14228
Phone: (716) 691-8050, Fax: (716) 691-8050

Sergeant David W. Thomas
Delaware State Police
PO Box 430, Dover, DE 19903
Phone: (302) 739-5734, Fax: (302) 739-5982

Mr. Charles R. Theis
Assistant City Attorney
City of Milwaukee
749 West State Street, Room 205, Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: (414) 286-2676, Fax: (414) 286-2128
E-mail: ctheis@ci.mil.wi.us

Mr. Michael Trentacoste
Director, Office of Safety
Acting Director, Office of Operations
Research, Development and Technology
FHWA
6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296
Phone: (202) 493-3259

Captain Randy J. Tylke
Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department
821 West State Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233
Phone: (414) 454-4081, Fax: (414) 454-4083

back to top

Mr. Steve Urse
Executive Director
Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association
107 West Gaines Street, #119, Tallahassee, FL 32399
Phone: (850) 488-3070, Fax: (850) 922-0467
E-mail: stevur@worldnet.att.net

Mr. Stuart Van Meveren
District Attorney
8th Judicial District - Colorado
123 North College Avenue, #303, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Phone: (970) 498-7200, Fax: (970) 484-0423
E-mail: vanmevsa@co.larimar.co.us

Dr. Alexander Weiss, Ph.D.
Executive Associate Director
Northwestern University Traffic Institute
405 Church Street, Evanston, IL 60208
Phone: (847) 491-5231, Fax: (847) 491-5270
E-mail: alweiss@nwv.edu

Ms. B. Phyllis Whittiker
Program Attorney
National Judicial College
University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
Phone: (775) 784-1797, Fax: (775) 784-1253
E-mail: whittiker@judges.org

Ms. Erica A. Wilcox
Assistant State's Attorney
State's Attorney's Office
1112 Manatll Avenue, West, 6th floor
PO Box 1000, Braventon, FL 34206
Phone: (941) 747- 3077, Fax: (941) 747-1502
E-mail: eawilcox@aol.com

Mr. David K. Willis
President
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
1440 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 201, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 638-5944, Fax: (202) 638-5943
E-mail: dwillis@aaafts.org

Judge G. Michael Witte
Dearborn County Court
PO Box 521, Lawrenceburg, IN 47025
Phone: (812) 537-8874, Fax: (812) 532-2032

Mr. Tim Woods
National Sheriffs Association
1450 Duke Street, Suite 205, Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (800) 424-7877, Fax: (703) 683-6541

Mr. Kenneth R. Wykle
Administrator
FHWA
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4218, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: (202) 366-0650

Ms. Elizabeth L. Ziegler
Executive Director
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (573) 751-8763, Fax: (573) 751-1171
E-mail: ziegll@moago.org

Sheriff Steve C. Zotos
Sheriff of Douglas County
Douglas County Sheriff's Office
4000 Justice Way, Castle Rock, CO 80104
Phone: (303) 660-7592, Fax: (303) 814-8790
E-mail: szotos@douglas.co.us

back to top

Back to Table of Contents

Executive Summary / Introduction
DAY 1 : Opening Charge / Opening Remarks / Technical Presentations / Panel Discussion
DAY 2 : Luncheon Address / Breakout Session Findings and Recommendations / Summary Remarks
Appendix I - Symposium Agenda / Appendix II - Participant List