Unl i censedTO K i l l The

Sequel

Prepared by

Robert A. ScopatzClayton E. HatchBarbara Hilger DeLuciaKelley A. Tays

Data Nexus, Inc.

Prepared for

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety1440 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 201Washington, DC 20005Tel: 202-638-5944Fax: 202-638-5943www.aaafoundation.org

January, 2003

This study was funded by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in Washington, DC. Founded in 1947, the AAA Foundation is a not-for-profit, publicly supportedcharitable research and education organization dedicated to saving lives and reducing injuries by preventing traffic crashes. Funding for this study was provided byvoluntary contributions from the American Automobile Association and its affiliated motor clubs, from individual AAA members, and from AAA-affiliated insurancecompanies.

This publication is distributed by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety at no charge, as a public service. It may not be resold or used for commercial purposeswithout the explicit permission of the Foundation. It may, however, be copied in whole or in part and distributed for free via any medium, provided the AAA Foundationis given appropriate credit as the source of the material. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are notnecessarily those of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety or of any individual who peer-reviewed this report. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety assumes no liabilityfor the use or misuse of any information, opinions, findings, or conclusions contained in this report.

If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is only because they are considered essential to the object of this report and their mention shouldnot be construed as an endorsement. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety does not endorse products or manufacturers.

©2003, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Table of Contents

List ofTables.

List of Figures.

Acknowledgments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Issues

Research Methods.

Practices in Six States

Recommendations

1. Introduction to t h e IssuesDefinitions

Characterizing the Problem

The Paradox of Reinstatement

Evidence that Suspension and Other

Sanctions Work

Summary

2 . R e s e a r c h M e t h o d sReview of State Laws

State Site Visits and Interviews

State Comparisons

Standard Questionnaires

3. P r a c t i c e s in Six S t a t e sCalifornia Highlights

Florida Highlights

Iowa Highlights

Michigan Highlights

Minnesota Highlights

Oregon Highlights

4. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n sLaws to Combat Driving without a

Valid License

Procedures to Encourage Compliance

with the Laws

Systems and Procedures for Effectively

Sanctioning Violators

A p p e n d i x A.Fatal Traffic Crashes in the United States,1993-99

Analysis of the Data.Trend Analysis

A p p e n d i x B .License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashesby the State in Which the Crash Occurred

A p p e n d i x C.Age, Gender, and License Status of DriversInvolved in Fatal Crashes

A p p e n d i x D.Suspensions and Revocations Recorded forDrivers Involved in Fatal Crashes in theThree Years Preceding Their Fatal Crash,1993-99

A p p e n d i x E .Standardized Site Visit Questionnaires

Site Visit Questionnaire

Analytic Questions

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program

Graduated Driver Licensing

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program

Ignition Interlock

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program

Administrative License Revocation

APPENDIX EList of Study Participants

California

Florida

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Oregon

R e f e r e n c e s

A b b r e v i a t i o n s

List of Tables Table Pg

D.4 104Table Pg

2.1 24

3.1 28

3.2A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

A.5

A.6

2855

58

59

60

65

66

A.7 66

A.8 69

A.9 69

A.10 70

A.11 71

B.1 82

C.1 86

D.1 89

D.2 94

D.3 99

Earlier License Suspensions or Revoca-tions for Drivers from Participating StatesInvolved in Fatal Crashes with a RevokedLicense, 1993-99Impaired Driving Laws for the Six Partici-pating StatesImpaired Driving Laws for Other StatesLicense Status of Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes in the United States, 1993-99,and Comparison with Data Reported inUnlicensed to Kill for 1993-97Driver's License Status by Vehicle Type forDrivers Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1993-99Fatal Crashes and Fatalities by Driver'sLicense Status of Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes, 1993-99Driver's License Status by Gender andMedian Age, 1993-99Driver's License Status by Presence ofAlcohol, 1993-99Previous Driving While Intoxicated Convic-tions for Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashesby License Status, 1993-99Previous Suspensions and Revocationsfor Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes byLicense Status, 1993-99Drivers with Unknown License Status byHit-and-Run Status and Jurisdiction ofLicense Origin, 1993-99Vehicle Type Driven by Young UnlicensedDrivers Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1993-99Driver Outcome by Driver's LicenseStatus and Crash Mode, 1993-99Annual Driver's License Status Percent-ages for Each State, 1993-99License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashesby the State in Which the Crash OccurredAge, Gender, and License Status ofDrivers Involved in Fatal CrashesPrevious Suspensions or Revocations forDrivers with Valid Licenses by State orJurisdiction

Prior Suspensions or Revocations forDrivers with Suspended Licenses by Stateor JurisdictionPrior Suspensions or Revocations forDrivers in Fatal Crashes with a RevokedLicense by State

Prior Suspensions or Revocations forDrivers with Expired Licenses by State orJurisdiction

List of Figures

Fig Pg

A.1 57 Percentage of Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes Who Were Driving with an Aber-rant License Status, Ranked by the StateWhere the Accident Occurred, 1993-99

A.2 61 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Suspended or Valid Licensesby Age, 1993-99

A.3 61 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Revoked or Valid Licensesby Age, 1993-99

A.4 62 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Expired or Valid Licenses,1993-99

A.5 62 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers without Licenses or with ValidLicenses, 1993-99

A.6 63 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Suspended or Valid Licensesby Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

A.7 63 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Revoked or Valid Licenses byHour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

A.8 64 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Expired or Valid Licenses byHour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

A.9 64 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers without Licenses or with ValidLicenses by Hour when Crash Occurred,1993-99

A.10 65 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that InvolvedDrivers with Unknown License Status orValid Licenses by Hour when CrashOccurred, 1993-99

A.11 68 Percentage of Drivers with Suspended orRevoked Licenses Involved in Fatal CrashesWho Had Three or More Suspensions orRevocations in the Three Years before theCrash, Ranked by Licensing State, 1993-99

A.12 81 Trend in Aberrant License Status Percent-ages over Years for Drivers Involved inFatal Crashes, 1993-99

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the participation ofnumerous state agency staff members who were interviewed and whoprovided extensive documentation on the state procedures for unlicenseddrivers. A list of the study participants is provided in appendix F.

Robert A. Scopatz, Ph.D.Clayton E. HatchBarbara Hilger DeLuciaKelleyA. Tays

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r yIn 2000, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety published the report Unlicensed to

Kill, which was based on a study that examined the license status of drivers involved infatal crashes during the period 1993-97. The results showed that 20% of all fatal crashesin the United States involved at least one driver who did not have a valid license at thetime of the crash.

This report gives the results of a new study of state practices regarding driversinvolved in fatal crashes that also has updated and extended the findings of the originalUnlicensed to Kill report. The new study's reanalysis of the data in the first report (usingdata on fatal crashes from 1993 to 1999) confirmed its results: Approximately 20% offatal crashes involve at least one driver who did not have a valid license at the time of thecrash. These data also show a wide variation across states in the proportion of driversinvolved in fatal crashes who lacked a valid license—from a low of 6.1% in Maine to ahigh of 23.1% in New Mexico.

Furthermore, trend analyses show that the proportion of drivers involved in fatalcrashes who lack a valid license showed small but steady declines during the 7-yearstudy period. The proportion of suspended drivers (those whose licenses were suspendedat the time of the crash) involved in fatal crashes increased slightly, from 4.5% in 1993to 5% in 1999. But the proportion of drivers who were unlicensed; whose licenses hadbeen revoked, expired, or canceled; or who had an unknown license status all declinedby a small amount during the 7 years.

The Issues

The original Unlicensed to Kill report raised serious issues about states' ability tocontrol the unlicensed driving situation. First, to find out if unlicensed drivers are over-represented in the fatal crash statistics, it would be good to have a reliable estimate ofthe population of drivers who are unlicensed or driving under an invalid license. Sec-ond, to help states better understand and address the problem of drivers who operate amotor vehicle without a valid license, it is important to explain the reasons why statesdiffer so much in their overall experience on this issue, and why they differ in particulartypes of license status violations among drivers involved in fatal crashes. The questionsto be answered include:

• Why are some states' proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes who have anaberrant license status so much lower than the national average?

• Why do even states with very good records appear to have problems with particu-lar classes of license violations?

• For offenders driving under the influence of alcohol, how do the state's laws affecta motorist's willingness to drive without a valid license?

• What effect is there, if any, of recent laws suspending the licenses of people who

fail to pay child support or commit other offenses not related to driving?• How do state procedures for notification of changes in license status affect the way

courts and drivers behave?

• How do the enforcement of penalties for serious traffic violations and the prosecu-tion of repeat offenders affect the state's proportion of drivers without a valid li-cense?

• Are there other factors to consider, such as residency or citizenship status andinsurance costs?

This report seeks to answer each of these questions by presenting the results ofresearch in the context of the available literature, data, and expertise of practitioners atthe state and national levels. Chapter 1 introduces the issues and reviews the literature.Chapter 2 presents the methods followed in conducting the research. Chapter 3 pre-sents information on the laws, driver-control practices, and procedures of six states thatseek to reduce a person's ability to drive without a valid license. Chapter 4 presentsrecommendations gleaned from successful state practices that could be emulated byother states and promoted by AAA clubs.

To introduce the research problem, chapter 1 defines terms, reviews the literature,highlights findings of various researchers, and explains limitations on data and meth-ods. For instance, by setting the involvement rate of validly licensed drivers as the norm,one group of researchers calculated that drivers whose license has been suspended orrevoked are 3.7 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than are validly licenseddrivers and that unlicensed drivers are 4.9 times more likely to be involved in a fatalcrash. Their methodology has limitations, however, most notably the need to establishthe identity of the driver at fault in a fatal crash. Another problem is that it is hard toarrive at reliable findings for unlicensed drivers simply because so little is known aboutthem.

Another aspect of the problem examined is the "paradox of reinstatement": Driv-ers who have lost their license and have not had it reinstated may behave in a saferfashion than those who have had it reinstated or those who are granted a hardshiplicense. Still another aspect is the evidence that suspensions and other sanctions canhelp bring drivers back into compliance. For instance, researchers found that Floridadrivers who were convicted of operating their vehicles while under the influence ofalcohol and fail to "resolve" their behavioral issues before license reinstatement had75% higher violation rates and 97% higher crash rates than drivers who were reinstatedafter resolving their behavioral issues.

Overall, studies thus far of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revokedor who are unlicensed have been linked to recidivism of drivers suspended for drivingunder the influence of alcohol. More recent work has begun to look more closely atdrivers who were suspended for other reasons, but data on these drivers are lacking.

It is clear that well-crafted, aggressively enforced laws can have an effect on thebehavior of drivers suspended for driving under the influence of alcohol. It also seemsprobable that suspension of driving privileges is generally interpreted (by the drivers) tomean something short of a total ban. The majority of them still drive at least some ofthe time.

It is important to note that there are sizable gaps in the data available on drivers'behavior in general and that these gaps cause a corresponding lack of completeness inthe literature on traffic safety. Moreover, though it makes good logical sense that licensesanctions do work, the lack of complete data makes it impossible to be certain just howmuch of a deterrent is possible with license sanctioning programs. Because people con-tinue to drive while their license is suspended or revoked (and while they are completelyunlicensed), the general deterrent effect of license sanctions is not as strong as it couldbe. This report therefore seeks to answer the question of how best to develop programsto keep these drivers from behind the wheel—because if they do not drive, they do notcontribute to traffic safety problems.

Research Methods

In developing a list of sample states for the research, an attempt was made toidentify states that have enacted and studied the effects of laws such as administrativelicense suspension and vehicle actions such as impoundment. In particular, those statesthat were lower than the national average in the proportion of crashes involving driverswith any type of aberrant license status were considered candidates. The selection pro-cess was biased toward states with a large population so that any changes in the mea-sures reported in the earlier Unlicensed to Kill report and updated in this report could beviewed as real and not as an artifact of relatively small shifts in the population. Therewas no attempt to select states perceived as representative. Instead, a deliberate decisionwas made to focus on the states that appeared to have had some success at reducing thefatal crash involvement of drivers with an aberrant license status.

Once candidate states were identified, officials of each state were informed of thelevel of effort required to participate and were asked to provide written documentationof their problem of drivers operating vehicles with suspended or revoked licenses orwhile unlicensed and of their laws and procedures for dealing with problem drivers.Each state also identified key personnel that could be interviewed as the project pro-gressed. Six states ultimately agreed to participate: California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan,Minnesota, and Oregon.

The laws of the six participating states were thoroughly reviewed. Then membersof the project research team visited the states to gain a thorough understanding of thestate's laws and practices regarding licensure, loss of license, reinstatement, and penal-ties for violating the licensure provisions of the law. Standard practices in the enforce-ment and adjudication arenas were also explored through interviews with key personnelin each state's driver-control and -licensing branch of the department of motor vehicles.

Practices in Six States

The interviews with experts in the six states yielded useful information on theirvarying practices. These states represent medium-sized to large populations, and theyhave better than national average performance in the proportion of drivers in fatalcrashes who lacked a valid license. In addition, several of these states are recognizedleaders in laws, procedures, data systems, and analyses related to drivers with an aber-rant license status; the report highlights each state's activities in these areas.

The six states all have open container and ignition interlock laws. Three have spe-cial repeat offender laws on the books. Four allow vehicle impoundment. Two havespecial plates or markings for repeat offenders. Four allow vehicle confiscation. Andtwo can also block vehicle registrations by offenders who were driving under the influ-ence of alcohol.

The most notable comparison between all other states and the six participatingstates involves vehicle impoundment. The majority of other nonparticipating states(78%) do not have laws regarding vehicle impoundment; however, five of the six par-ticipating states do have such laws.

For each of the six states, the report offers brief descriptions of the range of bothapproaches that work and also barriers to addressing the problem. In California, forinstance, the vehicle impoundment program results in eventual forfeiture in approxi-mately half the cases. One principal barrier is that few of the drivers who are eligible fora restricted license ever apply for one.

In Florida, a citation-tracking system that supports analysis of the sequence ofevents related to each traffic citation has been put to good use analytically, especially inevaluating the program for motorists under the influence of alcohol. One barrier, how-ever, is that law enforcement officers do not always run a driver history check at trafficstops.

In Iowa, an information center assists those drivers seeking help in getting theirlicenses reinstated and to avoid getting a suspension for unpaid fines. One main barrieris that county attorneys are reluctant to prosecute for driving under suspension or revo-cation if the driver is also charged with operating while impaired.

In Michigan, the immobilization program effectively blocks registration of ve-hicles by drivers with suspended or revoked licenses. One main barrier is that check-points have been ruled illegal, making it harder for law enforcement officers to catchviolators.

In Minnesota, an early intervention program identifies drivers who are in dangerof having their license canceled and enables the state to influence those drivers' behav-ior before they cross the line. A main barrier is that conviction records are not always

10

coded properly, and thus drivers may legitimately claim that they did not know thattheir license had been canceled.

In Oregon, local lists of scofflaws are useful in targeting recidivist or problemdrivers. One main barrier is that local agencies are reluctant to implement a vehicleseizure program, partly because the law now requires a conviction before a vehicle canbe seized.

Recommendations

The report's recommendations, which are based on the interviews with experts inthe six participating states, fall into three broad categories. The first includes laws thatare effective in combating driving without a valid license:

• Implement and enforce administrative license revocation and suspension laws• Establish vehicle impoundment, seizure, and immobilization programs• Implement plate removal at the scene• Implement special plates or stickers as an automatic probable cause for a traffic

stop• Establish mandatory jail time for multiple offenders• Establish strictly circumscribed ignition interlock programs• Establish a separate law enabling license status checkpoints• Block registration of vehicles by drivers lacking a valid license

The second category of recommendations pertains to procedures that encouragecompliance with the laws:

• Establish strong administrative control of license actions• Establish driver assistance programs and informational campaigns• Reduce the possibility and use of plea bargaining through additional information

and education• Create links between driver and vehicle registration files

The third category of recommendations concerns systems and procedures thathelp law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and courts effectively sanction violators:

• Create citation-tracking systems• Convert to easy-to-use driver history records for police, prosecutors, and courts• Provide timely and accurate information in driver history records• Simplify the laws regarding license suspension

11

12

1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e I s suesA reanalysis of the data in the original Unlicensed to Kill report (which used data on

fatal crashes from 1993 to 1999) confirmed the results of that study: Approximately20% of fatal crashes involve at least one driver who did not have a valid license at thetime of the crash (see appendix A). These data also show a wide variation among the 50states plus Washington, D.C., in the proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes wholacked a valid license—from a low of 6.1 % in Maine to a high of 23.1 % in New Mexico.

Trend analyses (discussed in appendix A) show that the proportion of drivers in-volved in fatal crashes who lack a valid license (which will be referred to as having an"aberrant license status") showed small but steady declines during the 7-year study pe-riod. The proportion of suspended drivers (those whose licenses were suspended at thetime of the crash) involved in fatal crashes increased slightly from 4.5% in 1993 to 5%in 1999. But the proportion of drivers who were unlicensed and those whose licenseswere revoked, expired, canceled, or who had unknown license status all declined by asmall amount during the 7 years (see figure A. 12). (The terms used in this paragraphand other terms used throughout the report are further defined in the next section.)

The original Unlicensed to Kill report raised some serious issues about states' abilityto control the unlicensed driving situation. First, to find out if unlicensed drivers areoverrepresented in the fatal crash statistics, it would be good to have a reliable estimateof the population of drivers who are unlicensed or driving under an invalid license.Second, to help states better understand and address the problem of drivers who oper-ate a motor vehicle without a valid license, it is important to explain the reasons whystates differ so much in their overall experience on this issue, and why they differ inparticular types of license status violations among drivers involved in fatal crashes. Thequestions to be answered include:

• Why are some states' proportion of drivers with an aberrant license status who areinvolved in fatal crashes so much lower than the national average? Do they haveeffective programs in place that might work well in other states?

• Why do even states with very good records appear to have problems with particu-lar classes of license violations?

• For offenders driving under the influence of alcohol, how do the state's alcohollaws and administrative procedures affect a person's behavior with respect to thewillingness to drive without a valid license?

• What effect is there, if any, of recent laws suspending the licenses of people whofail to pay child support, library fines, or commit other offenses that are not re-lated to driving?

• How do state procedures for notification of changes in license status affect the waycourts and drivers behave?

• How do the enforcement and adjudication of penalties for serious traffic viola-

13

tions and the prosecution of repeat offenders affect the state's proportion of driverswithout a valid license?

• Are there other factors to consider, such as societal norms, residency or citizenshipstatus, and insurance costs? If so, how can these best be addressed, and by whichgovernment entities?

This report seeks to answer each of these questions by presenting the results of ourresearch in the context of the available literature, data, and expertise at the state andnational levels. This chapter introduces the issues in the context of a survey of therelevant literature spanning the past three decades. Chapter 2 presents the methodsfollowed in conducting the research. Chapter 3 presents information on the laws, driver-control practices, and procedures of six states that seek to reduce drivers' ability to drivewithout a valid license. Chapter 4 presents recommendations gleaned from successfulstate practices that could be emulated by other states and promoted by AAA clubs andthe AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

There is a growing body of literature related to state driver-control practices, inparticular the behavior of drivers with an aberrant license. All states face similar prob-lems in identifying these drivers, stopping them from operating a motor vehicle with-out a valid license, and ultimately bringing them back into compliance with state lawsregarding obtaining or reinstating a license. As will become clear from the followingliterature review, many of these issues center on controlling repeat offenders, especiallywith respect to state laws for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. A secondand inextricably related set of issues centers not on DUI but on multiple offendersagainst state laws regarding the payment of fines, attendance at mandatory court ap-pearances, and repeatedly driving without a valid license. Thus, a habitual drunk drivermay also be a scofflaw with respect to driving while suspended (DWS), and a habitualDWS driver may be one who earned that suspension not by drunk driving but byfailing to appear in court or pay a fine (related terms include driving while revoked, orDWR, and driving while unlicensed, or DWU). These issues are dealt with in detail inchapter 3.

Definitions

Throughout this report, the term "aberrant license status" is used to refer to driverswho lack a valid license. This term includes the following types of license status:

• Suspended: These are drivers who have temporarily lost their driving privileges fora period defined by law. Typically, they must also meet state- or court-imposed prereq-uisites for reinstatement, but they are eligible for reinstatement as soon as the suspen-sion period has elapsed.

• Revoked: These are drivers who have completely lost their driving privileges for anindefinite period. Like suspended drivers, before they can ever obtain a new license,they must satisfy all court- and state-imposed requirements. Typically, a driver whose

14

license is revoked is not eligible for a new license until a minimum period of time haselapsed. Typically, revoked drivers also cannot regain their driving privilege unless theygo through the full license application process.

• Unlicensed:These are drivers who, to the best of the state's knowledge, have neverheld a valid driver's license.

• Expired: These are drivers who, when their license was due for renewal, failed tocomplete the renewal process.

• Canceled: These are drivers whose driving privileges have been removed but typi-cally not because of a pattern of violations in the state. Cancellations may be imposedfor medical reasons (i.e., on a doctor's advice or because of a failed eye exam at thedepartment of motor vehicles) or because, after issuance, the state identified problemsin the driver's history when that driver transferred his or her license from another state.

• Denied: These are drivers who were denied driving privileges by the state for what-ever reason. Many states keep track of license denials using "dummy records" tied to theindividual so that individuals cannot easily attempt to obtain a valid license by going toa different licensing location in the same state.

• Unknown: This category is only meaningful as a notation in a data file (such ascrashes) and was included in the analyses presented in appendix A. It is not relevant fordiscussions of license sanctions with state experts as discussed in the main body of thereport.

Several terms having to do with state laws, licensing practices, and driver-controlprograms are used in the report. These are defined as follows:

• Administrative per se: This term describes the laws establishing an administrativeprocess for dealing with violations of the maximum allowable blood alcohol content(BAC) for drivers in a state. States with administrative per se laws also have a set ofprocedures in place for suspending the driving privileges of a person who violates theBAC limit without the need for a court trial—that is, the responsible state agency cansuspend a driver for a BAC violation even if the court does not convict him or her onthe corresponding DUI offense.

• Administrative license sanctions:This term refers to any sanctions legally imposedby state agencies without first requiring court orders. The exact scope, procedures, andlimitations of administrative license sanction programs vary among states. In general,they are used to provide rapid, consistent treatment of offenders against the state's DUIlaws or its DWS, DWR, and DWU laws. Typical administrative sanctions include li-cense suspension, mandatory evaluation or treatment, fees, and education.

• Court-ordered license sanctions:This term describes any license action ordered by

15

a judge. In some states, for example, only a judge can revoke a license, but the state'sdepartment of motor vehicles (DMV) can administratively suspend. In some states,judges also order suspensions.

• DUIor DWI: These acronyms refer to "driving under the influence (of alcohol orother drugs)" and "driving while intoxicated." State laws define DUI or DWI differ-ently but always with reference to the state's maximum allowable BAC. This is typicallyconsidered a serious moving violation and will often result in a mandatory court ap-pearance. In states with an administrative per se law, the fact that a driver was cited forDUI or DWI will also initiate the administrative penalties independent of the court case.

• DWS, DWR, or DWU:These acronyms refer to "driving while suspended," "driv-ing while revoked," and "driving while unlicensed." The term is used to denote theDWS, DWR, or DWU citation (a moving violation) and/or the license status of thedriver at the time of a crash or other event.

• Ignition interlock: This is a device that renders a car inoperative unless one ormore preconditions are met. In DUI driver-control programs, the typical ignition in-terlock device requires the driver to give a breath sample which is then analyzed for thepresence of alcohol. If there is alcohol present (above some minimum threshold value),the car will not start. Other variations are used to ensure that an individual does notoperate the vehicle, or is the only operator of a vehicle.

• Implied consent: States' implied consent laws typically define the rights and re-sponsibilities of drivers holding a state-issued drivers license. In particular, there is animplied consent to a blood, breath, or urine test for BAC. Violations of implied consentlaws typically lead to automatic (administrative or court-ordered) suspension of drivingprivileges.

Characterizing the Problem

Drivers who operate a motor vehicle without a valid license are believed to beamong the worst drivers on the road. This makes good logical sense from the point ofview that to drive under suspension or revocation, one must first have done somethingto earn that suspension or revocation. The case is harder to make, paradoxically, forunlicensed drivers, simply because so little is known about them (how many there are,what proportion of them are cited or convicted, and what proportion are involved incrashes).

DeYoung, Peck, and Helander (1997) attempted to estimate the exposure andfatal crash rates of suspended, revoked, and unlicensed drivers in California. Using aquasi-induced exposure method with data from two-vehicle fatal crashes, they wereable to estimate the relative overinvolvement in fatal crashes of drivers without a validlicense. The method developed a ratio (the involvement rate) of the proportion of driv-

16

ers at fault divided by the proportion of drivers not at fault for each of three license-

status groups: valid, driving while suspended or revoked (DWS/DWR), and unlicensed.

By setting the involvement rate of validly licensed drivers as the norm, they calculated

that DWS/DWR drivers are 3.7 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than are

validly licensed drivers. Unlicensed drivers are 4.9 times more likely to be involved in a

fatal crash. This methodology has its limitations, most notably the need to establish the

identity of the driver who is at fault in fatal crashes. However, it is perhaps the best

method we have now for estimating overinvolvement that corrects for exposure, espe-

cially for unlicensed drivers.

Other researchers have attempted to learn about the driving behavior of suspended

and revoked drivers using the interview approach. For example, Ross and Gonzales

(1988) interviewed 71 drivers whose licenses had been suspended or revoked because of

a DUI offense in Tucson, Arizona, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Of the 68 drivers

from whom complete information was collected, 45 (66%) reported that they contin-

ued to drive while under suspension. Age, gender, and repeat offender status make a

difference in this proportion, with 77% of young men driving while suspended relative

to 70% for all women, and 52% for older men. It is surprising that first offenders were

more likely to drive (94%) under suspension than were repeat offenders (52%), but this

result is likely due to the supervised probation program for repeat offenders in both

communities included in the sample.

California has recently received a grant to develop a more precise profile of thecharacteristics of drivers whose licenses have been suspended and revoked in general(not just DUI-related suspensions or revocations). This research will be useful in fur-ther defining the relative risk of crash involvement by these drivers. The results wereexpected to be published by October 2002.

The Paradox of Reinstatement

Several studies have shown that drivers with suspended and revoked licenses fre-quently never reinstate their license (or fail to apply for a new one). Given the higherrisk of fatal crash involvement associated with drivers who operate a motor vehiclewithout a valid license, the fact that as many as 50% of suspended and revoked licenseesnever reinstate their license gives cause for concern. Voas (2001) reported a study fol-lowing the driving records of 19,203 DWI first offenders and 6,927 DWI second of-fenders convicted in 1987 in Oregon. Three years later (in 1991), 50% of the firstoffenders and 7 1 % of the second offenders had not reinstated their license, despite thefact that for both groups the original suspension period had expired in 1988 or 1989.Because only 28% of DUI suspended drivers are cited for a moving violation or DWSduring their suspension, it is unlikely that the reason drivers fail to reinstate is that theirsuspensions have been extended for DWS or other violations. The failure to reinstateappears to be primarily a personal choice of the drivers, at least for DUI suspensions.

17

Paradoxically, there is evidence to suggest that these drivers, though they lack a

valid license, may behave in a safer fashion than those who do reinstate or those who are

granted a hardship license. Voas (2001) also presented data showing that for Ohio DUI

offenders, those who reinstated had consistently higher rates of DUI arrests, moving

violations, and crash involvement than those who failed to reinstate.

The key to explaining these results seems to be in an alteration of the drivingbehavior of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked. They do still drivebut probably drive less and take much more care when they do drive. Ross and Gonzales(1988) found that almost half (46%) of DUI-suspended drivers relied on another driverfor transportation during their suspension period. Those who did drive frequently re-ported driving more carefully to avoid being pulled over.

Evidence that Suspension and Other Sanctions Work

The reinstatement paradox reviewed by Voas (2001) raises the question of whether

it is safer to bring a driver back into compliance with state licensing laws or to let that

driver continue to drive without a valid license. The obvious policy problem with adopt-

ing a laissez-faire attitude toward reinstatement is that DWS drivers are generally not

insured and, though they may behave more safely than they would if they reinstated,

they are still not very good drivers to begin with and are still more likely than the

average driver to cause a crash. They are "safer" only in comparison with their own

earlier behavior.

Song and Jones (1991) described a similar problem when hardship permits are

granted to suspended drivers. They compared 3,425 offenders who were granted hard-

ship permits with a sample of 32,603 offenders who were eligible for a hardship permit

but did not request one, and they found that those granted a hardship permit had a

higher crash rate than the drivers who remained under suspension. The obvious expla-

nation for this effect was the higher exposure assumed for drivers who were granted a

hardship permit (and thus could drive legally) versus those who were still suspended.

Both groups were probably still driving, but the still-suspended drivers were probably

driving less, and perhaps, in addition, more cautiously.

Hagen (1978) provided evidence that suspensions have a positive effect on driver

behavior, even after eligibility for license reinstatement. He followed the 6-year driving

record of 1,501 matched pairs of multiple DUI offenders in California. One member

of each pair was given the mandatory license suspension or revocation appropriate for

their number of earlier convictions. The other member of each pair managed to avoid

the mandatory suspension through successful defense against the earlier convictions in

court. A survival analysis shows that the suspended drivers had lower recidivism of the

DUI offense and a lower crash involvement rate than those who "beat" the suspension.

These effects lasted longer than the suspension period.

18

Hagen did not report whether the suspended drivers actually did reinstate; how-ever, the duration of the effectiveness of the suspension action seems to coincide withthe end of mandatory proof of financial responsibility imposed on suspended drivers atthe time in California. Hagen supposed that the drivers had reinstated and that thisrequirement for 3-year mandatory proof of insurance served as a reminder to drivesafely.

Jones (1989) found a general deterrent effect for the state's implied consent law inthat the proportion of alcohol-related fatalities and night-time crash-related seriousinjuries both dropped in close temporal proximity to the passage of the law in 1983.California (Rogers 1995, 1997) found both a general and specific deterrent effect of thestate's administrative per se law (which became effective January 1, 1990). The generaleffect was shown through overall reductions in the accident rate timed to the imple-mentation of the per se law. The specific effect was found through a similarly timedreduction in recidivism among DUI offenders.

Grosz, Zeller, and Klein (2001) reported compelling evidence of a specific deter-rent effect of "alcohol problem resolution" (defined by the researchers as completion ofmandatory courses and payment of fines). Florida law allows DUI offenders to rein-state by showing proofof enrollment in an approved advanced driver improvement orDUI course. Some drivers reinstate at this point, whereas others reinstate once theyhave actually completed the course(s) and paid any fines. Florida DUI offenders whofail to "resolve" their behavioral issues before reinstatement had 75% higher violationrates and 97% higher crash rates than drivers who reinstated after resolving their behav-ioral issues.

Wells-Parker and others (1995) performed a meta-analysis on the effectiveness ofremedial interventions with DUI offenders. They concluded—on the basis of the re-sults of 215 published research reports—that a combined approach of education, coun-seling, and "contact" probation was 7-9% effective in reducing later DUI recidivismand later crash involvement. They also concluded that a combination of license actionsand remediation provided the most effective program for improving the traffic safety ofdrivers with prior DUI offenses. They did not look at the effects of more recent types ofdriver-control practices such as vehicle impoundment or ignition interlock.

Rodgers (1994) indicated that administrative plate impoundment reduced recidi-vism of multiple DUI offenders in Minnesota. Moreover, drivers whose plates wereimpounded at the time of arrest were less likely to be cited for another DUI offensethan those whose plates were impounded at a later date, through a mailed notice fromthe Department of Public Safety, thus giving some credence to the notion that imme-diacy of the punishment may play a role in later behavior.

California studied the effectiveness of vehicle impoundment programs for first-time and multiple DWS, DWR, and DWU offenders (DeYoung 1997, 1998). Thespecific deterrent effect of vehicle impoundment was a 20-35% reduction in DWS

19

convictions, other traffic convictions, and crashes for drivers whose vehicles were im-pounded. This effect was strongest among recidivist offenders, who typically are con-sidered the most difficult group to affect with traffic safety programs. There was nostrong evidence of a statewide general deterrent effect of the impoundment sanction inCalifornia.

Voas, Tippetts, and Taylor (1998) found a specific deterrent effect of vehicle im-poundment for multiple DUI offenders in Ohio, both during the vehicle impound-ment period and after the vehicle was returned to the driver or owner. During theimpoundment period, DWS offenses were reduced by as much as 84% and DUI of-fenses were reduced by as much as 100%. Following the return of the vehicle, subse-quent DWS offenses were reduced by as much as 53% and subsequent DUI offenseswere reduced by as much as 58%.

Voas and Tippetts (1995) evaluated the deterrent effect of "zebra sticker" laws inOregon and Washington. These laws created an administrative procedure under whichan officer making an arrest for DWS, DWR, or DWU could seize the registration ofthe vehicle being driven. The DMV would then issue a zebra tag, which is a distinctive,striped sticker that must be placed over the "year" portion of the vehicle's license plate.The presence of a zebra sticker was ruled to provide probable cause for law enforcementofficers to stop that vehicle any time it was seen moving on a public roadway. In prac-tice, the zebra stickers were given to DUI offenders who were later caught drivingwithout a valid license. In Oregon, where the law was implemented much more aggres-sively, there was evidence for both general and specific deterrent effects.

Summary

The studies performed to date on DWS, DWR, and DWU are obviously closelylinked to studies of DUI recidivism. More recent work has begun to look more closelyat drivers who were suspended for reasons other than DUI violations, but details de-scribing these "other" subpopulations and statistically valid evaluations of programsdesigned to address their specific needs are lacking at this time. The National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has funded a study in California that may shedlight on some of these issues.

It is clear that well-crafted, aggressively enforced laws can have an effect on thebehavior of suspended DUI offenders. It also seems probable that suspension of drivingprivileges is generally interpreted (by the drivers) to mean something short of a totalban. The majority of them still drive at least some of the time. They may drive less anddrive with greater care while under suspension, but they still drive.

The reinstatement paradox remains unresolved. The NHTSA has funded a fol-low-up study to the work by Voas and his colleagues, and it is hoped that they will beable to offer some concrete suggestions to help states implement effective changes intheir suspension and revocation practices.

20

It is important to note that there are sizable gaps in the data available on drivers'behavior in general and that these gaps cause a corresponding lack of completeness inthe literature on traffic safety. The reinstatement paradox makes it clear that suspendedand revoked drivers who choose not to reinstate often drive more cautiously than thesame individuals would have had they not reinstated.

It is logical to assume, however, that the same drivers were probably less safe in themonths leading up to the point when the state took action. The Fatality Analysis Re-porting System data on fatal crashes indicate that drivers with past suspensions andwho currently drive under suspension are more likely to be involved in fatal crashesthan are drivers who are not suspended. But this is not to say that there may not be alarge number of unsafe drivers who have yet to be caught. The use of only data on fatalcrashes may also mean missing important clues to driver behavior that might becomeevident if data for crashes of all levels of severity were routinely available for analysis.

In addition, while it makes good logical sense that license sanctions do work, thelack of complete data makes it impossible to be certain just how much of a deterrent ispossible with license sanctioning programs. The fact that people continue to drive whiletheir license is suspended or revoked (and while they are completely unlicensed) meansthat the general deterrent effect of license sanctions is not as strong as it could (orshould) be. The question addressed in the remainder of this report is how best to imple-ment and manage programs aimed at keeping these drivers from behind the wheelbecause if they do not drive, they are not contributing to traffic safety problems.

It is also possible to look at this issue by assuming that the sanctioned drivers willcontinue to operate a motor vehicle and then seek programs to make these scofflaws assafe as possible. The goal of the research reported here is not to improve sanctionedmotorists' driving behavior but to identify the most effective ways to keep them fromdriving at all. The following chapters fill in some of the gaps in the current literature byexamining successful practices, including the experiences of safety practitioners in sev-eral states.

21

22

2. R e s e a r c h M e t h o d sChoosing states for review in developing a list of sample states, an attempt was

made to identify states that have enacted and studied the effects of laws such as admin-istrative license suspension and vehicle actions such as impoundment, plate seizure, orspecial markings. Primarily, however, the choice of states was based on the data analysispresented in appendix A. In particular, those states that were lower than the nationalaverage in the proportion of crashes involving drivers with any aberrant license statuswere considered candidates. In addition, the selection process was consciously biasedtoward states with a large population so that any changes in the measures used in theearlier Unlicensed to Kill report and updated in appendix A could be viewed as real andnot as an artifact of relatively small shifts in the population. There was no attempt toselect states perceived as representative at either the national or regional levels. Instead,a deliberate decision was made to focus on the states that appeared, from the data, tohave had some success at reducing the involvement of drivers with an aberrant licensestatus in fatal crashes.

Five out of the six states chosen for this study were lower than the national averagein their percentage of motorists driving with an aberrant license status:

National averageCaliforniaFloridaIndianaMichigan

MinnesotaOregon

13.521.112.0

10.712.27.2

13.0

Although California has a higher percentage of motorists who are driving with anaberrant license status, table 2.1 reveals that California is lower than the national aver-age for drivers in fatal crashes who have a revoked license and have also had earlierlicense suspensions or revocations. Due to California's large population, this steadilydecreasing trend in drivers with an aberrant license status involved in fatal crashes from1993 to 1999 can be viewed as a real change and not due to a shift in population.

Once a set of candidate states were identified, participation was solicited throughtelephone contact followed by a formal letter describing the project, the reasons theywere selected, and again asking them to participate in the review. Each state was in-formed of the level of effort required to participate. They were asked to provide anywritten documentation (data tables, analytic reports) of their driving while suspended(DWS), driving while revoked (DWR), or driving while unlicensed (DWU) problem,along with any available descriptions of their laws and procedures for dealing withDWS, DWR, and DWU drivers. Each state also identified key personnel that could beinterviewed as the project progressed.

23

Table 2.1 Earlier License Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers from ParticipatingStates with Revoked Licenses Who Were Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1993-99

State(first row is number of drivers;second row is percent)

California

Florida

Indiana

Michigan

Minnesota

Oregon

National average

Previous

0

9736.7

1128.2

266.7

2018.9

2218.6

611.1

1,17223.3

Suspensions

1

9119.3

1743.6

2220.8

3832.2

47.4

1,21424.1

or Revocations

2

5721.6

615.4

2018.9

1815.3

47.489117.7

3+

5922.3

512.8

133.3

4441.5

4033.9

4074.1

1,75434.8

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Seven states were invited to participate, and six states ultimately agreed to do so:California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oregon. New York elected not toparticipate. Chapter 3 provides the data used in making these selections. Appendix Agives additional details for these and every other state.

Review of State Laws

As part of the process of selecting states, each state's laws and regulations related todriver licensing and control were categorized and reviewed. Once the final six partici-pating states were selected, their laws were more thoroughly reviewed. The source formost of this material was via state web sites, supplemented by documents provided bythe key contact personnel in each state. The review included the laws on obtaining adriver's license, offenses for which license suspension or revocation are common, proce-dures for suspending or revoking licenses, and procedures for drivers to regain theirlicense.

State Site Visits and Interviews

Members of the project team visited the participating states. The site visits wereused to gain a thorough understanding of the state's laws and practices regarding licen-sure, loss of license, reinstatement, and penalties for violating the licensure provisions

24

of the law. Standard practices in the enforcement and adjudication arenas were alsoexplored through interviews with representatives from those fields in each state.

The team interviewed key personnel in each state's driver-control and -licensingbranch of the department of motor vehicles (or the equivalent agency). A sampling ofindividuals from other agencies (enforcement, adjudication, and highway and trafficsafety) was also interviewed, as needed. To set up interviews, the initial key contactpersonnel provided a list of the other people to be interviewed. In all six states, theinterview schedule was set up by one of the state's own employees.

A second goal of the interviews was to obtain state experts' opinions on whatmeasures should be implemented to improve their own state's ability to identify licen-sure scofflaws and remove them from the roadways. This discussion was intended to gobeyond the laws and practices of the state to explore issues such as:

• Notification process for suspension or revocation

• Appeals processes• Tracking systems in place• Ideas for reducing the incentive to drive without a valid license• A profile of "typical" DWS, DWR, and DWU drivers

Because of travel cancellations in September 2001, two of the site visits were changedto conference calls. Participants in California and Oregon agreed to stick to the originalinterview schedule, but the interviews were conducted via speakerphone rather thanface to face. The only potential drawback to this procedure was that the interview teamdid not have access to any handouts the participants might have brought with themduring the interview. In both cases, however, the materials were delivered to the inter-view team soon after the interviews, and all participants agreed to be available for fol-low-up questions should the need arise. The other four states were visited for on-siteinterviews as planned.

State Comparisons

Each state was asked to provide data on the rate of suspension, suspension dura-tions, proportion of the driving population under revocation, reasons for suspension orrevocation, and recidivism (i.e., rates of resuspension). The original reason for obtain-ing this information was to develop comparisons based on such measures as:

• Number of suspensions and revocations in the most recent complete calendar year(i.e., in 2000)

• A year-end "snapshot" of the proportion of drivers under suspension or revoca-tion, and the reasons for those actions

• Duration of all suspensions that ended in the most recent complete calendar year• Number of persons receiving a second (or greater) suspension beginning during

25

the most recent complete calendar year (i.e., a count of those suspensions whichwere not the driver's first ever)

As it turned out, not all states can answer all of these questions on the basis of thedata available to them through the driver history file. This, of course, led to an obviousset of recommendations for system upgrades and corresponding analyses.

Standard Questionnaires

Before the interview sessions, states were provided with a set of standardized ques-tionnaires (see appendix E) that addressed the following issues:

• Suspension and revocation tracking• Punishment of recidivists• Vehicle and plate impoundment• Programs and strategies for removing these drivers from the road• Court and judicial outreach• Notification procedures• Appeal procedures• Hardship exemptions and restrictions• Enforcement powers

26

3. P r a c t i c e s in Six S ta te sTables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize state laws on driving under the influence (DUI) of

alcohol and laws on driving without a valid license. The laws of the six participatingstates are presented in table 3.1. The columns give the illegal per se alcohol limit, whetherthe state has an open container law and a repeat or habitual offender law, whether thestate's laws allow various vehicle-based sanctions (ignition interlock, impoundment,special plates or stickers, vehicle forfeiture, and blocking of registrations), and the dura-tion of administrative license suspension or revocation for the first DUI offense. Table3.2 gives the averages for all other states (besides the six participating states) with regardto their DUI laws and laws on driving without a valid license.

As can be seen in table 3.1, the six participating states have a mix of 0.08 and 0.10blood alcohol content (BAC) per se laws. They all have open container and ignitioninterlock laws. Three of the six have special repeat offender laws on the books. Fiveallow vehicle impoundment. Two have special plates or markings for repeat offenders.Four allow vehicle confiscation. Two also block vehicle registrations by DUI offenders.

The most notable comparison between all other states and the six participatingstates involves vehicle impoundment. The majority of other states (78%) do not havelaws regarding vehicle impoundment; however, five of the six participating states dohave such laws.

The sources for the information are listed in the notes at the bottoms of tables 3.1and 3.2. Readers interested in the particulars of any state's laws are encouraged to con-tact that state directly or visit the official state web site. State laws covering the sametopic differ markedly in the exact language used, in the possible penalties that can beimposed, and in the limits of both judicial and administrative processes regarding licen-sure and license sanctions. The rest of this chapter presents the highlights from each ofthe six state interviews.

California Highlights

CHARACTERIZING THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

For 1993-99, 2 1 % of drivers in fatal crashes in California had an aberrant licensestatus at the time of the crash (see appendix A). However, across the 7 years, Californiashowed a dramatic downward trend in the involvement of drivers with an aberrantlicense status in fatal crashes, from a high of 25% in 1993 to a low of just above 18% in1999. Most of that decrease came from reductions in the percentage of drivers whowere unlicensed or suspended at the time of the fatal crash. California was chosen forinclusion in this study because of this downward trend and because a large portion ofthe research on suspended and revoked drivers has come out of the state's Departmentof Motor Vehicles (DMV).

27

00

Table 3.1

State

California

Florida

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Oregon

Impaired

IllegalPerSe(BACa)

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.08

Driving Laws

OpenContainer

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

of the Six

RepeatOffender

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Participating

VehicleInterlock

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

States

VehicleImpoundment

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

VehicleImmobilization

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Special Plateor Markings

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Allow VehicleConfiscation

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

SuspendVehicleRegistration

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Average Days ofALR/ALS forFirst Offenseb

120

180

180

90

90

a"BAC" is blood alcohol content.b"ALR/ALS" is administrative license suspension or revocation. The cell is empty for Michigan because the state does not use this legal category.Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State Legislative Fact Sheets, current as of January 2001; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Digest of State Alcohol—HighwaySafety Related Legislation, 19th edition, current through January 2001; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety data, current as of March 2001.

T a b l e 3 . 2 Impaired Driving Laws of Other States

IllegalPerSe(BACa)

OpenContainer

RepeatOffender

VehicleInterlock

Vehicle Vehicle Special Plate Allow VehicleImpoundment Immobilization or Markings Confiscation

Suspend Average Days ofVehicle ALR/ALS forRegistration First Offenseb

0.08

0.10

42%

53%

Yes

No

56%

44%

Yes

No

44%

56%

Yes

No

78%

22%

Yes

No

22%

78%

Yes

No

2%

98%

Yes

No

4%

96%

Yes

No

51%

49%

Yes

No

36%

64%102

a"BAC" is blood alcohol content.b"ALR/ALS" is administrative license suspension or revocation.Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State Legislative Fact Sheets, current as of January 2001; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Digest of State Alcohol—HighwaySafety Related Legislation, 19th edition, current through January 2001; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety data, current as of March 2001.

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. California's motor vehicle code allows for three sourcesof license suspension:

1. Court suspension, in which the judge actually takes the driver's license andholds it.

2. Court ordered suspension, in which the judge orders the DMV to suspend thelicense.

3. Administrative suspension, in which the DMV automatically suspends the li-cense on the basis of the driver history (i.e., the driver qualifies as a "negligentoperator"), or because of an administrative per se law violation, a financialresponsibility law violation, or a mental or physical disability.

California uses certified mail to notify drivers of a suspension. The state has foundthat this process works well to provide proof of notification required if the case goes tocourt. Proof of notification is a major issue in California. Gebers, DeYoung, and Peck(1997) studied the "proof rate" of four suspension notification methods (certified mail,personal contact, prepaid reply envelope, and masking the DMV's return address). Theyfound that the best proof rate (60-70%) was achieved using certified mail with a returnreceipt. This also increased the percentage of convictions for later citations for drivingwhile suspended (DWS) or driving while revoked (DWR), while reducing the numberof convictions and crashes.

Drivers whose licenses are suspended administratively have 10 days after notifica-tion to apply for an administrative hearing. The hearings are generally held within 30days, and before the hearing the person is allowed to drive under a stay-of-suspensionnotice. The hearing officers are DMV employees. They are charged with confirmingthat there was probable cause for the original traffic stop, that the person was lawfullyarrested, and that the person was actually in violation of the law. Approximately 87% ofhearings result in the suspension being sustained.

Restricted licenses. Restricted licenses are generally granted to first- or second-timesuspendees, as long as they meet the requirements of having paid their fines, complet-ing any mandatory treatment programs and complying with the state's insurance re-quirements. Restricted licenses generally allow the person to drive to, from, and duringwork. For first-time DUI offenders, only those drivers who agreed to a BAC test areeligible for a restricted license.

Vehicle impoundment and seizure. California law provides for both vehicle im-poundment (for first and subsequent offenses) and seizure (for multiple offenders). Inpractice, the vehicle impoundment law is much more frequently applied and results,ultimately, in a forfeiture because most of the impounded cars are worth less moneythan the cost of their redemption from the impoundment yard. California's impound-ment law allows local governments to set the fees to meet the costs of running theprogram.

29

The vehicle impoundment law applies regardless of whether the offender is theowner of the vehicle. If the vehicle's owner knowingly allows a suspended or revokeddriver to use his or her car, that vehicle is eligible for impoundment or seizure. In thecase of habitual offenders, only one in three was the owner of the vehicle impounded atthe time of their DWS arrest. Approximately half of the impounded vehicles are soldunder lien, so in effect the impoundment results in seizure and forfeiture about half thetime.

Ignition interlock. California law requires mandatory imposition of an ignitioninterlock for DWS cases where the initial suspension was for a DUI offense. Courts arerequired to impose the installation of an interlock device upon conviction. The DMVadministrative procedures also allow multiple DUI offenders (second or greater convic-tion) to apply for a restricted license with an ignition interlock once they have servedthe first half of their suspension.

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: W H A T W O R K S AND BARRIERS

What works. California's vehicle impoundment program works (DeYoung 1997,1998). It has been described as a method to get older, less safe, more polluting vehiclesoff of the roadway. In California's experience, the law results in eventual forfeiture inapproximately half the cases. In the vast majority of cases involving a DWS or DWRwith a DUI arrest, the driver was not the owner of the vehicle. The administrative per selaw has also been found to have a deterrent effect on drinking and driving in the state(Rogers 1995, 1997).

Barriers. Few of the drivers who are eligible for a restricted license ever apply forone. Among per se law violators, only 18,000 of 85,200 eligible drivers ever applied forthe restricted license. The main reasons cited for this low application rate are a lack ofknowledge on the part of drivers and the costs associated with meeting the precondi-tions.

Reinstatement of licenses is another big concern in California. The state's studiesshow that fewer than 50% of those eligible for license reinstatement do so (within a 3-year window used for the analysis). A likely cause of this reluctance to reinstate is thecosts involved, especially with respect to insurance. For 3 years following the end of asuspension, drivers must show proof of insurance to be reinstated. After the 3 years, thesame driver can obtain a license without proof of insurance.

A problem in the field is that officers are presented with a confusing array of infor-mation when they call up a driver history. There are delays inherent in the system forcalling up a driver history record, as well. These two factors combine to make it lesslikely that officers will check the driver history when making a traffic stop. The result isthat many cases that would be eligible for a DWS or DWR arrest are not made untilafter the fact (if at all) and that many vehicles that could be impounded are not. Failureto check the license status means that the DMV would have to put resources toward a

30

comparison of charges with the license status after a person is charged (as was done in apilot program in Ventura County; DeYoung 1990). If a person is eligible for enhancedcharges, the DMV has the option of notifying the district attorney's office to flag spe-cific cases. This practice is apparently not routine.

Prosecutors use DWS and DWR charges as a source of plea bargaining, especiallywhen more serious charges (e.g., DUI) are under consideration. This leads to a higherrate of conviction in DUI cases but degrades the seriousness of DWS and DWR charges.Of the DWS and DWR cases that are not pled down, only about a fourth result in asentence that meets the minimum standards in the law. This is especially true withrespect to mandatory sentences requiring ignition interlocks. In many cases, judges arereluctant to impose such penalties.

California's courts require proof of service for notifications of suspension. Thestate uses certified mail in most cases in an attempt to raise the "good service" rate. Theexact proportion of "good service" notifications is not known.

The courts are allowed to suspend drivers' licenses for a variety of nondrivingoffenses. The result is that many suspensions have little or nothing to do with drivingsafety. This adds to the confusion for officers in the field and for prosecutors and courts.

California's experts on DWS and DWR and unlicensed drivers believe that thesystem, as it exists now, has too many incentives for not obtaining a license or reinstat-ing one after a suspension. Unlicensed drivers are often doing so because they are un-documented aliens and/or because they cannot afford to meet the insurance requirements.Insurance costs are the reason most often cited for a driver's failure to reinstate his or herlicense after a suspension.

Florida Highlights

CHARACTERIZING THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

For 1993-99, 12% of drivers in fatal crashes in Florida had an aberrant licensestatus at the time of the crash. In 1999, Florida experienced its best performance in the7-year study period, with just under 10% of drivers in fatal crashes having an aberrantlicense status, down from a high of 14% in 1994. Florida was selected for the studybecause these proportions compare favorably against the national average of 14% dur-ing the 7-year period.

Florida has approximately 14 million registered drivers (2000 data). In 2000, morethan 1.1 million license sanctions were imposed, including 1.06 million suspensions,85,000 revocations, and 15,000 cancellations.

31

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. Administrative suspensions are based on the numberand type of convictions via a point system. Accumulating 12 points in 12 monthsresults in an automatic 30-day suspension. Accumulating 18 points in 18 months re-sults in a 90-day suspension. Accumulating 24 points in 36 months results in a 1-yearsuspension. In addition, the state has an administrative license revocation (ALR) law,under which the arresting officer takes the driver's license and issues a citation that alsoserves as a 10-day temporary permit. ALR suspension durations are indicated on thecitation as 6 months for a first DUI offense and 1 year for a subsequent DUI offense.Test refusals result in a 1-year (first offense) or 18-month (subsequent offense) suspen-sion. Florida also administratively suspends licenses when provided notice of a lapse ininsurance coverage.

Florida's DWS law allows the officer to charge a driver with DWS "with knowl-edge" or "without knowledge," depending on whether they believe the person knewabout the suspension. Florida's notification of suspension program is such that it ispossible for drivers to be unaware that their license has been suspended. A DWS-with-out-knowledge charge is treated as a civil infraction. A DWS-with-knowledge charge istreated as a criminal infraction and is also recorded on the driver history, even if thecharges are ultimately dismissed. Many drivers cited for DWS claim that they did notknow they had to pay a reinstatement fee; so even though their suspension period isover, they are still suspended because they have failed to follow directions. Enforcementofficers in Florida indicated that drivers commonly report never having received thenotice of suspension and that it is common for those cited for failure to produce alicense to claim identity theft when they appear in court.

In the field, officers are allowed by law to seize the license of a driver who has failedto pay child support. In practice, they seize the license of anyone subject to an admin-istrative suspension because department policy requires that the license be attached tothe citation.

Courts can order a license suspension for failure to pay, failure to appear, "checkfraud," failure to pay child support, and failure to pay for gasoline at a filling station. Allconviction-related suspensions are separate from administrative actions. The courts re-port that most people cited for DWS or DWR in Florida were originally suspended forfailure to pay fines. Once the charges are elevated to criminal DWS, people are morelikely to pay because the alternative is jail time.

For ALR suspensions, drivers have 10 days after being cited to request an adminis-trative hearing. The hearings are held within 30 days of the original citation date. Driv-ers have two options: formal or informal review. If a driver requests a formal review, heor she will receive a temporary license while waiting for the administrative hearing.Temporary licenses are not extended beyond the initial 10 days in the case of informalreviews. In a formal review, the driver is allowed to subpoena witnesses (usually the

32

arresting officer is subpoenaed). The informal review is only a review of the paperworkand is held with only the hearing officer and the driver present. Administrative rulingsmay be appealed to the circuit court or higher. While a case is under appeal, the driveris not granted a temporary driving permit.

Restricted licenses. To obtain a hardship license, drivers must apply to the Depart-ment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) for a hearing. Only the hear-ing officers are allowed to grant a hardship license.

Vehicle impoundment and seizure. Florida law allows vehicle impoundment andseizure. In DWS and multiple DUI cases, the law allows vehicle forfeiture even if thedriver does not own the vehicle. Rental vehicles and borrowed vehicles are not ex-empted. Data on the number of vehicle impoundments each year were not available.

Florida's driver and vehicle files are linked. This allows the state to block vehicleregistrations when the owner's license is revoked. Drivers with revoked licenses mustleave the vehicle unregistered, transfer the vehicle title to a spouse, or sell the vehicle.

Ignition interlock. Only judges can order the installation of an ignition interlockdevice.

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: W H A T W O R K S AND BARRIERS

What works. Florida has a citation-tracking system that supports analysis of thesequence of events related to each traffic citation in the state. This system allows com-parison of initial charges with final dispositions, including pleas to reduce charges,dismissals, and convictions. This capability is not easily accessed at present, but it hasbeen put to good use analytically, especially in evaluating the state's DUI program (seeGrosz, Zeller, and Klein 2001).

Florida has begun using thumbprints as identification of drivers who are unli-censed or fail to carry their license. This has virtually eliminated false claims of identitytheft as an excuse in these cases by providing positive identification of the driver charged.

Florida has a well-established, court-tested procedure for DUI and driver licensecheckpoints, and these are considered a very effective tool for law enforcement. Fewagencies run checkpoints specifically for license status because it requires just as muchpreparation as it does to run a DUI checkpoint.

Barriers. In practice, law enforcement officers do not always run a driver historycheck at traffic stops. There are no data showing the proportion of times that a historycheck is performed and what proportion of those checks show an aberrant license status.

Attempts to reduce DWS and DWR pleas and dismissal rates vary widely fromcounty to county. In some locales, the judges do not allow DWS to be pled down,

33

whereas in other counties the practice is quite common, resulting in inconsistencies inapplication of the laws.

A resistance to change in the court clerks' offices stymies the use of automatedcitations and electronic transmission of citations from law enforcement to the courts.The dimensions of the current five-part universal traffic citation form make it difficultto replicate from a field computer. Some clerks have invested heavily in paper filingsystems that are customized to fit the smaller size of the existing form.

Florida's law requiring notification to DHSMV of changes in address was describedas "not effective." The result is that many suspended drivers never receive their notice ofsuspension. This has fostered the general use of the "failed notification" excuse to avoidpenalties for DWS and DWR.

Iowa Highlights

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

For 1993-99, just over 9% of drivers in fatal crashes in Iowa had an aberrantlicense status at the time of the crash. In 1999, Iowa had a low of 6.7% drivers with anaberrant license status in fatal crashes, down from a high of 12% in 1996. Iowa wasselected for inclusion in the study because of this much-better-than-average perfor-mance, as presented in appendix A.

Iowa has a driver license population of 2.1 million. Some 76,367 drivers' licenseswere suspended or revoked for traffic law violations in 1999.

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. Upon receiving three moving violations in a 12-monthperiod, drivers are subject to suspension of their license for 90 days. The alternative is toattend the Driver Improvement Program (DIP). Most offenders opt for the DIP toavoid the suspension that requires expensive high-risk driver insurance. By attendingthe DIP, the driver avoids a record of suspension and keeps the license while on a 1-yearprobation. Any violation during that year results in the 90-day suspension. The imple-mentation of the DIP was based on a study that showed this to be more effective thanissuing a warning letter or a suspension notice.

The state believes that this type of early intervention may explain a lower thanaverage percentage of drivers continuing to drive with suspended or revoked licenses,especially because younger drivers are overrepresented in the program.

Driver's licenses are administratively revoked under the state's Operating WhileImpaired (OWI) statute. The license of anyone arrested for failure of a BAC test for

34

OWI (0.10 for adults, 0.02 for youth), or for refusal of a test, is administratively re-voked.

The state's Habitual Offender Law provides that a driver with three convictionsfor specified offenses be considered a habitual offender and be barred from driving for2 to 6 years, depending on the point total. Only the Office of Driver Services can orderbarments. A court conviction of an offense while under barment results in prison time,as opposed to jail time.

Restricted licenses. The law allows the issuance of a Temporary Restricted License(TRL) under certain conditions. It is believed that the availability of a TRL removessome of the sense of hopelessness. To apply for a TRL after administrative revocationfor OWI, a driver must meet several conditions:

1. First offense for test failure: No TRL until 30 days have passed.2. Second and subsequent offense for test failure: No TRL.3. First offense for refusal: No TRL until 90 days have passed.4. Second offense for refusal: No TRL until 1 year has passed (requires the instal-

lation of an ignition interlock device).

Vehicle impoundment and seizure or immobilization. For driving while revokedfor an OWI-based conviction, several vehicle-related sanctions may be ordered:

1. The vehicle may be impounded upon arrest.2. The owner of a vehicle driven by a person who is revoked may be subject to

criminal and civil penalty.3. Plates and registration of the first offender may be seized.4. The vehicle of a second or subsequent offender may be seized and forfeited.

Ignition interlock. An ignition interlock device may be ordered for anyone whoselicense was revoked for an OWI conviction who wants a TRL (after 30 days for a firstoffense) or who is reinstating after a second OWI conviction but has not previously hadan ignition interlock device installed. The law also allows an habitual offender to applyfor a TRL but under strict guidelines, including installation of an ignition interlockdevice. Note the waiting periods stated above under the discussion of TRLs.

Checkpoints and other enforcement events. The state conducts periodic enforce-ment campaigns around the state, such as vehicle safety inspection stops (checkpoints),corridor enforcement, and saturation patrols. These result in many arrests, including anumber for driving while under suspension or revocation. The publicity about thesecampaigns, not only their announcement but also the release of the results, may con-tribute to fewer drivers with aberrant licenses.

35

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: WHAT WORKS AND BARRIERS

What works. Iowa operates an information center that provides assistance to thoseseeking help in getting their licenses reinstated and to avoid getting a suspension forunpaid fines. The state believed that the process for getting relicensed was too complexand discouraged drivers from going through it to get relicensed. The information cen-ter was established to remove these obstacles.

The center is staffed with experienced Office of Driver Services personnel who arevery knowledgeable about licensing procedures and requirements. The information centerstaff explain to callers what tests may be required to restore the license, what classes maybe required, what fees need to be paid, where to pay the fees, how to request a paymentschedule, and so on. Similar assistance is available at licensing stations throughout thestate. The state believes that this "public face" of the licensing office, and the mindsetthat these drivers are "customers" and not "lawbreakers," may keep many drivers fromfeeling hopeless and, therefore, giving up and simply continuing to drive without theirlicense.

The "rocket docket" concept evolved from the recognition that driving while un-der suspension or revocation was a major problem. The concept is that bringing allparties (the judge, the local licensing office representative, the county attorney, thearresting officer, and the public defender) into court at the same time allows the case tobe processed more quickly and may enable the driver to get relicensed more quickly.For example, the licensing representative may have the full record available to not onlyassist the court but also to advise the driver on what to expect, what is required, whatthe consequences are if they do not meet the requirements, and what can be done to getrelicensed. The state has received national recognition for this unique concept.

Removal of licenses is strictly under the jurisdiction of the licensing agency, andthe Iowa Administrative Procedures Act streamlines and depoliticizes the license re-moval process.

Law enforcement officers in small rural areas generally know who has been sus-pended and, when they observe them driving, can make an immediate traffic stop. Thestate's rural character helps officers personally know those drivers who are under sus-pension or revocation.

Officers who almost always cite for driving under suspension or revocation mayalso order vehicle removal. Some departments issue a "hot list" of drivers in their juris-diction under suspension or revocation, especially if emphasizing drivers under suspen-sion or revocation in a given week.

The state has a unified court system—judges are part of a single system. This haspositive benefits, such as:

36

1. Scheduled fines—fines are uniformly imposed across the state, and the fines go

into the state's general fund.2. Aggressive prosecution of anyone charged with driving while "barred" (a sanc-

tion under the state's habitual offender statute, described above). There is nojudicial discretion for driving while barred. It is an administratively imposedsanction once the driver is certified as an habitual offender.

3. No judicial power over licensing. The state's traffic code has removed licensingrevocation and suspension issues from judges. Licensing officials administra-tively handle all licensing actions; thus, licensing penalties are not part of theplea-bargaining process.

4. The clerks of court are state employees under the Judicial Department and arenot subject to local political influence, which they are in states where they areelected.

The state staff offered opinions that the state's demographics and values may ex-plain a low incidence of driving with an aberrant license—for example, a larger olderpopulation living in rural areas and small towns.

Barriers. Comments were received regarding the belief that prosecution is the weak-est link. County attorneys are reluctant to prosecute for driving under suspension orrevocation (the DWS/DWR equivalent in Iowa) if the driver is also charged with OWI.The penalty is $1,000 and jail time, but there is pressure from the community becausejails are full and usually the offender cannot pay the fines. The result is that about athird of DWS and DWR cases are not convicted and others are reduced or dismissed.The 50% that get to trial probably do not get convicted of the initial charge. Manytimes they are pled down to driving on an expired license, which results in a $ 10 fine.

The problem with doubling revocation time for each incident of driving whileunder revocation for OWI is that the accumulation reaches a "hopelessness" stage andcauses the driver to give up. The profile of DWS or DWR and unlicensed drivers, assuggested by anecdotal evidence furnished by state personnel, generally describes op-erators who are unable to pay all the fees and fines associated with license reinstatement.

Michigan Highlights

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

For 1993-99, 12% of drivers in fatal crashes in Michigan had an aberrant licensestatus at the time of the crash. The state experienced more than a twofold increase in theproportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had a suspended license, from a lowof 2.3% in 1994 to a high of almost 7% in 1998. Beside the fact that Michigan wasbetter than the national average (see appendix A), the state was chosen for inclusion inthe study because its driver-control program historically has been very well run, withstrong administrative components and strong judicial outreach.

37

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. All driver license actions are handled administrativelyby the Michigan Department of State (DOS) because there are no longer any court-ordered suspensions or revocations in the state. Michigan is not an ALR state withrespect to alcohol offenses (operating under the influence, or OUI). They administra-tively suspend only after conviction. In the field, officers destroy the driver's licenseupon arrest for OUI (with a BAC above 0.10) and issue the driver a paper license. Thepaper license is valid until the final disposition is received by the DOS from the court.For a second OUI offense or third DWS or DWR offense, the law requires the officerto confiscate the vehicle's plates as well.

Michigan law sets the period of suspensions for a first OUI offense and for revoca-tions, in the case of multiple offenses, under the repeat-offender statutes. The law alsosets mandatory additional periods of suspension or revocation for repeat offenders.

Appeals of revocations and suspensions to the court system are allowed but onlyon the record (i.e., does the suspension or revocation duration match what the law saysshould be done on the basis of the number and type of prior convictions?). The restric-tions placed on the driver cannot be appealed to the court because they are set as man-datory by state law.

Police in the field are provided with a simple-to-read license status report in thedriver's record. It tells them exactly what to do (e.g., destroy the license or seize theplates), depending on the violation for which they intend to cite the driver.

Restricted licenses. Multiple OUI offenders can be granted a restricted license.This process involves two hearings, the first to determine if they qualify for a restrictedlicense and the second a year later to evaluate their performance under the restrictions.Approximately 50% of drivers who request a restricted license are granted one. Thosewho are not granted a restricted license must wait 1 year before making a new applica-tion. To be eligible for a restricted license, drivers must first serve the "hard time" com-ponent of their suspension or revocation. They must also meet all the requirements fora restricted license set in the law.

Vehicle impoundment and seizure. Courts order vehicle immobilization (impound-ment; lockout technology; or a reverse-tether interlock device, which blocks the use ofthe vehicle if the revoked driver's ankle comes within a set distance from the vehicle'sgas pedal). These penalties are imposed by the judge and take effect after release fromincarceration.

In addition, the DOS blocks the registration of any vehicles by suspended or re-voked drives. This block is automatic, and notification of the block is made available tocar dealerships around the state so that they know the vehicle cannot be registeredbefore it is sold to a driver with a suspended or revoked license.

38

The basic charge for a DWS or DWR is a misdemeanor; however, lending a ve-hicle to a known DWS or DWR driver can result in felony charges if there is a crashinvolving injury or death. Vehicle seizure is not allowed until conviction, but a vehiclecan be impounded upon the arrest of the driver.

Ignition interlock. Interlock devices are mandatory for 1 year as part of the condi-tion for a limited license following a suspension for multiple OUI convictions. Michi-gan has approved use of the reverse-tether interlock device.

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: W H A T W O R K S AND BARRIERS

What works. The secretary of state's staff and the law enforcement representativesthat were interviewed praised the immobilization program. Likewise, the program al-lowing the state to block registration of vehicles by drivers with suspended or revokedlicenses has been judged to be effective. Because the change in the law is so recent, thereare not yet any analyses of effectiveness. The anecdotal evidence was positive.

Most courts in the state provide dispositions electronically to the DOS. This givesthe DOS rapid access to information leading to administrative suspension or revoca-tion actions.

The enhanced penalties for multiple OUI and DWS offenses are viewed as suc-cessful deterrents. In cases of injury or death caused by a multiple offender, the chargesare enhanced to felony status and can result in jail terms and lengthy suspensions orrevocations. The notion that owners of vehicles used by drivers convicted of DWS orOUI could themselves face felony charges is viewed as a real deterrent against lendingvehicles. The enhanced penalty and immobilization programs are currently under re-view to quantify their impact on safety and driver behavior.

Barriers. Checkpoints have been ruled illegal in Michigan. This was considered ablow to law enforcement officers' ability to catch drivers who are operating DWS, DWR,or DWU. Even though the checkpoints were originally intended to catch DUI offend-ers, the law enforcement personnel interviewed stated that checkpoints were an effec-tive means of catching drivers who lacked a valid license.

The DOS does not have a good link with insurers to provide notification of a lapsein coverage. This means that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses can sometimesget away with showing proof of insurance on the basis of a binder alone, then fail to payfor the actual policy, but still be allowed to reinstate their license.

Perhaps as a reaction against the loss of judicial flexibility in sentencing, somejudges have made too-frequent use of deferred adjudication—dismissal with court costsin traffic cases. The end result is an inability to precisely calculate multiple offenders'recidivism rates.

39

There are some indications that vehicle forfeiture may not be effective becausemost of the seized vehicles are worth less than it costs to process them. This evidence isanecdotal, as is the evidence suggesting that the impoundment program is effective. It isclear that there is low public awareness of the penalties for allowing a vehicle to be usedby a driver who has been convicted of DWS or DWR.

Minnesota Highlights

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

Analysis of fatal crashes in Minnesota between 1993 and 1999 indicates that only

7.2% of drivers had an aberrant license status at the time of the crash. Across the 7 years

analyzed, Minnesota experienced a general decrease in the proportion of drivers with an

aberrant license status in fatal crashes, from a high of 8.9% in 1996 to a low of 4.4% in

1999. Minnesota was selected for inclusion in the study on the basis of these data (see

appendix A). The state has approximately 3.65 million licensed drivers; about 186,000

(5%) of licenses were suspended, revoked, or canceled in 2000.

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. Minnesota does not administratively suspend drivers

on the basis of the number of "points" accrued in the driver history. The state has an

"Inimical to Public Safety" (IPS) statute that provides for a license to be canceled after

a minimum of three alcohol-related incidents, and mandatory cancellation for the fourth

incident. About 75-80% are canceled upon the third incident. For example, if the first

two are in a 5-year period, the person is put under special review and given a warning

that a third within 10 years will result in cancellation. The cancellations have an open-

ended time frame. Licenses are reinstated only after a special review. There is no judicial

process for reinstatement; however, canceled drivers do have the option of a court hear-

ing. The law specifically addresses claims of failed notification of the cancellation—

ignorance of the cancellation is not an excuse and does not result in dismissal of charges

for driving while canceled.

Minnesota runs an "early intervention" program designed to identify drivers who

are in danger of license cancellation. The driver history application is programmed to

produce a "kick out" file of drivers with multiple traffic convictions and/or multiple

crashes but who currently fall short of the criteria of IPS. Law enforcement officers have

a special field on the crash report form and a form—the Request for Examination of

Driver—that they can use to force a driver to be "kicked out." Drivers identified in this

file are notified that they are approaching cancellation and are automatically scheduled

for an interview with Department of Public Safety (DPS) evaluators. If they fail to

show up for the interview, the license is automatically canceled until the driver comes

in for the interview.

40

The state administratively revokes licenses for alcohol violations (arrested for aBAC of 0.10 or above or for test refusal) under the Implied Consent Law. This iscomparable to what is generally referred to as administrative license revocation. Thestate does not grant a "stay" pending any request for an administrative review; thus therevocation is effective 7 days from the arrest. If a review is requested, the individual isnotified within 15 days of the review results. Minnesota treats all alcohol offenses fromother states as "like and similar" and posts them to the driver history as if they were in-state violations of the 0.10 BAC limit.

Judges in Minnesota have the latitude to suspend or revoke driving privileges butdo not do so very often. The Minnesota Motor Vehicle Code includes sentencing guide-lines but only for criminal offenses. Judges can order a lifetime suspension (essentially ajudicial cancellation), usually for failure to comply with court orders. The state alsosuspends drivers' licenses for failure to pay child support. In these cases, only a notifica-tion from the Human Services Department can lift the suspension.

Restricted licenses. The state grants work permits for offenders with alcohol viola-tions but only after specified waiting periods have expired. For a first offense test failure(a BAC of 0.10 to 0.19) or refusal, the waiting period is 15 days. For a first-offensefailure of 0.20 and higher, it is 30 days. For a second-offense test failure of 0.10 to 0.19,the waiting period is 90 days. For a second-offense test failure of 0.20 or higher or forsecond offense test refusal, it is 180 days. For third offenses, the waiting periods varyfrom 180 days to no limit, depending on the length of time between violations and theBAC level.

Vehicle impoundment and seizure or immobilization. In the 1980s, legislationwas passed permitting plate impoundment to be administratively ordered. Approxi-mately 500 plates are impounded every year. Plate confiscation is required if the drivermeets any of these conditions:

1. Has a prior DWI within past 10 years2. Tests for a BAC of 0.20 or higher3. Is driving while under cancellation4. A passenger in the vehicle is younger than 16 years old and is also younger

than the driver by at least 18 months

If any one of these conditions is met, the license plates of allvehicles owned by thedriver are impounded. In 95% of cases, the enforcement officer impounds the plates inthe field. In the remaining cases, the DPS impounds the plates after the fact. All im-poundments are for a minimum of 1 year. Multiple offender DUI drivers, upon theirthird arrest, face an additional year of impoundment.

If a vehicle plate has been impounded and the family or a business associate of theoffender needs access to the vehicle, a specially numbered plate (a so-called W plate) isissued with the letters "WX" or "WY" in the first two positions of the plate number.

41

This allows an officer to easily spot the vehicle and gives the officer probable cause to stop thevehicle without further cause to determine that the offender is not driving. A recent courtruling has upheld the "probable cause" provision of the distinctive plate law.

A recent change to the W-plate law makes it illegal for anyone who is under animpoundment order to operate any vehicle that does not have the special plates. Thisholds true even for drivers whose licenses have been reinstated but who are still servingout the full 1-year impoundment order.

Vehicle forfeiture is required on the third DUI violation if the offense occurs in theviolator's vehicle. The special plate requirement is also in force (i.e., even if granted arestricted license, the driver can only legally drive vehicles with a W plate). This re-quirement is in force for an additional year for drivers with a third DUI arrest. The lawstates that any violation of this provision results in a permanent ban on putting anyplates on the vehicle used by the offending driver, even if the driver is not the owner ofthe vehicle. This provision is intended to block owners from knowingly allowing asuspended or revoked driver from using their car.

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: W H A T W O R K S AND BARRIERS

What works. A Minnesota study (Rodgers 1994) indicated that administrativeplate impoundment reduced recidivism of multiple DUI offenders. Moreover, driverswhose plates were impounded at the time of arrest were less likely to recidivate thanthose whose plates were impounded at a later date, through a mailed notice from theDPS.

The DPS reports that their early intervention program works. In the sense that itidentifies drivers who are in danger of cancellation under the IPS law, the program givesDPS a way to influence those drivers' behavior before they cross the line. There were nodata on how effective the interventions were in terms of keeping a higher proportion ofthese drivers from ultimately being canceled. The state makes good use of the driverhistory system's kick-out file as a means of identifying drivers who need intervention.Allowing law enforcement officers to force a kick out through an annotation on thecrash report form or by filling out the re-test form also appears to be a valuable methodof identifying potential problem drivers.

The newer W-plate program is currently under evaluation. The experience of otherstates, most notably Oregon, is that distinctive plates or stickers have a specific deter-rent effect with multiple DUI offenders.

Barriers. Conviction records transmitted for entry into the driver history file arenot always coded properly and may get entered incorrectly. Approximately 4% of allnotifications of cancellation are not coded into the driver history record for a variety ofreasons. The result is that drivers may legitimately claim that they did not know thatthey had been canceled.

42

Judges' orders may occasionally be vague. Also judges may "continue for dismissal"if the driver meets certain conditions. These actions do not get entered into the driverhistory record, so there is no method for tracking them.

Courts and prosecutors do not have full access to the driver history file. Law en-forcement access is similarly limited. Furthermore, some users expressed a need fortraining in how to read a driver history record. All of these problems can result in failureto enhance charges.

Oregon Highlights

CHARACTERIZING THE DWS AND DWR EXPERIENCE

For 1993-99, 13% of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Oregon had an aberrantlicense status at the time of the crash. However, the state experienced a strong down-ward trend in the percentage of drivers in fatal crashes who lacked a valid license, froma high of more than 15% in 1993 to less than 11% in 1998 and 1999. On the basis ofthis downward trend (see appendix A), Oregon was selected for inclusion in the study.Oregon has just fewer than 2.5 million licensed drivers, with 74,103 under suspensionin 2000.

LAWS AND PROCEDURES

Suspension and revocation. Suspensions in Oregon can be administrative underthe state's ALR law. Courts can also suspend or revoke upon a conviction or for failureto appear or pay fines. Revocation is mandatory for felony DWS convictions. Underthe habitual offender program, a driver's license can be revoked administratively for 3major traffic convictions or for 20 minor ones in a 5-year period.

Drivers charged with DUI who either fail or refuse the BAC test must surrendertheir license (usually to the arresting officer) and are provided with a 30-day permit toallow time to conduct a hearing. Hearings must be requested within 10 days of thearrest and suspension. Approximately 17% of administratively suspended drivers re-quest a hearing. Under the ALR law, first-offense failure of the BAC test results in a 90-day suspension with 30 days of "hard time" (i.e., no hardship license can be granted).Second or subsequent test failures result in a 1-year suspension with no possibility of ahardship license for the entire year. Test refusals result in a 1- or 3-year (for, respectively,first and multiple offenses) suspension with 90 days or a 1-year hard-time component(for first or subsequent offenses).

A court conviction on the DUI charges can result in a 1-year (first DUI offense) or3-year (subsequent DUI offense) suspension ordered by the court. In practice, the courtsusually refer first offenders to a diversion program that lasts 1 year and runs concurrentwith the suspension.

43

Administratively suspended drivers can request a hearing that would then be heldin front of an administrative law judge in the Oregon Department of Employment.The notice of suspension or revocation provides drivers with information on what todo and who to call. The DMV operates a customer assistance unit that deals withdrivers' questions, including those related to a suspension or revocation. Failure to turnin a suspended or revoked license results in a misdemeanor charge.

The Department of State Police has a system set up to track citations and arrests.The general feeling among officers is that a majority of suspensions are for failure to payor failure to appear and that the same people are cited repeatedly for DWS until theyare finally jailed.

Restricted licenses. Probationary permits are granted that allow people to drive foremployment and treatment program attendance. The application requires the driver toobtain a letter from their employer and to supply the name and address of their alcoholtreatment program (if any). Failure to abide by the restricted license provisions canresult in a misdemeanor DWS charge that, upon conviction, can result in a 1-year hardsuspension.

Vehicle impoundment and seizure. When a driver is stopped and found to be DWS,DUI, or failing to comply with restrictions or insurance requirements, the officer hasthe option of impounding the vehicle and having it towed. Only Portland has an activeimpoundment program. Furthermore, judges in Oregon have the latitude to force saleof a vehicle owned by a recidivist driver.

In the 1980s, Oregon ran a pilot study of placing a distinctive striped sticker (the"zebra sticker") on the license plate of cars driven by people without a valid license. Thepresence of the sticker was enough to give the officer probable cause to stop the vehicle.

Oregon's law allows vehicle owners to be fined if they knowingly let a DWS, DWR,or unlicensed person drive the car. The state's impoundment laws do not apply to ve-hicles not owned by the driver.

STATE EXPERTS' REVIEW: W H A T W O R K S AND BARRIERS

What works. Local lists of scofflaws (giving name, address, and vehicle identifica-tion information) are useful in targeting recidivist or problem drivers. These are onlyput together at the initiative of local law enforcement officers and agencies. There is nostatewide coordination. On the basis of the 1980s pilot study, the zebra sticker programappears to have been very effective.

The DMV's customer service staff is well trained to help drivers to understand thereinstatement process. They can advise them on the items that must be cleared upbefore reinstatement, which court they need to work with in order to pay fines, or howto prove completion of mandatory programs.

44

Barriers. Check points are not allowed in Oregon. This makes it more difficult forlaw enforcement to catch drivers who are DWS, DWR, or unlicensed.

Local agencies are reluctant to implement a vehicle seizure program, even as a pilottest, even though these programs have proven beneficial in other states. Part of thereason for this reluctance is that the law now requires a conviction before a vehicle canbe seized. Another reason for reluctance is that the cost of administering a seizure pro-gram is viewed as prohibitive.

45

46

4. RecommendationsThe following recommendations are based on the interviews with state experts. In

particular, the practitioners in the six participating states were asked to tell us what wasworking in their state, what the barriers are, and what laws and procedures they wouldlike to have in their state in order to combat driving without a valid license. In chapter3, a summary is provided of the laws and procedures that are working in each state, aswell as what barriers there are to better control the problem of driving while suspended,driving while revoked, and driving while unlicensed (DWS, DWR, and DWU). Thischapter gives recommendations for implementing the most effective versions of thevarious laws and practices, and for avoiding the important barriers.

Laws to Combat Driving without a Valid License

IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION AND

SUSPENSION LAWS

Administrative license revocation and suspension (per se) laws are effective prima-rily because justice is swift and certain. Even without a conviction, the arresting officercan immediately sanction drivers who are caught with illegal blood alcohol content(BAC) or who refuse a test. Well-crafted administrative license revocation (ALR) lawswill limit the scope of hearings following suspension to a review of the facts (driverrecord, BAC level, and the charge). Some state laws allow a much broader scope to thehearings (e.g., to establish probable cause), and it is likely that such provisions couldcontribute to a reduction in the percentage of suspensions upheld upon review simplybecause the state is open to more avenues of attack by the suspended driver or thedriver's attorney.

California's studies of the effectiveness of their 0.08 BAC and ALR laws showedboth specific and generalized deterrent effects for the ALR law. That is, not only diddrivers who experienced the sanctions alter their behavior, but overall safety improvedas well. An important side note from California's experience is that it may be necessaryto establish confirmation procedures so that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)can prove in court that a suspension notice was not only sent to, but also received by,the offender. If courts require proof of service, California's experience suggests that themost cost-effective alternative is certified mail with return receipts.

On the basis of the content of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration'salcohol program assessments, one important factor is the potential for delaying a sus-pension when a hearing is pending. The preferred situation is to have the law enforce-ment officer "serve" the driver with a suspension notice as part of the citation or arrestprocess (i.e., the citation is the notice of suspension), and the suspension takes effect atthe end of the time period allowed for the driver to request a hearing. The suspension

47

should not be delayed until the hearing takes place, and, of course, the hearings shouldtake place in a timely manner.

ESTABLISH VEHICLE I M P O U N D M E N T , SEIZURE, AND IMMOBILIZATION

PROGRAMS

Of these three options (i.e., impound, seize, or immobilize), it is clear that vehicleseizure laws set up a much more stringent—and therefore costly and hard to manage—process than vehicle impoundment laws. Because the goal is to get drivers with anaberrant license status out from behind the wheel, it appears that impoundment pro-grams can be very effective and have the advantage of simplicity and lower cost tomanage the resulting programs. A good impoundment law would allow impoundingany vehicle used by a DWS, DWR, or DWU driver, regardless of ownership. The costof redeeming the vehicle should be high enough to allow the administrative agency torecoup all costs of managing the program. In this way, older and less valuable carswould be removed from the roadway (they would not be redeemed because the cost ofredemption exceeds the value of the vehicle) and, at the same time, those who loanedtheir vehicles to DWS, DWR, and DWU drivers would be punished for doing so.

As much as possible, the vehicle-based sanction programs should be operatedthrough administrative processes rather than the courts. This is because the effective-ness of these sanctions is likely to be directly proportional to their swift and certainnature. Even if courts are consistent in the application of vehicle sanctions (and experi-ence shows that they are not), the delays inherent in court proceedings are likely todilute the value of vehicle-based sanctions. Given the fact that DWS, DWR, and DWUdrivers are overinvolved in fatal crashes, it is also recommended that vehicle sanctionsapply to them in general, regardless of whether the initial suspension or revocation wasrelated to an offense of driving while under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.

IMPLEMENT PLATE REMOVAL AT THE SCENE

One obvious method of reducing the cost of vehicle impoundment programs is toimpound only the vehicle's license plates. This approach has been used successfully inMinnesota. The value of this countermeasure relies on its immediacy—it is most effec-tive when the law enforcement officer removes the plates at the time of arrest.

For plate impoundment to be effective, the state must have a method for blockingre-registration of that vehicle by the offending driver or immediate family members.Minnesota goes one step further by permanently blocking the registration of any ve-hicle driven by a three-time DUI offender, regardless of who owns the vehicle. Thisprovision is one way of curtailing the practice of friends lending their vehicle to a driverwho is barred from owning or registering a vehicle in his own name.

48

IMPLEMENT SPECIAL PLATES OR STICKERS AS AN AUTOMATIC PROBABLE

CAUSE FOR A TRAFFIC S T O P

The replacement of standard plates with a distinctive plate or sticker for selectedoffenders is another variation of vehicle impoundment. It has been shown to have adeterrent effect on DWS and multiple DUI drivers. The zebra sticker program in Or-egon was shown to be effective. Minnesota uses a W plate—that is, a plate with adistinctive letter W on it. The key to the effectiveness of distinctive plates and stickers isthe presumption of probable cause written into the law. This gives the officer justifica-tion to stop the vehicle simply because it is displaying the special plates.

Requiring the use of special plates or stickers for a probationary period followinglicense reinstatement can enhance the use of this countermeasure for driver control. Ata minimum, the plate should be required for the duration of any restricted or hardshiplicense grant. The onset of the special plate requirement should be delayed until imme-diately after any period of incarceration.

ESTABLISH MANDATORY JAIL T I M E FOR MULTIPLE OFFENDERS

There is clearly a cadre of drivers who are scofflaws and for whom no sanctionsappear to be effective. In these cases, jail time may be the only way to keep these peopleoff the road. The way to accomplish this goal is to raise the level of repeat DWS, DWR,and DWU offenses to that of a criminal offense and then to educate judges as to thedanger to the community posed by these offenders. They must be treated as if they wereviolent offenders capable of injuring or killing others through their driving behavior orjudges will be less willing to penalize them with jail time.

In some states, imposing mandatory jail sentences for habitual offenders may bepreferable to allowing judicial discretion. This is because, with judicial discretion, thesepotentially dangerous offenders may be given their freedom because of external factorssuch as jail overcrowding. The point of a mandatory jail sentence is to ensure that themost recalcitrant offenders are actually punished for their behavior. If overcrowding is aserious concern for some communities, consideration should be given to house arrestenforced through the use of tracking anklets or other positive means of ensuring thatthe convicted person does not gain access to a motor vehicle.

Even with mandatory sentences, training of judges and prosecutors is key. With-out their involvement and compliance, the use of plea bargains to lesser charges (thosenot requiring a mandatory jail sentence) is probable. It should be stressed in the train-ing that the sentences are warranted and that the law is written to target the mostserious offenders—those who continue to drive as long as they have access to a vehicle,regardless of license status, fines, or forfeiture of personal property. For those whomnothing short of physical restraint will keep from operating a motor vehicle, the lawwould allow for (and insist upon) their incarceration or house arrest.

49

ESTABLISH STRICTLY CIRCUMSCRIBED I G N I T I O N INTERLOCK PROGRAMS

Ignition interlocks have been found to be effective as a temporary means of drivercontrol for multiple offender DUI drivers. The main problems most often cited withthese types of devices are the cost (often more than the value of the vehicle) and the factthat, because the restrictions are tied to a vehicle, a determined driver could simply usea vehicle that is not equipped with the interlock and never change his or her behavior.Because these drivers are among the most dangerous on the road, it is clear that requir-ing an interlock alone may not be enough to deter them from driving outside the timesor places allowed under their restricted licenses.

The only way to better ensure compliance with interlock laws for all DUI-re-stricted recidivist drivers is through a system of meaningful rewards and punishments.For example, successful completion of a probationary period under an interlock devicecould be used, as in Michigan, as a precondition for reinstatement of a full, unrestrictedlicense. In addition, making it certain that any use of an unequipped vehicle by therestricted driver will result in revocation and jail time would provide a deterrent againstthis behavior. Seizure and forfeiture of unequipped vehicles used by the offender wouldprovide a deterrent against friends and family lending their vehicles.

ESTABLISH A SEPARATE LAW ENABLING LICENSE STATUS CHECKPOINTS

Some states are in the position that their DUI checkpoints have been ruled uncon-stitutional. This situation may not hold true for driver license checkpoints, which canbe viewed differently from a judicial point of view. Because it is extremely difficult toidentify DWS, DWR, and DWU drivers and because of their higher crash risk, theargument that license checkpoints are valid may be worthwhile in states where DUIcheckpoints have been ruled invalid.

BLOCK REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES BY DRIVERS LACKING A VALID LICENSE

As a supplemental component that strengthens other vehicle-based sanctions, ve-hicle registrations should be blocked for these operators. By blocking registrations, thestate can be sure that drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked cannotavoid the punishment of plate removal, vehicle impoundment, or other countermea-sures simply by obtaining another vehicle.

Procedures to Encourage Compliance with the Laws

ESTABLISH STRONG ADMINISTRATIVE C O N T R O L OF LICENSE ACTIONS

Centralized control of license action administration in the DMV (or equivalent) isa valuable approach to driver control. In particular, the laws enabling this sort of ad-ministrative control reduce judicial latitude with respect to the application and dura-

50

tion of suspensions, thereby standardizing treatment of offenders on the basis of theactual offense alone. This has an effect on both the swiftness and the certainty of penal-ties for serious offenses such as DUI or DWS and DWR. It can also have the effect ofreducing the variety of reasons for suspension to those that have a clear relationship totraffic safety. Even when the sanctions can only be applied after conviction (as is thecase in Michigan), the state still benefits from standardizing the penalties meted out todifferent drivers who commit the same or similar offenses.

One caveat on this approach is that it may foster a judicial backlash against thereduction in flexibility of sentencing. In Michigan, for example, it appears that judgesmay opt for deferred adjudication more readily as a means of retaining control over thetreatment of offenders. To reduce the likelihood of deferred adjudication, plea bargainsto reduce sentences, or other actions of the court that tend to water down the effective-ness of state's laws regarding DWS and DWR, it is important that states have the abilityto track citations from the point of issuance to final disposition, and that they have theability to analyze data at the court level.

ESTABLISH DRIVER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND INFORMATIONAL CAMPAIGNS

There is strong evidence that a large proportion of drivers whose licenses havebeen suspended or revoked fail to take the steps necessary to obtain a hardship licenseor, ultimately, to reinstate their license. Anecdotal evidence suggests that confusionover the proper procedures is one of the chief reasons for drivers' failure to reinstatetheir license, even though they meet all the requirements to do so. Some of the reasonsgiven for this by state experts are that people do not understand what steps they aresupposed to take, do not understand what options are open to them, and do not evenrealize that their suspension is in effect until they apply for reinstatement.

The reinstatement fees and additional insurance costs were also cited as plausiblereasons for failure to obtain a valid license once the suspension period has expired. At aminimum, giving drivers who are suspended a simple, easy-to-follow set of instructionson how to get their license back (or to receive a hardship license) is worthwhile. Goingfurther (as in Iowa and Minnesota) to provide personalized assistance over the tele-phone or in person is a better way to help ensure that drivers get back into the system assoon as they are eligible. The alternative, it appears, is that suspended drivers will notpursue reinstatement and will simply drive without a valid license.

R E D U C E THE POSSIBILITY AND U S E OF PLEA BARGAINING THROUGH

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EDUCATION

Education of prosecutors and judges is probably the most effective way to reducethe possibility that DWS and DWR charges will be reduced or dismissed. This is aprocedural solution that the DMV and the administrative office of the courts shouldwork on together to ensure that the message gets out in the most effective mannerpossible. Tracking systems that show the proportion of DWS and DWR cases reduced

51

or dismissed, at a court-by-court level, are good tools for fostering awareness of thisissue. Of course, giving judges and prosecutors solid information about the safety threatposed by DWS, DWR, and DWU drivers should be a key goal of any education pro-gram.

CREATE LINKS BETWEEN DRIVER AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION FILES

The benefit of linking driver records and vehicle registration files is that it makes itpossible for a state to block vehicle registrations and renewals for vehicles owned bysuspended or revoked drivers (or for any driver who lacks a valid license). This alsohelps states to confirm compliance with financial responsibility laws.

Systems and Procedures for Effectively Sanctioning Violators

CREATE CITATION-TRACKING SYSTEMS

The best system to ensure that drivers do not escape the administrative and judi-cial punishments due to them is one that tracks the efficiency of the enforcement andadjudication processes. In particular, very few states can easily generate an analysis ofthe proportion of DWS, DWR, and DWU charges that result in a conviction. Florida,as an example, is able to do this at the level of individual counties (and presumablycourts within counties). The system in Florida is not, at present, easy to use, but futureupgrades will allow the state to analyze the outcomes of any citation for any type ofviolation from the point when the ticket was issued to the point where a disposition isreceived from the court. This information is valuable in developing targeted educationprograms for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges.

CONVERT TO EASY-TO-USE DRIVER HISTORY RECORDS FOR POLICE,

PROSECUTORS, AND COURTS

The system for presenting a driver history record to an officer in the field or aprosecutor preparing a court case must be user friendly. In particular, the system shouldprovide information not just on previous convictions but also on the changes in thelicense status. A good example is the system in Iowa that immediately tells the officerthat, if a charge of a specific type (e.g., DWS or DUI) is made against the driver, thevehicle is eligible for impoundment, the plates can be taken, or whatever the appropri-ate action is. For use by prosecutors and judges in traffic cases, it is important that thedriver history record is easy to understand and that they have training in how to inter-pret the record with respect to the state's point system or multiple offender laws.

PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION IN DRIVER HISTORY

RECORDS

Driver history records must be as up-to-date as possible in order to be used reliablyby law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. The state should encourage the automatic

52

electronic transfer of citation information from the field to the courts and dispositioninformation from the courts to the DMV.

SIMPLIFY THE LAWS REGARDING LICENSE SUSPENSION

Confusion about the law is a serious problem in many of the states we visited. Thevehicle code in most states is comprised of a series of layers that have been altered andexpanded over several legislative sessions. The task of reformatting the laws into moremeaningful categories or combining sections to deal with topics such as suspension inone section of the law, instead of across multiple sections, is daunting. But confusinglaws make it far more likely that offenders do not experience the punishments pre-scribed by the law because either they are mischarged in the first place or their defensefinds a way to have the charges reduced. Perhaps more important, if the laws are confus-ing, the task of explaining to a suspended or revoked driver what they need to do toreinstate their license becomes very complex. If drivers do not understand what is re-quired of them, they are less likely to complete the reinstatement process.

53

54

A p p e n d i x A. Fatal Traffic Crashes in the United States, 1993-99

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety's June 2000 report Unlicensed to Kill (Grif-fin and DeLaZerda 2000) showed that between 1993 and 1997 nationwide as many as20 percent of fatal crashes involved at least one driver who was operating a motorvehicle without a valid license. This appendix replicates and extends the 2000 reportwith data for additional years and trend analyses.

Analysis of the Data

To update Unlicensed to Kill, the most recent 7 years of Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem (FARS) data were analyzed. Table A.1 shows that between 1993 and 1999,390,278 drivers were involved in fatal crashes in the United States. An additional 186driver records were identified in the FARS data files but were coded as "missing" thedriver's license status information (bringing the total number of driver records to

Table A.1 License Status of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes in theUnited States, 1993-99, and Comparison with DataReported in Unlicensed to Kill (June 2000) for 1993-97

License Status

ValidValidLearner's permitTemporaryValid, all 3

AberrantNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or

deniedUnknownAberrant, all

Total

Source: Fatality Analysis

1993-99

Frequency Percent

336,0911,353

163337,607

14,19618,6574,0374,385

572

9,82451,671

390,278

Reporting System data

86.10.30.0

86.5

3.64.81.31.10.1

2.513.5

100

1993-97

Frequency

238,547951124

239,622

10,22813,0943,7183,348

435

7,63238,455

278,078

Percent

85.80.30.0

86.2

3.74.71.31.20.2

2.713.8

100

1All data used in this report were drawn from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System for 1993 to 1999. Asin the prior report, Unlicensed to Kill, the FARS variable (L_STATUS) was used exclusively to determine the license status of drivers involved in fatal crashes.This variable records the status of all licenses except any commercial driver's license that the involved individuals may hold at the time of the crash.

55

390,464). These were dropped from all analyses in this report. The table gives thedriver's license status1 at the time of the crash. There are few differences to point outbetween the update and the original analysis. The proportion of drivers with a validlicense (valid + learner's permit + temporary) has increased slightly in the update, indi-cating that 1998 and 1999 saw an upswing in comparison with the earlier 5 years.

Note that as an update to the Unlicensed to Kill report, this appendix includesupdated tables and figures, plus a section on the changes in the license status of driversinvolved in fatal crashes during the 7 years. To simplify the discussion throughout theremainder of the appendix, the following terms are defined:

• Valid licenses are those coded in FARS as "valid," "learner's permit" or "tempo-rary." The term "valid license" will be used to indicate the group of all three classes,unless the table includes the three classes separately (as in table A. 1). The meaningshould be clear from the context.

• Aberrant license status refers to the grouping of all license status categories other

than valid, learner's permit, or temporary.

As may be seen in table A.1, though the vast majority of drivers involved in fatalcrashes possessed a valid license at the time of the crash, a large proportion of drivershad some form of aberrant license status. The most frequent aberrant status was drivingwith a suspended license.

Figure A. 1 shows the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes lacking a valid license atthe time of the crash. All aberrant license status categories were combined to give thepercentages shown for each state. As in the previous report, the average over all stateswas just under 14% (13.8% for 1993-97 data, 13.5% for 1993-99 data). This repre-sents a slight overall drop.

Changes in the rank ordering of states did take place when the more recent datawere added to the figure. However, Maine still had the lowest percentage of drivers withan aberrant license status (6.1%) and New Mexico still had the highest (23.1%). Sev-eral states improved their ranking (moving toward the top end of figure A. 1, indicatinga lower crash involvement by drivers with an aberrant license status). Most notable ofthese states were Rhode Island (which moved up 8 places in the ranking), Pennsylvaniaand Nevada (each moved 6), Oregon (5), and West Virginia and Delaware (each 4).Several other states showed negative changes in their ranking (moving toward the bot-tom of figure A. 1, indicating a higher crashing involvement by drivers with an aberrantlicense status). Most notable of these were Vermont (which moved down 11 places);Washington (8); Illinois (6); and Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma (each 4).

For small states, the broad movements are most easily explained by the fact thatsmall numbers of crashes can change the percentage in any category within an analysisof FARS data. For example, Rhode Island's entire contribution to the analysis consisted

56

Figure A.1 Percentage of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes Who Were Driving with anAberrant License Status, Ranked by the State Where the Accident Occurred,1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

of 455 drivers in the 1993-97 period, and 666 in the 1993-99 period. A 1% change inaberrant license status required only a difference of 7 drivers in the more recent period.

The overall change for Rhode Island was 1.6 percentage points, representing adifference of 11 drivers in fatal crashes during the final 2 years of the analysis period(1998 and 1999).

57

For other, larger states, the changes are less easily explained. One possible reason isthat many states are "bunched" in the distribution. The middle of the distribution, forexample, is crowded with states that are near the average of 13.5% aberrant licensestatus. Under those conditions, individual states could change a great deal in rankingjust by moving a small percentage.

The largest positive changes in the percentage of drivers with an aberrant licensestatus were posted by the District of Columbia (2.1 percentage points), Arizona (2),Hawaii and Rhode Island (1.6 each), and Delaware (1.4) and Nevada (1.3). Of these,only Arizona (at 8,739) had a moderate to large number of drivers in the data set, andthat state did not change in ranking against other states in figure A. 1. The other stateshad such a small number of crashes (and drivers) in the analysis that such swings areconsidered just an artifact of small changes in their crash experience. At the other end ofthe spectrum, the largest negative changes in the percentage of drivers with an aberrantlicense status were posted by Louisiana (a change of 2 percentage points), Vermont(1.6), and Washington (1.4). Vermont is a small state. Louisiana and Washington areboth medium-sized to large in terms of the number of drivers included in the analysis(7,931 and 6,129, respectively).

In summary, there is reason to suspect that most of the changes seen in figure A. 1between the current analysis and the original are products of either the small numbersof drivers involved in individual states or the close groupings of states—making it easyfor some states to move several places up or down in the rankings.

Table A.2 shows the distribution of license status across vehicle types as coded inFARS. As in the previous report, the license status of drivers involved in fatal crashesvaries among the various vehicle types. Motorcyclists are almost twice as likely as pas-senger car drivers to be driving with a suspended license. Drivers of commercial motor

Table A.2 Driver's License Status by Vehicle Type (as a percentage within vehicle type) for Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes, 1993-99

License Status

Valid, allAberrant, allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceledUnknownTotal percentNumber of drivers

Vehicle Type

Car

85.814.285.30.40.14.45.31.41.20.21.8

100.0207,638

Utility

90.010.089.60.40.02.84.00.90.90.21.2

100.026,196

Pickup

88.511.598.130.20.02.74.81.51.30.21.0

100.073,125

Van

89.210.8878.90.30.03.13.80.91.200.11.9

100.023,964

OtherLightTruck

88.511.588.4

0.10.02.64.40.60.80.13.1

100.01,077

Medium-WeightTruck

94.45.6

94.30.10.01.12.10.50.50.11.4

100.03,509

HeavyTruck

9 84.2

95.80.00.00.21.10.20.30.12.4

100.0389,608

Motorcycle

80.119.978.91.10.14.99.52.41.90.21.0

100.016,226

Bus

98.11.9

98.10.00.00.00.40.00.00.01.3

100.02,002

Other

33.866.233.3

0.40.1

10.02.21.10.90.1

52.0100.06,893

Total

86.413.686.1

0.30.03.64.81.31.10.12.5

100.03,50928

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

58

vehicles (especially heavy trucks and buses) are much less likely to have any aberrantlicense status than are operators of the other types of motor vehicles. There were 856missing cases excluded from the analysis reported in table A.2. The total number ofcases (including missing ones) was 390,464.

Table A.3 displays the mix of driver license status among all drivers involved ineach fatal crash recorded in the FARS data for 1993-99. The table shows that almost20% of crashes involve at least one driver with an aberrant license status. This repre-sents a slight change from the previous report in that, for the 1993-97 period covered inthat report, 80.0% of all crashes involved only drivers with a valid license. After 1998and 1999 data are added, the results for all 7 years show a small improvement, in that80.4% of fatal crashes involved only drivers with a valid license. Note also that the datain table A.3 represent numbers of crashes and of fatalities. Most other tables in thisappendix represent numbers of drivers.

Table A.4 presents the gender and median age of drivers involved in fatal crashes,distributed among the license status recorded in FARS (1993-99). Additional detailscan be found in appendixes B through D. As in the previous report, there are, in gen-eral, large gender differences for drivers involved in fatal crashes—73% of all driversinvolved in fatal crashes are male, 26% are female, and the sex of 1 % is unknown. Byscanning the columns in table A.4, one can easily see that for certain aberrant license

Table A.3 Fatal Crashes and Fatalities by Driver's License Status of Drivers Involved inFatal Crashes, 1993-99

License Status of Drivers Involved in the Crasha

License Status for all DriversInvolved in Fatal Crashes

Fatal Crashes Fatalities

Number Percent Number Percent

ValidInvalidUnlicensedUnknownValidValidValidInvalidInvalidUnlicensedValidValidValidInvalidValid

Total

InvalidUnlicensedUnknownUnlicensedUnknownUnknownInvalidInvalidUnlicensedUnlicensedInvalid

UnlicensedUnknownUnknownUnknownUnlicensed Unknown

206,15

75

1153

256,

078279741878893,49900134621713310310266

45

345

80.46.03.02.34.62.11.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.0

100.0

23016

86

1463,

287;

,151507733164450859576430256172134133

8046

655

80.05.73.02.15.02.41.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.0

100.0

aThe rows list all the possible combinations of license status involved in a single crash—all drivers whopossessed valid licenses, and all who possessed invalid licenses—through the combination in whicheach license status class is represented by at least one driver. The rows do not indicate the number ofvehicles in the crash, except of course that single-vehicle crashes cannot have two different licensestatus records, two vehicle crashes cannot have three different status records, and so on.

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data 59

categories, males are even more likely to be overrepresented in the data. Males show thisfurther overrepresentation in the categories for driving without a license; driving with asuspended, revoked, or expired license; and driving with a canceled license.

Table A.4 also shows that the median age of drivers involved in fatal crashes variesas a function of their license status. Drivers with a valid license had the highest medianage (37 years). Among the aberrant license classes, the median age for those without alicense was the lowest, at 23 years. This is not surprising because the FARS recordsinclude a fair number of underage drivers who would all fall in this category. The me-dian age for drivers with suspended licenses is a full 8 years younger than that for driverswith valid licenses (29 versus 37 years). There were 187 missing records excluded fromthe analysis reported in table A.2, bringing the total number of records to 390,464.

Figures A.2 through A.5 compare the age distribution of drivers with an aberrantlicense status with that of drivers with a valid license. Figures A.6 through A. 10 com-pare the times of day of fatal crashes involving drivers with aberrant license classifica-tions with those of drivers with valid licenses.

Table A.4 Driver's License Status by Gender and Median Age, 1993-99

License Status

Valid, allAberrant, allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceledUnknowna

Total

Male

Number

244,95039,542

243,930901119

11,33516,0134,5423,438

4873727

284,492

Percent

72.675.172.666.673.079.885.890.278.485.137.9

72.9

Gender

Female

Number Percent

92,6077,720

92,111452

442,8502,631

493947

84715

100,327

27.414.727.433.427.020.114.19.8

21.614.77.3

25.7

Unknown

Number

495,409

4900

1113201

5,382

5,458

Percent

.010.30.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.2

54.8

1.4

MedianAge

(years)

36313717232329323433

TotalDrivers

337,60652,671

336,01,353

16314,19618,6575,0374,385

5729,824

390,277

aThe empty cell in this row and the one below indicate that data are unknown.

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Figures A.2 through A.5 and figures A.6 through A. 10 are similar to those pre-sented in the earlier report. For drivers involved in fatal crashes, the distribution ofdriver age and hour of the day differs between drivers with valid licenses and those withan aberrant license status. The differences in age distribution make some logical sense,in that those with suspended, revoked, or expired licenses show a peak of the age distri-

60

Figure A.2 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Suspended orValid Licenses by Age, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Figure A.3 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Revoked or ValidLicenses by Age, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

bution that is higher (older age) than for drivers with valid licenses. This no doubt, inpart, reflects the fact that one must first have a valid license before that license can besuspended, revoked, or expire. In addition, there is little doubt that the legal drinkingage affects these distributions. That is, though the peak of the valid driver age distribu-tion in fatal crashes is earlier, the valid driver distribution is flatter and the median agefor drivers with valid licenses is higher than for any of the aberrant license status classi-fications.

61

Figure A.4 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Expired or ValidLicenses, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Figure A.5 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers without Licenses or withValid Licenses, 1993-99

• Valid D No license

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

One could hypothesize that the earlier peak for those with valid licenses reflectsthe fact that young drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes regardless ofwhether or not they engage in behaviors that can lead to suspensions and revocations.The flatter distribution for those with valid licenses is reflective of the nature of rare

62

Figure A.6 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Suspended or ValidLicenses by Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Figure A.7 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Revoked or ValidLicenses by Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

events (fatal crashes) and the fact that all drivers face some risk of being involved in afatal crash regardless of their license status. The lower median and higher peak of thedistributions for those with an aberrant license status indicates clearly that these driversare a more homogeneous class of drivers than all drivers in general, or all drivers with avalid license.

The time-of-day (hour) distributions given in figures A. 6 through A. 10 clearlyindicate that drivers with an aberrant license status are more likely to be involved in

63

Figure A.8 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Expired or ValidLicenses by Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Figure A.9 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers without Licenses or withValid Licenses by Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

fatal crashes in the late night and early morning hours than are those with a valid license(whose distribution peaks during the afternoon to early evening hours). What is notknown, of course, is whether these differences reflect a difference in the times at whichpeople with an aberrant license status drive (e.g., do they avoid driving during theday?), or whether it reflects those times during which those with an aberrant licensestatus are most likely to engage in dangerous behavior (e.g., drinking and driving).

64

Figure A.10 Percentage of Fatal Crashes that Involved Drivers with Unknown LicenseStatus or Valid Licenses by Hour when Crash Occurred, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table A. 5 displays the police officers' judgment of alcohol involvement for driversinvolved in fatal crashes during the period 1993-99. The table gives the percentagedistribution among the possible codes for alcohol involvement for each type of licensestatus classification. Only drivers operating with a temporary license show higher "noalcohol" involvement than drivers with valid licenses, but these drivers also showed ahigher "alcohol involved" indicator than those with simply valid licenses. All the aber-rant license status classifications have a much higher percentage of alcohol involvement

Table A.5 Driver's License Status by Presence of Alcohol (in the Opinion of the InvestigatingOfficer), 1993-99

License Status No Alcohol

Alcohol Involvement Indicator (percent)

Alcohol Involved Not Reported Unknown TotalDrivers

Valid, allAberrant, allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

Total drivers

56.228.756.254.769.933.130.118.632.336.022.7

204,836

13.430.713.413.219.629.538.552.432.540.0

5.1

61,250

18.618.818.616.46.7

21.013.211.721.311.429.6

72,628

11.921.811.915.73.7

16.418.317.313.912.642.7

51,532

337,58052,666

336,0641,353

16314,19418,655

5,0374,384

5729,824

390,246

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

65

Table A.6 Previous Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Convictions for Drivers Involved in FatalCrashes by License Status, 1993-99

License Status

Valid, allAberrant, allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknownNumber of drivers

None

97.864.097.898.794.582.977.458.193.582.3

0.3363,778

DWI Convictions in 3

1Conviction

1.810.1

1.80.73.71.7

17.729.4

4.713.30.0

11,494

2

Years Prior to Crash

3+Convictions Convictions

0.22.40.20.21.20.33.89.50.72.80.0

1,869

0.00.60.00.00.00.10.92.90.10.70.0

419

(percent)

UnknownNumber

0.222.8

0.20.40.6

15.00.20.11.00.9

99.712,712

TotalDrivers

337,60252,670

336,0861,353

16314,19618,656

5,0374,385

5729,824

390,272

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table A.7 Previous Suspensions and Revocations for Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes byLicense Status, 1993-99

License Status

Valid, allAberrant, allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknownNumber of drivers

None

92.537.392.593.885.377.319.023.382.753.5

0.2331,844

Suspension or RevocationPrior to Crash

1Conviction

4.616.94.62.7

11.03.0

36.224.1

8.325.5

0.024,456

2

Convictions in 3(percent)

3+Convictions Convictions

1.59.01.51.31.81.7

18.517.73.28.40.0

9,989

1.213.9

1.21.81.23.1

26.134.8

4.811.7

0.011,272

Years

UnknownNumber

0.222.8

0.20.40.6

15.00.20.11.00.92.5

12,710

TotalDrivers

337,60252,669

336,0861,353

16314,19618,655

5,0374,385

5729,824

390,271

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

noted by the investigating officer than for any of the valid license classifications (valid,learner's permit, or temporary). There were 218 missing cases excluded from the analy-sis reported in table A.5, bringing the total number of cases to 390,464.

Tables A.6 and A.7 display driver history information for drivers involved in fatalcrashes during the period 1993-99. Table A.6 shows previous convictions for drivingwhile intoxicated (DWI) in the 3 years before the fatal crash for drivers in each licensestatus classification. Table A.7 shows previous suspensions and revocations in the 3

66

years before the fatal crash for drivers in each license status classification. Percentages inthe table are within license status classification across the possible values of the driverhistory variable (DWI convictions or suspensions or revocations, respectively, for tablesA.6 and A.7). There were 192 and 193 missing cases excluded from the analyses re-ported in tables A.6 and A.7, respectively, bringing the total number of cases to 390,464.

It is not surprising that the aberrant license status categories show a high percent-age of drivers with previous DWI convictions and previous suspensions or revocations.Drivers with valid licenses at the time of the fatal crash show much lower percentages ofprevious DWI convictions or suspensions or revocations. Among the aberrant licenseclassifications, those with suspended or revoked licenses at the time of the fatal crash aremuch more likely than other license status classifications to have had previous DWIconvictions or suspensions or revocations.

Figure A. 11 shows the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes who wereoperating under a suspended or revoked license and whose driver history showed threeor more suspensions or revocations in the 3 years before the crash. The data in figureA. 11 are sorted by the ranking of the state that issued the license under which the driverwas operating when the crash occurred.

Figure A.11 is, of course, open to some interpretation. One possibility is that driv-ers from states toward the bottom of the figure (e.g., New Jersey) are more willing thandrivers from other states to operate a motor vehicle without a valid license. Anotherinterpretation is that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses are equally likely todrive without a valid license, but that the states at the bottom of the distribution issuesuspensions and revocations to only the most seriously dangerous drivers. Either sce-nario would explain the shape of the figure and the rankings of the states.

Table A.8 displays a classification of drivers with unknown license status by whetherthey were hit-and-run drivers or not. For those who were hit-and-run drivers, the tableshows whether they struck a nonmotorist, a motor vehicle in transport, or a parkedmotor vehicle (or stationary object). For those who were not hit-and-run drivers, thetable displays the source of their driver's license (same state, other state, military, othercountry, etc.). The data are for only those drivers involved in fatal crashes whose licensestatus was coded "unknown" in FARS (1993-99).

Table A.9 displays the vehicle types driven by young (age 4-19 years) unlicenseddrivers involved in fatal crashes. Table A. 10 displays the driver's outcome (fatality versusnonfatality) for drivers involved in fatal crashes for each license status classification.Percentages are within license status. The table shows drivers from single- and multi-vehicle crashes separately so that percentages add to 100% within each license status forboth single- and multi-vehicle crashes. There were 186 missing cases excluded from theanalysis reported in table A. 10, bringing the total number of cases to 390,464.

The data presented in tables A.8, A.9, and A. 10 are similar to those presented in

67

Figure A.11 Percentage of Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses Involved in FatalCrashes Who Had Three or More Suspensions or Revocations in the Three Yearsbefore the Crash, Ranked by Licensing State, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

the previous report (which covered 1993-97 fatal crashes). Table A.8 shows that driverswith an unknown license status in fatal crashes are more likely to be hit-and-run driversthan non-hit-and-run ones, and that if they are not hit-and-run drivers, they are mostlikely from somewhere other than the state in which the crash occurred. This table thusprovides some plausible reasons for why the driver's license status was unknown—either

68

Table A.8 Drivers with Unknown License Status by Hit-and-Run Statusand Jurisdiction of License Origin, 1993-99

Drivers of Unknown License Status Number Percent

Hit-and-run drivers (subtotal)Hit pedestrian or nonmotoristHit parked vehicle or stationary objectHit motor vehicle in transport

Non-hit-and-run drivers (subtotal)Drivers from other states or U.S. territoriesDrivers from state in which crash occurredDrivers from militaryDrivers from CanadaDrivers from MexicoDrivers from other countriesDrivers from unknown state or country

Total drivers

5,4644,385

651,0144,3601,26667344

199426

1,788

9,824

55.644.60.710.344.412.96.90.00.02.04.318.2

100

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table A.9 Vehicle Type Driven by Young Unlicensed Drivers (4-19 years old) Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1993-99(number of drivers)

VehicleType 4

Passenger carUtilityPickupVanLight truckMedium-

weight truckHeavy truckMotorcycleOther 2

Total 2

5

2

2

6

4

4

7

35

8

8

1

28

11

9

111

119

23

Unlicensed

10

213

626

38

101

6161

1224

50

Driver Age

12

24472

1

1947

104

13

791826

2

1

3549

210

(years)

14

231235827

5093

482

15

46750

10330

5488

792

16

529658433

3135

777

17

60047

11432

1

12

2426

847

18

623419231

5317

857

19

543337933

2

3912

741

Total

3,105284574191

3

32

329457

4,948

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

the driver left the scene; or the state, territory, or country that issued their driver'slicense could not provide the FARS analyst with license status data in time for thecloseout of the annual FARS file.

Table A.9 shows that young unlicensed drivers involved in fatal crashes are mostlikely to have been behind the wheel of a typical passenger vehicle. A relatively largenumber of these young unlicensed drivers were operating vehicles classified as "other"in FARS.

69

Table A.10 Driver Outcome (Fatality or Nonfataiity) by Driver's License Status and Crash Mode (Single- versus Multi-Vehicle Crashes),1993-99

License Status

Valid, allAberrant allValidLearner's permitTemporaryNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

Total drivers

Single-Vehicle

Fatality

Number

51,05812,90150,694

33331

3,1663,464

809690

804,692

63,959

Percent

43.646.343.551.538.842.036.028.633.329.484.8

44.1

Crashes

Nonfataiity

Number

66,16314,97265,801

31349

4,3706,1672,0221,381

191841

81,135

Percent

56.453.756.548.561.358.064.071.466.770.515.2

55.9

Multi-Vehicle

Fatality

Number

141,67914,420

141,208424

473,6704,8451,1501,104

1593,492

156,099

Percent

64.358.164.360.056.655.153.752.147.752.881.4

63.7

Crashes

Nonfataiity

Number

78,70710,37878,388

28336

2,9904,1811,0561,210

142799

89,085

Percent

35.741.935.740.043.444.946.347.952.347.218.6

36.3

Number

337,60752,671

336,0911,353

16314,19618,6574,0374,385

5729,824

390,278

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table A.11 Annual Driver's License Status Percentages for Each State,1993-99

State and License Status

Alabama

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Alaska

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Arizona

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Arkansas

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

California

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

1993

81.29

18.71

4.42

5.89

4.93

1.03

0.29

2.14

86.07

13.93

7.38

0.82

4.92

0.82

80.20

19.80

6.37

5.20

0.69

2.16

5.39

87.18

12.82

4.87

4.74

0.26

1.92

1.15

74.69

25.31

6.27

9.17

0.94

3.26

0.06

5.64

1994

80.12

19.88

4 . 4

4.64

4.36

0.62

0.14

5.47

79.57

20.43

7.53

2.15

5.38

2.15

3.23

77.60

22.40

6.26

6.85

1.27

2.1

0.34

5.58

87.10

12.90

3.07

6.14

0.12

1.60

0.25

1.97

76.20

23.80

6.69

8.56

0.92

2.82

4.88

1995

83.19

16.81

4.46

4.73

5.19

0.66

0.13

1.64

84.11

15.89

2.80

3.74

7.48

1.87

78.317

21.63

7.40

5.44

0.94

1.16

0.58

6.10

88.35

11.65

4.51

4.76

1.50

0.13

1.00

78.26

21.74

5.18

8.42

0.84

2.78

0.05

4.58

1996

83.9

16.511

5.18

3.89

3.69

0.71

0.13

2.00

81.19

18.81

6.93

2.97

5.94

0.99

1.98

77.46

22.54

7.51

5.79

0.55

1.49

0.31

6.89

86.57

13.43

2.41

7.98

0.25

2.28

0.13

0.38

80.39

19.61

4.86

7.90

0.64

1.98

4.37

1997

83.49

15.921

5.05

5.42

4.44

0.80

0.18

0.62

82.80

17.20

9.68

3.23

2.15

2.15

77.56

22.44

6.02

6.10

0.89

1.63

0.16

7.64

87.10

12.90

3.05

7.97

0.12

0.94

0.23

0.70

81.57

18.43

4.68

6.82

0.58

2 2

0.02

4.37

1998

84.43

15.57

4.94

5.42

3.50

0.55

0.14

1.03

80.00

20.00

4.71

1.18

5.88

2.35

5.88

82.79

17.21

6.08

4.89

0.79

0.87

0.32

4.26

87.26

12.74

2.40

8.89

0.12

0.84

0.12

0.36

81.44

18.56

4.23

7.01

0.68

1.982

0.02

4.87

1999

84.08

15.92

5.17

4.84

3.90

0.60

0.47

0.94

85.15

14.85

1.98

2.97

5.94

2.97

0.99

78.31

21.69

8.53

6.51

0.94

0.72

0.14

4.84

85.84

14.16

2.42

8.55

0.89

1.15

0.26

0.89

81.72

18.28

4.53

6.58

0.57

2.22

0.07

4.40

All Years

82.99

17.01

4.85

4.96

4.28

0.71

0.21

2.00

82.91

17.09

5.84

2.42

5.13

1.42

0.28

1.99

78.86

21.14

6.93

5.84

0.87

1.41

0.27

5.81

87.06

12.94

3.24

7.03

0.25

1.45

0.16

0.92

79.02

20.98

5.26

7.84

0.75

2.44

0.03

4.74

71

Table A.11 / 2

State and License Status

ColoradoValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

ConnecticutValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

DelawareValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

District of ColumbiaValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

FloridaValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver's License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

87.21

12.79

2.45

5.03

2.72

1.22

0.95

0.68

89.85

10.15

3.02

5.62

0.43

0.22

0.86

84.80

15.20

3.51

3.51

2.34

0.58

0.58

4.68

76.54

23.46

1.23

2.47

1.23

1.23

0.00

17.28

86.93

13.07

2.03

5.86

0.35

0.16

0.05

4.61

1994

85.68

14.32

4.56

4.82

2.15

0.76

1.01

2.03

89.63

10.37

3.70

4.44

0.49

0.25

1.48

85.45

14.55

3.03

3.03

3.03

0.661

4.85

79.52

20.48

6.02

6.02

0.00

8.43

85.89

14.11

2.032

6.39

0.37

0.19

0.19

4.66

1995

85.53

14.47

4.15

3.44

4.27

1.19

0.24

1.54

89.41

10.59

2.46

4.43

0.99

0.25

2.46

85.38

14.62

2.34

3.51

2.34

0.58

1.17

4.68

81.58

18.42

5.26

3.95

1.32

0.00

7.89

87.41

12.59

2.29

5.88

0.25

0.18

0.08

3.92

1996

84.61

15.39

4.38

4.26

3.50

1.75

0.25

1.88

90.31

9.69

3.55

4.26

0.24

1.65

86.63

13.37

1.60

3.21

1.07

0.53

0.53

6.42

73.49

26.51

10.84

2.41

1.20

0.00

12.05

87.89

12.1

2.86

5.40

0.18

0.13

0.15

3.39

1997

85.22

14.78

3.57

2.83

4.19

2.09

0.37

1.85

89.56

10.44

4.67

4.44

0.44

0.22

0.67

85.56

14.44

4.28

1.07

4.81

0.53

1.60

2.14

74.70

25.30

6.02

4.82

1.20

0.00

13.25

88.60

11.40

2.88

4.40

0.18

0.05

0.08

3.82

1998

87.69

12.31

2.72

2.96

4.02

1.18

0.36

1.66

90.95

9.05

2.43

4.86

1.10

0.66

89.41

10.59

2.35

2.94

1.76

1.18

1.76

0.59

85.71

14.29

7.79

1.30

0.00

5.19

88.90

11.10

3.07

4.63

0.12

0.15

0.02

3.10

1999

86.28

13.72

3.46

2.27

4.06

1.31

1.07

1.79

88.92

11.08

4.03

3.78

0.25

1.26

1.76

90.79

9.21

2.63

2.63

1.97

0.66

1.32

83.64

16.36

3.64

0.00

12.73

90.24

9.76

2.45

4.09

0.02

0.05

0.02

3.12

All Years

86.03

13.97

3.62

3.62

3.59

1.36

0.60

1.64

89.82

10.18

3.40

4.57

0.17

0.60

0.10

1.33

86.78

13.22

2.83

2.83

2.49

0.50

1.00

3.57

79.00

21.00

5.58

3.53

0.56

0.37

10.97

88.03

11.97

2.57

5.21

0.21

0.13

0.08

3.78

72

Table A.11 / 3

State and License Status

GeorgiaValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

HawaiiValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

IdahoValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

UnknownIllinois

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

IndianaValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

Unknown

Annual Driver’s License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

86.25

13.75

3.12

5.61

0.85

0.95

0.11

3.12

77.22

22.78

6.67

5.56

3.33

5.56

1.67

77.09

22.91

3.64

3.64

0.36

0.73

14.55

88.62

11.38

3.27

4.06

0.68

0.63

0.05

2.69

91.90

8.10

0.94

4.64

1.02

0.08

1.42

1994

90.00

10.00

2.44

4.57

0.40

0.55

0.110

1.94

76.19

23.81

4.76

6.12

8.84

4.08

85.53

14.47

2.89

5.14

0.64

2.89

2.89

89.91

10.09

2.41

3.35

0.66

0.61

0.14

2.692

90.34

9.66

1.35

4.57

0.15

1.57

0.07

1.95

1995

88.19

11.81

2.58

5.98

0.72

0.81

0.14

1.58

71.70

28.30

5.03

10.06

1.89

6.29

5.03

84.00

16.00

3.69

7.08

1.23

2.15

1.85

87.39

12.61

3.79

4.90

0.74

0.630

0.05

2.54

89.16

10.84

1.82

5.82

0.07

1.53

0.07

1.53

1996

88.41

11.59

2.81

5.61

0.94

0.79

0.09

1.36

80.20

19.80

6.44

4.95

2.97

3.47

0.50

1.49

87.50

12.50

4.46

5.06

0.360

1.49

1.19

88.298

12.32

3.50

4.93

0.39

0.79

0.05

2.66

87.64

12.36

1.93

6.79

1.021

0.21

3.111

1997

88.75

11.25

2.49

4.98

0.69

0.55

0.05

2.49

83.33

16.67

5.00

3.89

2.22

2.78

2.78

86.18

13.82

4.93

5.59

0.66

1.32

1.32

88.29

11.71

3.40

3.66

0.73

1.10

0.05

2.77

88.07

11.93

1.04

6.30

1.41

0.07

3.11

1998

88.02

11.98

3.49

5.19

0.92

0.32

2.07

89.83

10.17

5.65

2.26

1.13

0.56

0.56

82.72

17.28

3.70

7.41

1.54

1.85

2.78

85.75

14.25

5.42

3.72

0.36

0.98

0.10

3.67

88.72

11.28

2.18

6.62

0.22

1.02

1.24

1999

89.22

10.78

3.76

4.72

0.77

0.53

1.01

76.60

23.40

4.96

5.67

2.13

7.80

0.71

2.13

88.76

11.24

3.75

4.03

0.58

1.73

0.29

0.86

86.40

13.60

4.68

3.89

0.49

1.48

3.05

89.53

10.47

1.22

6.24

1.22

1.79

All Years

88.42

11.58

2.95

5.23

0.76

0.64

0.07

1.92

79.60

20.40

5.56

5.40

1.85

4.89

0.25

2.45

84.74

15.26

3.87

5.45

0.77

1.76

0.05

3.38

87.73

12.27

3.77

4.08

0.58

0.88

0.06

2.90

89.31

10.69

1.51

5.87

0.06

1.28

0.07

1.89

73

Table A.11 / 4

State and License Status

IowaValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or denied

UnknownKansas

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

KentuckyValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

LouisianaValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

MaineValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

Unknown

Annual Driver’s License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

89.34

10.66

1.72

3.45

2.98

1.25

0.31

0.94

92.06

7.94

2.25

2.76

0.69

1.55

0.69

91.06

8.94

2.13

4.34

0.09

1.19

1.19

87.73

12.27

3.78

4.61

2.03

1.85

94.67

14.33

4.89

0.44

0.00

1994

91.77

8.23

2.54

2.40

1.65

1.05

0.15

0.45

91.22

8.78

2.51

4.30

0.54

1.08

0.36

90.35

9.65

2.46

4 . 40.19

1.04

1.32

87.29

12.271

3.04

5.34

0.18

2.49

1.66

91.87

8.13

3.25

3.25

0.41

0.41

0.00

0.81

1995

89.36

10.64

3.40

2.70

1.84

1.42

0.14

1.13

87.63

12.37

2.44

7.32

0.87

1.05

0.70

9.1291

8.79

2.42

3.86

0.18

0.99

1.35

85.83

14.17

3.91

5.72

3.00

0.09

1.45

93.44

6.56

0.39

3.09

0.00

3.09

1996

88.00

12.00

2.96

2.81

2.07

1.04

0.15

2.96

87.69

12.371

3.56

5.49

1.63

0.89

0.30

0.45

91.07

8.93

1.96

4 . 40.36

0.63

0.09

1.25

81.50

18.50

3.25

6.59

0.180

1.38

0.20

6.99

94.50

5.50

0.46

5.05

0.00

1997

90.91

9.09

2.16

2.47

2.16

0.92

0.15

1.23

90.14

9.86

1.85

4.47

0.92

1.69

0.15

0.77

91.87

7.13

2.60

4.41

0.17

0.43

0.52

78.02

21.98

0.43

12.44

3.07

1.02

0.09

4.94

93.61

6.39

0.38

6.02

0.00

1998

92.85

7.15

2.49

2.64

0.62

0.62

0.78

88.05

11.95

1.82

6.20

0.91

1.36

1.66

92.17

6.83

2.69

4.21

0.17

0.08

0.67

78.45

21.55

3.72

14.10

0.63

1.27

1.82

94.47

5.53

0.40

3.56

0.40

0.40

0.00

0.79

1999

93.29

6.71

2.29

2.14

0.86

0.71

0.71

88.13

11.87

3.15

5.72

0.57

1.29

1.14

89.12

10.88

2.65

7.10

0.09

0.47

0.57

79.47

20.53

3.39

13.25

0.66

0.66

0.08

2.48

94.53

5.47

3.91

0.78

0.00

0.78

All Years

90.79

9.21

2.52

2.65

1.73

1.00

0.13

1.18

89.19

10.81

2.53

5.21

0.89

1.27

0.07

0.84

91.01

8.99

2.42

4.72

0.18

0.69

0.01

0.98

82.44

17.56

3.06

9.10

0.69

1.66

0.06

2.98

93.85

6.15

0.70

4.24

0.23

0.17

0.00

0.81

74

Table A.11 / 5

State and License Status

MarylandValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

MassachusettsValidAberrant, all

Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

MichiganValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevoked

ExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

MinnesotaValidAberrant, all

Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

MississippiValidAberrant (all)Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver’s License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

94.98

5.020.470.231.52

2.80

89.9710.03

1.253.612.51

1.100.16

1.41

86.8113.192.742.990.25

4.210.102.89

91.498.51

1.600.803.06

1.731.33

87.7512.257.652.840.200.59

0.98

1994

92.22

7.782.490.760.65

0.113.78

90.519.49

0.683.561.69

1.19

2.37

89.4110.592.222.310.44

3.25

2.36

91.238.77

1.751.752.57

1.291.40

88.7911.215.992.800.391.55

0.100.39

1995

81.91

18.091.28

3.62

13.19

92.737.27

1.652.811.490.66

0.66

88.5211.482.543.650.31

2.80

2.18

92.757.25

1.840.861.720.251.20.86

87.9712.036.323.290.521.56

0.35

1996

91.35

8.651.520.823.86

2.46

89.5410.46

1.653.301.280.920.372.94

87.2011.50

1.624.710.67

1.66

2.83

91.138.87

2.791.461.700.121.341.46

88.81

11.196.792.390.401.34

0.57

1997

91.81

8.191.662.880.93

2.32

90.829.18

0.514.082.040.680.171.70

87.9512.052.585.200.83

1.55

1.90

93 .16.29

1.071.901.07

0.471.78

89.4610.546.221.530.631.35

0.090.72

1998

92.59

7.412.663.010.93

0.81

90.509.50

2.332.331.251.25

2.33

86.0113.99

1.496.921.64

1.05

2.89

93.156.85

2.131.572.130.220.220.56

90.739.276.790.800.400.80

0.080.40

1999

91.58

8.421.663.560.830.47

1.90

88.7711.23

1.404.742.810.88

1.40

87.2012.802.906.101.00

0.80

2.00

95.614.39

1.210.771.320.220.550.33

88.3011.706.513.050.491.24

0.41

All Years

90.82

9.181.681.581.830.060.024.01

90.439.57

1.343.491.880.950.101.81

87.8012.202.294.540.73

2.190.012.43

92.787.22

1.771.311.920.121.021.09

88.86

11.146.602.360.401.20

0.040.54

75

Table A.11 / 6

State and License Status

MissouriValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

MontanaValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

UnknownNebraska

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

NevadaValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

UnknownNew Hampshire

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver’s License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

90.889.122.142.382.850.87

0.87

85.5814.425.12

0.932.335.12

0.93

90.249.762.662.37

2.37

1.180.890.30

86.74

13.263.464.611.730.580.58

2.31

91.958.053.362.01

0.672.01

1994

88.3111.692.922.513.411.81

0.070.97

84.6215.387.29

2.022.832.83

0.40

89.4610.543.422.85

2.280.85

1.14

83.78

16.224.594.323.241.35

2.70

92.527.481.363.40

0.681.36

0.68

1995

87.6412.363.373.093.09

1.190.211.40

84.1915.3817.91

1.980.792.770.79

1.58

90.969.041.753.21

1.752.04

0.29

81.27

18.735.825.062.031.520.51

3.80

91.188.822.353.53

1.18

1.76

1996

87.0412.962.632.894.211.58

0.331.32

86.5913.415.28

4.072.850.81

0.41

91.948.062.7823.492

2.220.56

0.28

85.55

14.453.615.641.81

1.130.68

1.58

95.814.190.521.57

0.52

1.57

1997

88.5111.492.193.443.121.25

0.251.25

88.69814.926.10

3.732.371.69

1.02

91.528.482.493.49

0.502.00

87.22

12.784.543.920.821.030.21

2.27

94.225.78

4.05

0.580.58

0.58

1998

88.5511.452.433.522.941.02

0.191.34

88.6911.315.11

1.822.192.19

91.488.523.012.51

1.501.00

0.50

90.38

9.622.092.930.840.840.42

2.51

94.125.88

1.182.94

0.590.590.59

1999

88.7811.222.282.353.901.68

0.070.94

83.8616.145.51

4.723.152.36

0.39

91.468.543.522.01

1.011.26

0.75

86.90

13.103.933.281.750.220.22

3.71

88.6511.353.245.41

0.54

2.16

All Years

88.4811.522.562.903.371.35

0.17

1.17

85.5414.466.05

2.802.352.470.11

0.67

91.048.962.822.66

1.621.270.120.46

86.16

13.843.974.201.680.940.37

2.69

92.667.341.693.29

0.340.840.08

1.10

76

Table A.11 / 7

State and License Status

New JerseyValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

UnknownNew Mexico

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

New YorkValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevoked

ExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

North CarolinaValidAberrant, all

Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

North DakotaValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevoked

ExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver's License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

88.17

11.83

2.86

6.30

0.19

0.10

0.00

2.39

78.67

21.33

8.22

6.46

1.57

1.37

0.39

3.33

84.82

15.18

5.30

4.28

0.89

0.51

4.20

87.89

12.11

3.44

1.08

6.40

0.27

0.91

88.71

11.29

6.45

0.81

1.61

2.42

1994

87.49

12.51

1.79

8.44

0.40

0.290

0.00

1.69

72.83

27.17

7.92

7.92

3.77

0.94

0.19

6.42

86.50

13.50

3.59

4.60

1.45

0.66

3.20

87.47

12.53

3.26

0.89

6.79

0.16

0.05

1.37

80.56

19.44

6.48

6.48

1.85

0.93

3.70

1995

88.32

11.68

1.84

7.27

0.09

0.28

0.00

2.21

75.39

24.61

8.84

6.59

2.43

1.04

5.72

87.06

12.94

3.55

4.43

1.10.31

0.09

3.46

85.32

14.68

3.14

3.85

4.86

1.62

0.150

1.1

85.57

14.43

7.22

1.03

1.03

5.15

1996

85.55

14.45

3.05

6.35

0.09

0.09

0.00

4.87

76.6476

22.24

6.19

7.36

2.51

1.240

0.17

5.02

86.31

13.69

2.67

4.06

1.81

0.29

0.05

4.82

84.03

15.97

3.263

3.39

6.00

1.84

0.19

0.92

79.66

20.34

8.47

7.63

1.69

2.54

1997

88.178

12.22

1.52

6.58

0.28

0.00

2.54

76.64

23.36

8.67

6.37

1.95

1.24

0.18

4.96

88.45

11.55

3.26

3.17

1.54

0.18

0.09

3.31

86.78

13.22

34.123

5.522.440.890.151.09

87.0212.986.113.052.29

0.76

0.76

1998

89.85

10.151.564.980.200.290.00

3.12

76.1823.82

9.257.48

2.170.980.203.74

88.4811.523.213.651.65

0.050.052.92

85.2414.76

4.124.123.89

1.130.271.22

88.0711.934.593.671.83

0.920.92

1999

88.17

11.831.524.350.100.300.00

5.56

80.5019.505.556.26

1.610.720.185.19

89.0910.912.533.801.75

0.050.052.73

85.6214.38

3.227.281.561.090.330.90

84.6215.383.507.694.20

All Years

87.87

12.132.236.340.150.220.00

3.20

76.8723.13

7.776.91

2.291.040.184.94

87.1912.813.484.011.44

0.300.053.53

86.0014.00

3.433.814.501.020.161.08

84.9415.065.185.181.93

0.600.122.05

77

Table A.11 / 8

State and License Status

OhioValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

OklahomaValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

OregonValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

PennsylvaniaValid

Aberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or denied

UnknownRhode Island

ValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspended

RevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver's License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

89.90

10.10

0.75

2.85

3.15

2.10

1.25

87.60

12.40

2.35

3.91

3.02

1.34

0.11

1.68

84.60

15.40

5.57

6.89

0.73

1.47

0.73

88.92

11.08

2.03

6.56

0.09

0.32

0.09

1.99

87.10

12.90

3.23

4.30

2.15

1.08

2.15

1994

91.11

8.89

1.10

4.26

0.11

2.31

0.37

0.74

87.73

12.27

3.72

3.72

2.82

0.56

1.46

85.97

14.03

3.71

6.45

1.29

0.97

0.48

1.13

89.83

10.17

3.24

4.32

0.230

0.54

0.10

1.77

85.23

14.77

6.82

4.55

2.27

1.14

1995

9 0 . 0

9.80

1.22

4.18

0.05

2.75

0.85

0.74

89.10

10.90

2.34

3.89

2.34

0.44

1.89

85.68

14.32

3.96

6.55

1.64

0.95

0.14

1.09

88.08

11.92

3.69

6.21

0.230

0.39

1.53

87.64

12.36

6.74

1.12

1.12

3.37

1996

90.02

9.98

0.76

4.76

2.84

0.81

0.81

85.93

14.07

2.79

6.09

2.30

0.560

0.10

2.20

87.32

12.68

4.42

5.75

1.03

1.18

0.29

90.31

9.69

2.75

4.14

0.230

0.48

0.10

2.12

87.06

12.94

3.53

5.88

2.35

1.18

1997

91.30

8.70

1.06

4.42

0.110

1.56

0.45

1.611

86.13

13.87

3.74

4.47

2.74

0.560

0.18

1.73

87.20

12.80

4.02

6.10

0.89

0.60

0.30

0.89

75.14

24.86

3.10

4.64

0.23

0.27

0.14

16.48

89.80

10.20

3.06

5.10

2.04

1998

88.18

11.82

1.32

7.20

0.110

1.32

0.30

1.57

88.13

11.87

3.14

4.06

1.42

0.81

0.20

2.23

89.23

10.77

3.78

4.90

1.40

0.28

0.14

0.28

89.16

10.84

1.92

6.95

0.59

0.15

0.20

1.03

87.50

12.50

4.17

5.21

2.08

1.04

1999

89.07

10.93

0.60

6.65

0.05

1.71

0.30

1.61

84.81

15.19

3.43

5.93

1.14

0.83

0.10

3.75

89.08

10.92

2.46

5.99

1.23

0.18

1.06

90.09

9.91

1.76

6.05

0.38

0.33

1.38

94.02

5.98

1.71

4.27

All Years

89.96

10.04

0.97

4.91

0.06

2.23

0.74

1.12

87.01

12.99

3.09

4.61

2.24

0.80

0.10

2.14

86.98

13.02

4.03

6.08

1.18

0.81

0.15

0.77

87.26

12.74

2.64

5.55

0.24

0.36

0.09

3.87

88.59

11.41

3.15

5.11

0.45

1.05

0.30

1.35

78

Table A.11 / 9

State and License Status

South CarolinaValidAberrant, all

Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

South DakotaValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevoked

ExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

TennesseeValidAberrant, all

Not licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

TexasValidAberrant, allNot licensed

SuspendedRevokedExpiredCanceled or deniedUnknown

UtahValidAberrant, allNot licensedSuspendedRevokedExpired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

Annual Driver’s License Status Percentages for Each State, 1993-99

1993

87.21

12.79

4.05

5.43

0.55

0.09

2.67

86.14

13.86

6.63

3.01

1.81

0.60

1.81

84.37

15.63

3.59

4.10

6.11

0.50

0.63

0.69

84.16

15.84

8.16

2.60

0.10

2.08

0.07

2.83

85.75

14.25

5.54

2.90

1.06

0.26

0.79

3.69

1994

89.62

10.38

3.13

3.85

0.45

0.36

2.60

87.03

12.97

4.32

5.41

1.08

2.16

84.91

15.09

2.69

4.09

6.11

0.55

0.24

1.41

85.56

14.44

6.93

2.44

0.02

2.46

0.07

2.51

90.00

10.00

5.81

1.40

0.70

1.16

0.93

1995

88.96

11.04

3.25

5.22

0.43

0.09

2.05

83.85

16.15

5.21

5.73

3.13

2.08

85.05

14.95

3.37

4.43

5.26

0.71

0.53

0.65

84.79

15.21

7.30

3.23

0.14

1.87

0.02

2.64

83.03

16.97

6.42

2.98

0.69

0.23

0.69

5.96

1996

90.79

9.21

2.55

4.69

0.33

0.08

1.56

90.10

9.90

4.46

1.98

0.50

2.48

0.50

8 6 . 8

14.82

3.42

5.14

4.55

0.53

0.18

1.0

85.49

15.21

7.11

2.81

0 .12.11

0.12

2.15

88.14

11.86

5.33

1.45

0.24

0.24

0.73

3.87

1997

90.04

9.96

2.87

5.40

0.08

0.08

1.52

88.20

11.80

5.62

2.81

1.69

0.56

1.12

85.95

14.05

3.62

3.98

5.01

0.42

0.12

0.90

85.61

14.39

6.70

3.41

0.28

1.81

0.06

2.13

87.83

12.17

6.74

0.87

0.22

0.43

3.91

1998

88.16

11.84

3.18

6.00

0.67

0.67

1.33

86.32

13.68

7.55

3.77

1.89

0.47

86.82

13.18

2.47

3.88

5.06

0.71

0.18

0.88

85.69

14.391

6.93

2.75

0.19

1.83

2.61

89.39

10.61

4.06

3.16

0.45

0.90

2.03

1999

89.01

10.99

2.98

5.46

0.14

0.07

0.21

2.13

84.46

15.54

5.70

6.22

1.55

0.52

1.04

0.52

87.36

12.64

2.86

4.18

4.12

0.63

0.06

0.80

85.28

14.72

6.63

2.91

0.17

2.38

0.04

2.59

85.94

14.06

5.07

3.69

1.15

4.15

All Years

89.12

10.88

3.13

5.18

0.37

0.08

0.16

1.96

86.60

13.40

5.65

4.14

0.90

1.81

0.30

0.60

85.69

14.31

3.14

4.26

5.16

0.58

0.27

0.90

85.25

14.75

7.08

2.89

0.16

2.07

0.06

2.49

87.18

12.82

5.58

2.34

0.47

0.10

0.83

3.51

79

VermontValid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Virginia

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Washington

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or deniedUnknown

West Virginia

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

WisconsinValid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

Wyoming

Valid

Aberrant, all

Not licensed

Suspended

Revoked

Expired

Canceled or denied

Unknown

87.32

12.68

4.93

5.63

0.70

1.41

91.41

8.59

1.03

3.69

1.12

0.17

2.58

83.43

16.57

4.92

5.16

2.40

1.80

0.121.92

89.76

10.24

3.54

3.91

1.30

0.93

0.00

0.56

89.51

10.49

1.87

3.53

3.84

0.42

0.83

94.29

5.71

0.71

2.86

0.71

0.71

0.71

89.52

10.48

5.71

2.86

0.95

0.95

91.46

8.54

2.28

3.30

0.34

0.08

0.08

2.45

8 0 . 0

16.10

5.13

4.55

3.15

1.63

0.121.28

90.06

9.94

1.83

4.26

1.62

1.42

0.00

0.81

89.63

10.37

1.83

2.54

4.27

0.71

1.02

83.95

16.05

0.62

11.11

1.23

1.23

1.85

89.47

10.53

1.50

6.02

1.50

0.75

0.75

87.79

12.21

1.25

6.02

0.90

0.33

3.60

80.05

19.95

4.51

7.48

2.97

2.02

0.121.90

87.98

12.02

2.44

4.68

2.65

1.22

0.00

1.02

88.98

11.02

2.76

3.05

3.44

0.59

0.30

0.89

88.95

11.05

2.91

3.49

1.16

0.58

2.91

82.24

17.76

10.28

0.93

6.54

89.72

10.28

2.82

3.81

1.33

0.17

2.16

84.908

15.72

3.29

6.47

2.67

1.23

0.1201.64

89.01

10.249.9

1.724.093.231.510.000.43

90.479.532.991.873.180.75

0.75

91.088.921.914.461.27

1.27

88.49116.891

7.91

3.60

90.899.111.573.441.490.07

2.54

85.8414.163.426.391.710.230.111.94

91.258.751.142.852.091.330.001.33

89.010.902.802.393.840.420.101.35

86.9313.075.883.27

0.653.27

82.1116.892.449.761.63

4.07

90.679.331.884.750.900.16

1.64

84.9015.103.646.733.090.66

0.99

92.277.730.863.862.360.210.000.43

89.0410.963.031.673.860.630.211.57

90.709.301.163.493.49

0.580.58

83.9316.071.798.930.892.68

1.79

89.3610.641.346.981.250.18

0.89

86.8013.203.695.831.430.95

1.07

92.017.991.953.511.750.390.000.39

90.229.782.572.174.050.300.300.40

87.1412.862.384.761.43

0.953.33

86.3013.70

1.637.671.050.580.122.67

90.209.801.744.531.070.170.012.28

84.1915.814.066.102.501.210.081.53

90.349.661.953.872.121.000.000.72

89.5810.422.562.453.780.550.130.96

88.8511.152.234.801.370.260.432.06

Note: The blank cells indicate a count or percentage of zero. Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

80

Table A. 10 shows that drivers with an aberrant license classification are more likelyto survive fatal crashes than their validly licensed peers. It is not clear what mechanismscould be at work to account for this result.

Trend Analysis

This section is a new addition since the original Unlicensed to Kill report. It givesinformation about the changes across years at the state level for drivers involved in fatalcrashes from 1993 to 1999. Table A. 11 shows the state in which the crash occurred andthe license status of all drivers involved in crashes.

Table A. 11 demonstrates that it is difficult to identify a large number of states witha trend in either aberrant or valid license status classifications during the period understudy. California is the sole example of a large state that experienced a relative diminu-tion of the aberrant license classifications across the 7 years. Figure A. 12 shows the U.S.average for the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes for each aberrant licensestatus classification during the period.

As may be seen in figure A. 12, there is a slight trend toward lower percentagesacross the years for most of the aberrant license status classifications. The increase forsuspended licenses may be due to an increase in suspensions. But without further study,it is difficult to put forward any explanations.

Figure A.12 Trend over the Years in Aberrant License Status Percentagesfor Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1993-99

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

81

B.1 License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashes by the State in Which the Crash Occurred

License StatusState (first row isnumber; secondrow is percent)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Notlicensed

5064.8415.86066.91833.2

1,8975.3

2053.61023.434

2.830

5.67102.6

4303.066

5.686

3.9

Suspended

5185.017

2.45105.8

3977.0

2,8297.8

2053.6

1374.634

2.819

3.51,442

5.27625.264

5.41215.4

Revoked

4474.336

5.176

0.914

0.22690.7

2033.6

50.230

2.53

0.657

0.21100.8221.917

0.8

Expired

740.710

1.41231.4821.5

8802.4771.418

0.66

0.52

0.435

0.193

0.658

4.9391.8

Canceled orDenied

Valid Learner's Temporary Unknown TotalPermit

220.2

2

0.324

0.39

0.2

11

0.034

0.63

0.112

1.0

23

0.1100.1

30.3

10.0

8,60982.5

57381.6

6,870

78.64,907

86.8

28,43878.9

4,818

85.12,683

89.5

1,03986.4

423

78.624,242

87.612,779

87.8934

78.81,88084.6

520.5

9

1.322

0.35

0.122

0.123

0.49

0.3

30.2

2

0.4117

0.492

0.6

100.8

30.1

1

0.0

80.0

3

0.1

20.2

2

0.01

0.0

2092.014

2.0508

5.852

0.9

1,7104.7

93

1.640

1.343

3.659

11.01046

3.8280

1.9292.4

753.4

10,437100.0

702

100.08,739

100.05,650100.0

36,064

100.05,661

100.02,997

100.0

1,203100.0

538

100.027,674

100.014,557

100.0

1,186100.02,222100.0

License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashes by the State in Which the Crash Occurred

State (first row isnumber; secondrow is percent)

Notlicensed

Suspended Revoked

License Status

Expired Canceled orDenied

Valid Learner'sPermit

Temporary Unknown Total

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

5313.81431.5

118

2.5111

2.5190

2.4243

3.112

0.7104

1.7

551.3

333

2.3104

1.8517

6.6264

2.6108

6.1

5754.1

5585.91242.7

2295.2

3714.7

7229.1734.2981.6

1433.5

661

4.577

1.3

1852.4

2992.9502.8

820.6

60.1811.7

390.914

0.2

550.7

40.21131.8

771.91060.71131.9

310.43473.4

422.4

1240.91221.3471.0

561.354

0.7132

1.7

30.2

4

0.1

391.0

3182.2

7

0.1941.2

1391.4

442.5

90.1

70.1

60.1

30.1

10.0

50.1

10.0

40.1

2

0.0601.0

30.017

0.2

20.1

12,33787.5

8,435

88.84,243

90.73,908

88.97,138

90.76,537

82.41,601

92.95,605

90.63,670

89.612,743

87.65,439

92.46,954

88.89,078

88.21,523

85.4

230.250

0.54

0.19

0.2210.3

140.815

0.231

0.8250.2250.4

4

0.130

0.3

30.2

40.0

2

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.1

1

0.02

0.0

1

0.01

0.0

4082.9

1801.9

551.2

37

0.877

1.0236

3.014

0.8

248

4.074

1.8354

2.464

1.1

42

0.5

1201.2

120.7

14,093100.0

9,501100.0

4,678

100.04,394

100.07,867

100.07,931

100.0

1,723100.0

6,188

100.04,094

100.014,544

100.05,889

100.0

7,831100.0

10,295

100.01,784100.0

B.1 / 3 License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashes by the State in Which the Crash Occurred

State (first row isnumber; secondrow is percent)

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Notlicensed

732.81184.0201.71642.22997.85333.54853.443

5.2133

1.02083.11884.03862.621

3.22673.1

Suspended

692.71254.239

3.34676.3

2666.96144.05393.8435.26734.93104.62846.18125.634

5.14425.2

Revoked

42

1.6501.7

40.311

0.188

2.32211.4

6364.516

1.98

0.11512.2551.235

0.23

0.532

0.4

Expired

331.328

0.910

0.816

0.2401.046

0.31441.0

50.6

3062.254

0.838

0.852

0.47

1.17

0.1

License Status

Canceled or ValidDenied

30.111

0.41

0.1

70.2

70.023

0.21

0.11020.7

70.1

70.113

0.12

0.314

0.2

2,31689.4

2,54785.6

1,08491.5

6,46487.7

2,94976.6

13,15285.9

12,09185.5695

83.712,207

89.05,816

86.54,039

86.512,682

86.7590

88.67,59889.0

Learner'sPermit

42

1.615

0.51

0.111

0.19

0.2192

1.365

0.55

0.632

0.236

0.521

0.481

0.6

70.1

Temporary

20.1131.1

50.0

50.694

0.71

0.0

20.0

10.0

Unknown

120.580

2.713

1.12363.21904.95403.5152

1.117

2.0154

1.11442.136

0.85663.9

91.41672.0

Total

2,590100.02,976100.01,185100.07,369100.03,848100.0

15,310100.0

14,135100.0

830100.0

13,709100.06,727100.04,668100.0

14,629100.0

666100.08,535100.0

B.1 / 4 License Status of Drivers in Fatal Crashes by the State in Which the Crash Occurred

State (first row isnumber; secondrow is percent)

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

Notlicensed

755.6

3683.1

22377.11675.614

1.6147

1.72494.1681.9

1782.6262.2

14,1963.6

Suspended

554.1

4994.3

9122.9702.366

7.73824.5

3746.1

1353.91712.556

4.818,657

4.8

Revoked

120.9

6045.251

0.214

0.59

1.0901.1

1532.574

2.12633.816

1.45,037

1.3

Expired

241.868

0.66552.1

30.1

50.614

0.2741.2351.038

0.53

0.34,385

1.1

License Status

Canceled or ValidDenied

40.332

0.318

0.125

0.81

0.11

0.05

0.1

9

0.15

0.45720.1

1,13385.3

10,01685.5

26,83285.0

2,60486.9737

85.67,568

89.85,160

84.23,146

90.16,232

89.51,027

88.1336,091

86.1

Learner'sPermit

14

1.122

0.290

0.36

0.26

0.734

0.420

0.35

0.18

0.18

0.71,353

0.3

Temporary

30.2

10.0

1

0.0

20.1

10.11630.0

Unknown Total

80.61060.9

7852.51053.523

2.71922.3941.525

0.767

1.024

2.19,824

2.5

1,328100.0

11,715100.0

31,581100.02,995100.0

861100.08,428100.06,129100.03,490100.06,966100.01,166100.0

390,278100.0

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

C.1 Age, Gender, and License Status of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes

Gender

Male

Age Group(years; first rowis number;second row ispercent)

<20

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Unknown

Total

Notlicensed

3,89112.1

4,1825.6

1,7712.97011.5

3621.3

2031.1

1620.763

6.0

11,3354.0

Suspended

1,2153.8

7,0599.4

4,4917.3

2,0894.66882.4

2711.5

1880.812

1.1

16,0135.6

Revoked

2090.6

1,6142.2

1,5512.5

7091.5

3081.194

0.556

0.31

0.1

4,5421.6

Expired

1860.6

1,1111.5

9911.6

5231.1

2440.91460.8

2341.1

30.3

3,4381.2

License Status

Canceled oiDenied

360.11550.21460.270

0.2270.116

0.137

0.2

4870.2

• Valid

25,81480.2

59,74179.6

52,19084.4

41,31190.0

26,59793.3

16,77194.9

21,41196.3

959.1

243,93085.7

Learner'sPermit

5501.7

2440.359

0.126

0.110

0.04

0.08

0.0

9010.3

Temporary

360.137

0.0220.015

0.0

30.0

60.0

1190.0

Unknown Total

2600.8

9071.2

647

1.04651.0

2650.9168

1.01420.6

87383.4

3,7271.3

32,197100.0

75,050100.0

61,868100.0

45,909100.0

28,501100.0

17,676100.0

22,244100.01,047100.0

284,492100.0

C.1 / 2 Age, Gender, and License Status of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes

Gender

Female

Age Group(years; first rowis number;second row ispercent)

<20

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

Unknown

Total

Notlicensed

1,0568.0

9013.95032.4

2151.481

0.8440.639

0.411

9.9

2,8502.8

Suspended

1831.4

1,0494.68894.2

3572.3941.0270.431

0.31

0.9

2,6312.6

Revoked

250.21570.7

1900.978

0.5260.3

40.113

0.1

4930.5

Expired

650.5

2681.2

2781.3

1440.973

0.824

0.395

0.9

9470.9

License Status

Canceled oiDenied

80.1290.1230.114

0.13

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.9

840.1

• Valid

11,48086.9

20,35588.3

19,21890.2

14,69494.1

9,32496.6

6,73898.0

10,28898.0

1412.6

92,11191.8

Learner'sPermit

3242.576

0.337

0.212

0.11

0.02

0.0

4520.5

Temporary

240.2

60.010

0.01

0.03

0.0

440.0

Unknown Total

520.4

2120.91480.71060.750

0.531

0.532

0.384

75.7

7150.7

13,217100.0

23,053100.0

21,296100.0

15,621100.09,655100.06,873100.0

10,501100.0

111100.0

100,327100.0

C.1 / 3 Age, Gender, and License Status of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes

Gender Age Group License Status(years; first row

seconcfrow is Not Suspended Revoked Expired Canceled or Valid Learner's Temporary Unknown Totalpercent) l icensed Denied Permit

Unknown

<20

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

70+

Unknown

Total

1

33.3

1

20.0

9

0.2

11

0.2

1

33.3

12

0.2

13

0.2

2

0.0

2

0.0

16.71

50.0

25.0

100.0

100.0

1

0.0

3

4

80.01

3

2

36

0.7

49

0.9

33.3

75.0

1

33.32

100.0

3

100.0

100.0

100.05,376

98.9

5,38298.6

3

100.06

5

100.04

3

2

5,435100.0

5,458100.0

Note: In the original report, appendix B displayed a cross-tabulation of vehicle type/body type versus VIN-decoded vehicle type. That appendix is not repeated here.

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data.

A p p e n d i x D. Suspensions and Revocations Recorded for DriversInvolved in Fatal Crashes in the Three YearsPreceding Their Fatal Crash, 1993-99

This appendix consists of four tables. Each table gives the number of suspensionsor revocations for drivers with a different category of license for the 3 years precedingtheir fatal crash, by licensing state: table D.1, for drivers with valid licenses; table D.2,for drivers with suspended licenses; table D.3, for drivers with revoked licenses; andtable D.4, for drivers with expired licenses.

89

Table D.1 / 2 Previous Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Valid Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Previous Suspensions or

0

87498.2

1,66688.2

12,70997.5

7,73292.7

4,04594.1

3,92299.2

6,33692.7

6,17294.5

1,38588.0

5,18292.4

3,09181.4

1

111.2

1286.8

2742.1

3734.51874.312

0.33685.4

2984.6875.5

2284.1

3569.4

2

40.4412.2340.31501.8421.019

0.5941.4480.7452.9781.4

1473.9

Revocations

3+

10.1382.0

80.1811.018

0.41

0.0360.510

0.2362.3390.7

1664.4

Unknown

150.812

0.13

0.07

0.2

10.0

20.0201.3821.5391.0

Total

890100.01,888100.0

13,037100.08,339100.04,299100.03,954100.06,835100.06,530100.01,573100.05,609100.03,799100.0

Table D.1 / 3 Previous Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Valid Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Previous Suspensions or

0

11,46587.6

5,04890.3

6,31196.5

8,25195.6

1,33397.8

2,25196.1

1,99688.5

1,04193.1

5,66187.7

2,29285.8

12,09487.9

1

9557.3

3175.7

1892.9

2693.1261.967

2.91145.1464.1

3164.9

27610.38326.0

2

3322.51112.030

0.5841.0

10.114

0.6673.0222.01983.1602.2

3552.6

Revocations

3+

3292.51031.8

30.0280.3

10.1

90.4753.3

50.4

2734.2411.5

4363.2

Unknown

20.011

0.24

0.11

0.02

0.11

0.03

0.14

0.410

0.21

0.0390.3

Total

13,083100.05,590100.06,537100.08,633100.01,363100.02,342100.02,255100.01,118100.06,458100.02,670100.0

13,756100.0

Table D.1 / 4 Previous Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Valid Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Previous Suspensions or

0

10,94192.664588.6

11,72092.7

5,28991.7

3,63190.5

12,20993.8

9100.0

63595.5

6,84495.7

1,06992.4

9,78396.4

1

5314.533

4.56755.3

2654.6

2235.6

5714.4

263.9

2483.5726.2

2672.6

2

2111.8273.7

1901.5

1252.2832.11301.0

30.5480.7121.0640.6

Revocations

3+

1351.119

2.6570.5751.3711.8570.4

60.1

10.1320.3

Unknown

30.0

40.5

70.116

0.33

0.1440.3

10.2

30.0

30.3

20.0

Total

11,821100.0

728100.0

12,649100.05,770100.04,011100.0

13,011100.0

9100.0

665100.07,149100.01,157100.0

10,148100.0

Table D.1 / 5 Previous Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Valid Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Previous Suspensions or Revocations Total

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Military

Canada

Mexico

Other foreign

0

26,16095.4

2,38394.060389.7

6,90389.6

4,98091.5

2,75094.1

5,77991.776589.9

2385.2151

61.41

16.79

16.7

312,20492.5

1

7812.8933.733

4.94505.8

2745.01394.8

2624.2465.4

20.8

15,5454.6

2

2751.0240.915

2.21762.3901.7230.8

1772.8273.2

20.8

5,2251.5

3+

2000.7200.8

81.2

1642.1951.7

80.3791.3121.4

3,9341.2

Unknown

120.015

0.6131.911

0.13

0.12

0.15

0.11

0.14

14.891

37.05

83.345

83.3

6940.2

27,428100.02,535100.0

672100.07,704100.05,442100.02,922100.06,302100.0

851100.0

27100.0

246100.0

6100.0

54100.0

337,602100.0

Total

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table D.2 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Suspended Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Previous Suspensions or

0

6613.1

216.7

6213.6121

30.851717.4

2010.4

1511.2

1126.2

110.021814.810814.5

1

22244.0

866.7126

27.681

20.61,42047.9102

53.152

38.814

33.36

60.047932.534646.6

2

8717.3

18.3100

21.960

15.3593

20.038

19.829

21.610

23.81

10.029420.014419.4

Revocations

3+

12925.6

18.3

16836.8131

33.343614.7

3216.7

3828.4

716.7

220.047732.414519.5

Unknown

10.2

40.3

Total

504100.0

12100.0

457100.0

393100.02,966100.0

192100.0

134100.0

42100.0

10100.01,472100.0

743100.0

Table D.2 / 2 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Suspended Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Previous

0

2647.3

2319.0190

31.695

16.118

15.7197

81.144

12.538150.8

1216.9

2420.9

2416.0

Suspensions or

1

1629.1

4335.525943.1168

28.546

40.011

4.5127

36.223431.2

1926.8

3933.9

3422.7

2

814.5

2419.8

9115.111619.7

2219.1

2510.3

7421.1

8511.3

1216.9

2420.9

2919.3

Revocations

3+

59.130

24.860

10.020835.3

2925.2

104.1101

28.8496.528

39.426

22.662

41.3

Unknown

10.8

10.2

20.3

51.4

10.1

21.7

10.7

Total

55100.0

121100.0

601100.0

589100.0

115100.0

243100.0

351100.0

750100.0

71100.0

115100.0

150100.0

Table D.2 / 3 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Suspended Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Previous

0

314.6

911.8

2718.4

4817.8

3690.0

1624.6

1414.9

512.5

295.8248.979

13.2

Suspensions or

1

20330.3

2532.9

8859.9134

49.64

10.029

44.618

19.18

20.075

14.996

35.4162

27.1

2

12919.3

1519.7

2013.6

5420.0

1320.0

1111.7

1127.5

7815.5

5319.6

9616.1

Revocations

3+

30745.8

2735.5

64.134

12.6

710.8

5053.2

1640.032063.6

9836.225642.9

Unknown

64.1

1.01.1

10.2

40.7

Total

670100.0

76100.0

147100.0

270100.0

40100.0

65100.0

94100.0

40100.0

503100.0

271100.0

597100.0

Table D.2 / 4 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Suspended Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Previous

0

7814.6

614.0

517.374

24.3238.3185

23.023

53.5104

23.54

6.723048.4

8510.0

Suspensions or

1

13825.7

818.628240.2105

34.461

22.024130.0

1432.623553.2

3456.7148

31.238044.7

2

10118.8

614.020829.7

5919.3

4817.313316.5

37.080

18.113

21.751

10.716219.0

Revocations

3+

21940.9

2353.5158

22.567

22.0145

52.324230.1

37.0235.2

915.0

469.7

22326.2

Unknown

20.3

30.4

10.1

Total

536100.0

43100.0

701100.0

305100.0

277100.0

804100.0

43100.0

442100.0

60100.0

475100.0

851100.0

Table D.2 / 5 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Suspended Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Military

Canada

Mexico

Other foreign

Total

Previous

0

2325.3

710.3

6516.2

256.830

28.630

17.4

3,53619.0

Suspensions or

1

3639.6

1927.9108

26.9136

36.848

45.762

36.07

17.5

2100.0

250.0

6,76036.2

2

2022.0

1217.6

6716.7

7520.3

1615.2

3520.3

922.5

125.0

3,44618.5

Revocations

3+

1011.0

3044.1162

40.3134

36.211

10.545

26.224

60.01

100.01

33.3

4,87226.1

Unknown

22.2

266.7

125.0

410.2

Total

91100.0

68100.0

402100.0

370100.0

105100.0

172100.0

40100.0

1100.0

3100.0

2100.0

4100.0

18,655100.0

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table D.3 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers in Fatal Crashes with a Revoked License by State

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Previous Suspensions or

0

4910.7

1232.4

1825.4

222.2

9736.7

4620.7

721.2

240.0

1128.2

3833.0

1

7215.7

1437.8

811.3

5119.3

5926.6

250.0

515.2

240.0

1743.6

2219.1

2

7215.7

38.117

23.9

5721.6

4419.8

927.3

615.4

1815.7

Revocations

3+

26758.0

821.6

2839.4

777.8

5922.3

7332.9

125.0

1236.4

120.0

512.8

3631.3

Unknown

125.0

10.9

Total

460100.0

37100.0

71100.0

9100.0

264100.0

222100.0

4100.0

33100.0

5100.0

39100.0

115100.0

Table D.3 / 2 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers in Fatal Crashes with a Revoked License by State

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Previous Suspensions or

0

419.0

225.0

4953.8

266.7

67.210

38.51

50.041

69.51

33.337

30.610

11.1

1

942.9

337.5

2830.8

3339.8

1350.0

1525.4

3730.6

1213.3

2

419.0

112.5

1011.0

1518.1

27.7

150.0

23.4

2722.3

1011.1

Revocations

3+

419.0

225.0

44.4

133.3

2934.9

13.8

266.7

1915.7

5864.4

Unknown

11.7

10.8

Total

21100.0

8100.0

91100.0

3100.0

83100.0

26100.0

2100.0

59100.0

3100.0

121100.0

90100.0

Table D.3 / 3 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers in Fatal Crashes with a Revoked License by State

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Previous

0

2018.9

2218.6

233.3

4011.2

3175.6

1022.7

1221.4

1100.0

220.0

2528.7

3816.0

Suspensions or

1

2220.8

3832.2

116.7

6417.9

12.419

43.214

25.0

2731.0

3414.3

2

2018.9

1815.3

116.7

7721.6

614.6

818.2

1323.2

1820.7

4117.2

Revocations

3+ Unknown

4441.5

4033.9

233.3

17649.3

37.3

715.9

1730.4

880.0

1719.5125

52.5

Total

106100.0

118100.0

6100.0

357100.0

41100.0

44100.0

56100.0

1100.0

10100.0

87100.0

238100.0

Table D.3 / 4 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers in Fatal Crashes with a Revoked License by State

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Previous

0

9514.8

433.3

125.0

4327.7

611.1

828.6

1152.4

215.427244.7

Suspensions or

1

14923.2

125.0

5032.3

47.4

828.6

733.3

646.221835.9

2

14021.8

216.7

125.0

2918.7

47.4

27.1

314.3

430.8

7111.7

Revocations

3+ Unknown

25940.3

650.0

125.0

3321.3

4074.1

1035.7

17.7477.7

Total

643100.0

12100.0

4100.0

155100.0

54100.0

28100.0

21100.0

13100.0

608100.0

Table D.3 / 5 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers in Fatal Crashes with a Revoked License by State

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Total

Previous Suspensions or

0

716.3

320.0

111.1

1818.8

127.613

18.327

10.01

14.3

1,17223.3

1

1432.6

426.7

222.2

1414.6

2717.2

3752.1

4817.8

342.9

1,21424.1

2

1125.6

533.3

222.2

1212.5

3522.3

1521.1

5420.0

89117.7

Revocations

3+ Unknown

1125.6

320.0

444.4

5254.2

8352.9

68.5141

52.23

42.9

1,754 634.8 0.1

Total

43100.0

15100.0

9100.0

96100.0

157100.0

71100.0

270100.0

7100.0

5,037100.0

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

Table D.4 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Expired Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Previous Suspensions or

0

4391.5

11100.0

10085.5

7788.585792.4

6893.2

1477.8

480.0

2100.0

1583.3

8788.8

1

12.1

54.3

55.7535.7

34.1

316.7

15.6

77.1

2

12.1

43.4

33.4121.3

15.6

120.0

22.0

Revocations

3+

24.3

86.8

22.3

50.5

22.7

22.0

Unknown

211.1

Total

47100.0

11100.0

117100.0

87100.0

927100.0

73100.0

18100.0

5100.0

2100.0

18100.0

98100.0

Table D.4 / 2 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Expired Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Previous Suspensions or

0

5094.3

3477.3112

84.896

83.541

77.463

100.055

96.5114

90.51

100.06

75.032

71.1

1

23.8

12.315

11.44

3.511

20.8

129.5

511.1

2

11.9

36.8

32.3

97.8

11.9

112.5

48.9

Revocations

3+

49.1

10.8

65.2

48.9

Unknown

24.5

10.8

23.5

112.5

Total

53100.0

44100.0

132100.0

115100.0

53100.0

63100.0

57100.0

126100.0

1100.0

8100.0

45100.0

Table D.4 / 3 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Expired Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

Previous Suspensions or

0

15044.1

250.0

5259.8111

85.440

93.027

90.020

100.08

72.715

83.323

79.342

75.0

1

6820.0

55.714

10.81

2.32

6.7

19.1

310.3

47.1

2

329.4

22.3

32.3

12.3

13.3

19.1

15.6

13.4

35.4

Revocations

3+

9026.5

250.0

21.5

12.3

19.1

211.1

26.9

712.5

Unknown

2832.2

Total

340100.0

4100.0

87100.0

130100.0

43100.0

30100.0

20100.0

11100.0

18100.0

29100.0

56100.0

Table D.4 / 4 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Expired Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Previous Suspensions or

0

11578.2

480.021466.5

2884.8

2472.7

4695.8

4100.0

480.0

2796.4

5698.260388.3

1

1812.2

5617.4

26.1

26.1

12.1

120.0

13.6

11.8446.4

2

74.8

216.5

26.1

39.1

12.1

111.6

Revocations

3+

64.1

120.0

288.7

13.0

412.1

253.7

Unknown

10.7

30.9

Total

147100.0

5100.0

322100.0

33100.0

33100.0

48100.0

4100.0

5100.0

28100.0

57100.0

683100.0

Table D.4 / 5 Prior Suspensions or Revocations for Drivers with Expired Licenses by State or Jurisdiction

State (first row is number;second row is percent)

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Military

Canada

Mexico

Total

Previous Suspensions or

0

266.7

4100.0

787.5

4980.3

2692.9

3690.0

4100.0

1100.0

1100.0

150.0

3,62882.7

1

112.5

58.2

13.6

37.5

3628.3

2

34.9

13.6

12.5

1413.2

Revocations

3+

46.6

2124.8

Unknown

133.3

150.0

421.0

Total

3100.0

4100.0

8100.0

61100.0

28100.0

40100.0

4100.0

1100.0

1100.0

2100.0

4,385100.0

Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System data

A p p e n d i x E. Standardized Site Visit Questionnaires

Site Visit Questionnaire

PURPOSE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to support the site visit team when interview-ing staff from states participating in the Unlicensed to Kill study. The site visits will beused to gain a thorough understanding of the states' laws regarding licensure, loss oflicense, reinstatement, and penalties for violating the licensure provisions of the law. Asecond goal of the interviews is to obtain state experts' opinions on what measuresshould be implemented to improve their state's ability to identify licensure scofflawsand remove them from the roadways. This discussion will go beyond the laws andenforcement practices of the state to explore issues such as:

• Notification process for suspension/revocation.• Appeals processes.• Tracking systems in place.• Ideas for reducing the incentive to drive without a valid license.

SECTION A: STATE LAWS

For most of the following questions, a copy of the relevant state statutes will pro-vide a sufficiently detailed answer. If a copy of the statutes is not available, a reference tothe appropriate section and paragraph of the law will help us make needed copies later.

1. What are the state's laws regarding requirements to obtain a license.2. What are the laws regarding suspension and revocation? Conditions under which

a license may be suspended or revoked? Judicial versus Administrative suspen-sion and revocation.

3. What are the requirements for reinstatement of a suspended license?4. Reinstatement of a revoked license?5. What are the penalties associated with driving while suspended? Driving while

revoked? Driving without a license?

SECTION B: DRIVER-CONTROL PRACTICES

These questions refer to the state's provisions for identifying drivers who meet theconditions for suspension, revocation, or denial of their license, as well as licensurescofflaws and tracking their progress through the system.

1. What data are used to determine if a driver's license should be suspended orrevoked?

109

2. What is the source of the information (courts? administrative hearing officers?

driver history file convictions?)

3. How are unlicensed drivers identified in the driver-control system?

4. What is the process for appeal of a driver-control action? Does it differ for

suspensions, revocations, or other actions? What range of outcomes is available

on successful appeal?

5. For denials of licensure, how are the individuals tracked in the system? What

driver-control actions do they face if they violate the law?

6. Once a person is under a driver-control penalty or action, how is their status

tracked over the months/years of their penalty?

7. Do driver-control practices differ for judicial versus administrative actions (sus-

pensions/revocations)? If yes, how do they differ?

8. What sorts of exceptions/exemptions are granted and under what conditions

(e.g., work-to-home driving privileges for hardship cases)?

9. Does your department set particular goals with respect to the frequency of

license-status violations? If so, what are these goals and are there performance

measures that can be shared with us?

10. How does the system track all the various status drivers, exemptions, condi-

tions, etc.?

11. How is this information shared with law enforcement?

SECTION C: ENFORCEMENT AND ADJUDICATION PRACTICES

These questions refer to the actions taken by law enforcement officers and the

information available to them when making traffic stops. The questions also cover the

role of prosecutors and judges faced with drivers who violate the state's licensing laws.

1. How are people with aberrant license status identified to law enforcement offic-

ers during routine traffic stops? What information is available over the Law

Enforcement Network (or other source)?

2. Does the information differ for different license status individuals? (Obviously,

unlicensed drivers stopped for the first time would have no record, but what

information is available on those who have been stopped previously, and how

might that differ from information available on those with suspended or re-

voked licenses?)

3. How timely and accurate is that information?

4. What are the options available to law enforcement in the field when dealing

with a driver with a suspended or revoked license? Or unlicensed?

5. What role does the officer play in the adjudication or administrative process of

dealing with license statute violations?

6. What is the role of prosecutors? Judges? Court administrators? Others? In the

process of dealing with license statute violations? And what information is avail-

able to help them be effective in these roles?

110

SECTION D: O P I N I O N S

In this section, we are soliciting opinions from the driver-control / driver-licensingprofessionals in the states. The hope is to identify the current practices that are work-ing, and to describe practices that they would like to see implemented.

1. What do you perceive as the key reasons that people are willing to drive withouta valid license (i.e., drive while suspended, revoked, or without any license what-soever)? What are the incentives (societal? monetary? other?)?

2. Do you have any information on the proportion of suspended or revoked driv-ers who continue to drive anyway?

3. Are there particular aspects of your state's programs that you believe to be par-ticularly effective? If so, which classes of licensure violations are they most effec-tive in dealing with?

4. Are there additional programs you would like to see tested or expanded thatwould help decrease the prevalence of driving under an aberrant license status?If yes, please describe the methods used in the program, what types of licenseviolation the program would target, and how it would be measured.

5. To the extent that you see external incentives playing a role in drivers' willing-ness to violate the state's licensing laws, are there things you think can be doneto reduce or eliminate particular incentives?

Analytic Questions

P U R P O S E

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information from participating stateson the rate of suspension, suspension durations, proportion of the driving populationunder revocation, reasons for suspension/revocation, and recidivism (i.e., rates ofresuspension). In order to support some level of comparison, the states are being askedto provide data in a standard format and covering a standard time period. The intent isfor these questions to be answered from available data in existing systems. If this provesdifficult for a given state, the hope is that they will be willing to perform some analyticresearch and get us the answers when they are able. If year 2000 data are not available,states are asked to provide the most recently available year's data.

STANDARD QUESTIONS

1. What are the characteristics of your driver population? Can you provide thefollowing information:a. Number of registered driversb. Age and gender tables of all driversc. Ethnicity (if available)

2. How many drivers were suspended in calendar year 2000? What were the age,

111

gender and other characteristics of suspended drivers?3. How many drivers had licenses revoked in calendar year 2000? What were their

characteristics (age, etc.)

4. How many people were subjected to driver-control actions for driving withouta license? What were the characteristics of this population?

5. For suspended and revoked drivers currently in your system, can you provide asummary of the reasons for their license status? [E.g., DUI conviction(s), pointsviolation, etc.].

6. For suspensions ending in calendar year 2000, can you provide data on theaverage duration of the suspension?

7. What proportion of drivers receiving a suspension in calendar 2000 had a pre-vious suspension? Two prior suspensions? Three or more?

8. What proportion of drivers receiving a revocation in calendar 2000 had beensuspended in the past? One prior? Two priors? Three or more?

9. For those drivers with hardship or other exceptions/conditional licenses, whatproportion of them was found in violation of the terms and conditions?

NONSTANDARD QUESTIONS

1. Do you have any analytic reports covering any aberrant license status issues thatyou can share with us? (Note, this question was asked during the initial tele-phone confirmation calls with each state.)

2. Are there particular analyses that you would like to see performed in an attemptto better characterize the license violation situation in your state? If yes, pleasedescribe in detail.

3. Are there analyses you are aware of from other states, research groups, of thefederal government? If yes, please give us a citation or other information iden-tifying the source and document.

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program:Graduated Driver Licensing

STAGE I PROVISIONS

Minimum holding period?(e.g., 6 months minimum?)

Adult supervision required?Seat belts required for all passengers?Zero tolerance for youth?Cancellation for alcohol violations?Crash/conviction free during holding period?Nighttime restrictions?Other restrictions?

112

STAGE II PROVISIONS

Holding period?Seat belt requirement?License revocation for alcohol offense?Crash/conviction free? How long?Nighttime restrictions?Minimum age for full license?Distinctive license for youth?

GENERAL QUESTIONS

When in effect?Any evaluation conducted of program?Other evidence of its effectiveness, opinions, statistics?

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program:Ignition Interlock

1. What are criteria for participating or being assigned to the program?2. What are the provisions or features of the program?

3. How is it administered? Describe process.4. How many assigned per year?5. What are the requirements for removal of the interlock?6. Has the state conducted an evaluation of the program's effectiveness?

7. Does the state have any opinions or other evidence of its effectiveness?

AAAFTS Unlicensed Driver Study Program:Administrative License Revocation

1. When in effect?

2. Include 0.02 for youthful offenders?3. Include revocation for test refusal?4. How many days after arrest is effective date of suspension/revocation?

5. How notify—certified or first class mail?6. What is average delay if hearing requested?7. How many ALR suspensions per year?

8. How many hearings requested? What percentage upheld?9. What is delay if revocation appealed?

10. How many revocations appealed? What percentage upheld?

11. Periods of administrative suspension/revocation:a. 1 st offenseb. 2d offense

113

c. 3 or more offensesd. Test refusal

12. What is rate of conviction for DUIs, statistics on percentage of DUI arrestsresulting in no conviction or conviction for lesser charge?

13. Does state have a system for tracking arrests thru the entire judicial process?14. Has the state conducted any evaluation of the effectiveness of ALR? What are

the state's opinions about the program, the process, the problems, its strengths/weaknesses?

114

A p p e n d i x F . List o f Study Participants

California

Sergeant Camm, California Highway PatrolDave DeYoung, California Department of Motor VehiclesCliff Helander, California Department of Motor VehiclesLarry Hidalgo, California Department of Motor VehiclesSue Lamar, California Department of Motor VehiclesTamara Mata, California Department of Motor VehiclesAnthony Mongalo, California Department of Motor VehiclesJulie Montoya, California Department of Motor VehiclesPatricia Rogers, California Department of Motor VehiclesJoan Zant, California Department of Motor Vehicles

Florida

Beth Allman, Florida Association of Court Clerks & ComptrollerJustin Branch, Circuit and County Courts of Jackson CountyCaptain Gordon Brown, Florida Highway PatrolJill Burford, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor VehiclesDiana Groom, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor VehiclesDale Guthrie, Clerk of Circuit and County Courts, Jackson CountyT.N. Prakash, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor VehiclesHarry Scott, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Iowa

Dave Dudley, Iowa Law Enforcement AcademyScott Falb, Iowa Department of TransportationSherry Forrest, Iowa Department of TransportationPete Grady, Attorney General's OfficeJane Holtorf, Iowa Department of TransportationKim Snook, Iowa Department of TransportationBob Thompson, Iowa Department of Public SafetyDave Titcomb, Iowa Department of Transportation

Michigan

Fred Bueter, Michigan Department of StatePaul Charette, Michigan Department of State

115

Elaine Charney, Michigan Department of StateSergeant Perry Curtis, Michigan State PoliceSandra Hartnell, State Court Administrator's OfficeThomas Robertson, Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating CouncilJennette Sawyer, Michigan Department of StateCharles Thelen, Michigan Department of StateDavid Wallace, Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council

Minnesota

Linda Ashton, Minnesota Supreme CourtJoe Bowler, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyJames Connolly, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyLinda Erikson, Minnesota Department of Public SafetySue Gorsetman, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyWilliam Hewitt, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyDon Hoechst, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyBob Hoemke, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyJane Kaufenberg, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyJoan Kopcinski, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyKaren MacArthur, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyPatricia McCormack, Minnesota Department of Public SafetyCapt. Jay Swanson, Minnesota State PatrolLois Walton, Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Oregon

Laurie Bradley, Oregon Department of TransportationDonna Damme, Oregon Department of TransportationRandy Fraser, State's Hearing Officers PanelBarney Jones, Oregon Department of TransportationJean Kunkle, Marion County District Attorney's OfficeDebra Letney, Oregon Department of TransportationLinda MacArthur, Oregon Department of TransportationWalt McAllister, Oregon Department of TransportationSergeant Richard Pileggi, Oregon State PoliceJulie Santos, Oregon Department of TransportationBradd Swank, State Court Administrator's Office

116

R e f e r e n c e sDe Young, D.J. 1990. Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Pilot Project toBetter Control Disqualified Drivers. CAL-DMV-RSS-90-129. Sacramento: CaliforniaDepartment of Motor Vehicles.

. 1997. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment onSuspended and Revoked Drivers in California. CAL-DMV-RSS-97-171. Sacramento:California Department of Motor Vehicles.

. 1998. An Evaluation of the General Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment onSuspended and Revoked Drivers in California. CAL-DMV-RSS-98-180. Sacramento:California Department of Motor Vehicles.

De Young, D.J., R.C. Peck, and C.J. Helander. 1997. Estimating the exposure and fatalcrash rates of suspended/revoked and unlicensed drivers in California. Accident Analysisand Prevention 29(1): 17-23.

Gebers, M.A., D.J. De Young, and R.C. Peck. 1997. The impact of mail contract strat-egy on the effectiveness of driver license withdrawal. Accident Analysis and Prevention29(1): 65-77.

Griffin, L.I., III, and S. DeLaZerda. 2000. Unlicensed to Kill. Washington, D.C.: AAAFoundation for Traffic Safety.

Grosz III, M.J., R. Zeller, and D.F. Klein. 2001. Final Report for the Traffic RecordsProject. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Hagen, R.E. 1978. The efficacy of licensing controls as a countermeasure for multipleDUI offenders. Journal of Safety Research 10(3): 115-22.

Jones, B. 1989. The Effectiveness of Oregon's New Drinking Driver Law: Final Report.Salem: Oregon Motor Vehicles Division.

Rodgers, A. 1994. Effect of Minnesota's license plate impoundment law on recidivismof multiple DWI violators. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 10(2): 128.

Rogers, P.N. 1995. The General Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood AlcoholConcentration Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws. CAL-DMV-RSS-95-158. Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles.

. 1997. The Specific Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood Alcohol Con-centration Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws CAL-DMV-RSS-97-167. Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles.

117

Ross, H.L., and P. Gonzales. 1988. Effects of license revocation on drunk-driving of-fenders. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20(5): 379-91.Song, L., and B. Jones. 1991. Hardship Permit and Traffic Safety. Salem: Oregon MotorVehicles Division.

Voas, R.B. 2001. DWI Offenders' Failure to Reinstate Driver's Licenses. Paper pre-sented at the National Association of Governors Highway Safety Representatives Con-ference, Long Beach, October 14-17.

Voas, R.B., and A.S. Tippetts. 1995. Evaluation of Washington and Oregon licenseplate sticker laws. In 39th Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement ofAutomotive Medicine. Des Plaines, Ill.: Association for the Advancement of AutomotiveMedicine.

Voas, R.B., A.S. Tippetts, and E. Taylor. 1998. Temporary vehicle impoundment inOhio: A replication and confirmation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30(5): 651-55.

Wells-Parker, E., R. Bangert-Drowns, R. McMillen, and M. Williams. 1995. Final re-sults from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. Addic-tion 90: 907-26.

118

A b b r e v i a t i o n sTerm Description

AAA American Automobile Association

AAAFTS American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety

ALR Administrative License Revocation

ALS Administrative License Suspension

BAC Blood Alcohol Content

DHSMV Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

DIP Driver Improvement Program

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles

DOS Department of State

DPS Department of Public Safety

DUI Driving Under the Influence (of alcohol or other drugs)

DWI Driving While Intoxicated

DWR Driving While Revoked

DWS Driving While Suspended

DWU Driving While Unlicensed

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

IPS Inimical to Public Safety

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

OUI Operating Under the Influence (of alcohol or other drugs)

OWI Operating While Impaired

TRL Temporary Restricted License

119