3;...-
":

  
   
   
  

.“‘
M.-
m-n.

I III "Ea. III'IIII WWII. III III

IIIIIIIIII III’II I"II ‘I‘ """

III "I . I“.

   

III III. IIWII‘I'IIWII III
II

I “'II I I I "I" I
II" "‘III "II":
.IIIIIII

 

III. IIIIII
IIIIII . III‘I .II

IIIIIIII II". III I 5 "III“ I II IIIIIEIIIII “III" I
II‘ I. HII‘III‘ I I IIIII I I IIIII 'IIIIII III II." III IIIIIIIIII I 'II." I”
. .. I'I “'II IIIIII" IIIII I III. I I" II III

-—~
M
’.‘3‘

  
       

-’__"“' '

. .
-;~_:'—‘v—.. ..

   

*—

.III

     
  
    

    

I. "I I. M .. ,IIIIIIII I I "II"I'".I’
.III "I ""III"'IIII """IWI IIIIII I‘II'III I.I,,,II III." III II" IIIJII I', ‘I...'I- I
:gIl‘; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII ""IIIIII.""""IIHII" .
CIWIIWMIIWMIIII"IIIB~¢II
J , "I 9' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII""IIII'IIIIIIIII IIII‘IIIIIII‘IIIII‘IIIIIIIII’III‘I II" IIIIIII , II .I
' III III. IIIIIIIII‘I " I III IIIIIIII‘I’I’. I. I. ._
‘. ' "I" "I I "IIII‘II‘IIII IIII'III III" "III III 'IIIIIII" I III,”
' III IIII'IIIII'IIIII“ I'IIIIII‘. IIIIIII.II‘II’.-IIIIIIIIIIII III.
" .. ‘II

II.

.I”, I I : IIZI,"'"‘ II I
.. I I , I. III I . I {‘IIIIIIIF
I I III. I III. I. I'"III.III'"I...II IIIIIIIIII “ .."IIIII§I.="5"I:I._I§?"
.. I‘II‘IIII‘III'IIIIIIIII II‘I‘IH I .3 III... .- ' .-
. 'IIIIIII 'IIIIIII..:,‘I‘I'III'III‘IIIIIIIII'I'IIIII f.‘.'~ :: I" .
I .I"I‘I'I’IIIIIIIIIIIII’I‘."I"II‘""I""II II’II‘IIIII" I?" *I‘ ‘I9*I#= ‘ *I‘
. .' .I I-'.‘ I’IIII‘I . ".".. III( II. II..I 1'," 3'73”," , . . ,
'IIII .‘II‘IIIIIIIIIIIIII.I.II.,IIIIIIIII. I III... . :
III "I .‘I‘I’.’I'I III.IIIIII'I’I’II‘II."."I‘IIIIIII" " ‘3‘": I'II‘IIIII ;
IMWIIIIMIMII IWIIIIIII
75'. '1 I""I*.""f;:"""‘-”I‘.’"." . LIV/I. I? I.“ " 1. . ""3 ‘: ":"’".
~ IIII‘IIIIIIIIIII’IIII."IIIIIIIIIEIIIIII"I.I I? III-III: III I ‘I
IIIIIIII’IIIIIEIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIII .III . ‘II'~-‘I;I":II'IIIIILII'III I'"IIII"II'I,I"""IIII",I"""§.II""I "I"-2I‘1".qf"" [III-‘II: i‘iragk "{‘TTV
IIII'IIIISIIIIHITIII "I .- I as: I."’I‘I'III’I..-';I<IIII‘I"'II"‘III*I"I"'ILII'I’II'" :"'"Ififf ‘II-6:;
I‘. ‘III I

     

I’II. I‘II».'I_I:.I:III3.:‘IIII‘ i .

"I I .I III" . I. ‘ "I I -'y. ""I'l' "'""'".I" ”III... ”VIII." " I I
.I.."I‘ '-.=""II.‘II5~I I '"II. "I'II II' ’I II‘J’II'II “III" ‘ x“III/II“ " 'IIII II‘JII WI” I: "I" "'1"
I." "I. 'II "IIIIIII 'IIII‘ I
I " ’IIIIIIIIIIIIIH'I.

; ‘.‘IIIIII‘ II
IIII 45?. III"! IFIIIIMI “If: .
III. '.|. WI IIIII "III...
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .III III: IIIII‘II fl _ a”:

     
 

 

II
I I l‘.- " II I "23’1"." """H I" 5'33"“
"III I I" ""' II "II' . I ,. II III" " II III‘III' III".' " I ‘ "I"
“III "' II‘I'IK’IHII‘ " III I I. "I" "‘IIII‘III‘III-‘I .I II II" 'I‘III "I", 'I' I" 7""
I "All I" "I" """II I"”I".’.IIII"II"II".'""II""II I I 'II" 5"" I"MIIIII ":"'" "I 'I IIIIIII"I"II II" "0""? ""3"";"""""V"""I/""/Il "if" "9"" ."’(Iv I “WIPE;
I"/"""} "III" ."I.""IIIIIIII‘II'I’IIIII"r "III/"I "W “I” IIIIII "I" III?!" "1"th "1"" III" "I’M " II‘I'III‘IL " J"""I'" "("hI‘fiIILDI" "III" MIMI?" "
" 'II III IWI" NVIIIIM" "my" ""1" I". XIII.” IIIIII' “III .I..."' "I‘m“ I. "III ""6”" I. "
IIIIII ""PIIIIIIIIIHIIII IIII'II ! "IIIIIIII'I""IIIIIIIII ‘IIII' WM IIIIIIII I’I'IIIWIIW "III

"NJ I“
III} IIIII. I'IIIIIII MI I . IM
I"I"II ' I" "III" ll"'II" "III "III "IIIIIII‘JIlgIIIM |""U"I"""""""I""f|"l "1"". I ' I
"'II1"'"""II‘I'"“"II"'"""II'"""" I'II NJ". I ' """I “ "i i ' I
’II IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII 'IIIIII'II [I II [II 'II I‘II"I”'IIIIIIII£\ I _I .4 I .
'II. """I" ""1 I"I'I"I‘]IIIII "I" "III". 'II "I" "

III.‘ ”‘II ' ..
III III III 'II ”(’II I -
"II‘ IIIIIMIHJ !"$3"... In “VIII"! m ‘ "' "

 

II

ILLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

31293 01066 0631

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TO EXAMINE THE INFLUENCE OF
REGIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCES ON THE
OPINIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF SELECTED LOCAL
OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS

presented by

Thomas Owen Reel

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree m Secondary Education
and Curriculum

77
Major professor

 

 

Date February 22, 1980

07639

 

  
  
 

"F

  
       

 

LIBRAR y
. 'Mickigan Sum
' University

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LXBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to move
charge fro- simulation records

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TO EXAMINE THE INFLUENCE OF
REGIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCES ON THE
OPINIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF SELECTED LOCAL
OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS

By

Thomas Owen Reel

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1980

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TO EXAMINE THE INFLUENCE OF
REGIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY CONFERENCES ON THE
OPINIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF SELECTED LOCAL
OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS

By

Thomas Owen Reel

The major purpose of this study was to identify the opinions
and knowledge of selected local officials and community leaders on
traffic safety, as expressed through their participation in a local
traffic safety conference. A questionnaire technique was employed
to determine whether exposure to this type of meeting resulted in
any changes in the opinions or knowledge of the participants.

A related, subordinate problem also addressed concerned the
overall effectiveness of these conferences as a process for better
identifying local problems and needs related to traffic safety.

This study represented the evaluation component of a
federally-sponsored highway safety project initiated by the Michigan
Office of Highway Safety Planning in March, 1977.

A total of 652 pre-conference (Pre-Q) questionnaires were
mailed to those persons invited to each local conference; 232 or
35.6% were completed and returned. A somewhat higher return rate
was noted for the post-conference (Post-Q) questionnaire--46.l%
overall. A total of nine questionnaires were returned by 20 state

officials resulting in a 45% rate of return.

Thomas Owen Reel

Four geographical areas were selected for the conferences:
a single county (Muskegon); two tri-county areas (Cass, Van Buren
and Berrien; Bay, Midland and Saginaw) and a five-county area in
northern Michigan (Grand Traverse, Antrim, Leelanau, Benzie and
Kalkaska).

Data from the questionnaires were generally summarized on
the basis of two variables--by conference location and by occupation
or profession of the respondent. Frequency tables were prepared
which indicated the number and percentage of respondents selecting
each type of response.

Analysis of the data led to several conclusions as follows:

l. The study did identify the opinions and knowledge of
selected local officials and community leaders on a number of
traffic safety related issues and concerns.

2. Exposure to a one-day local traffic safety conference
generally did not produce any overall noticeable changes in the
opinions or knowledge of the participants. Respondents generally
selected the same answers on both the pre-conference and post-
conference questionnaires.

3. Since most participants indicated a favorable response
to the forums, and further stated that this concept was most valuable
as a method for "providing for an exchange of views and opinions of
state officials and local leaders," it can be concluded that the
process of periodically conducting local traffic safety conferences
may be useful to continue, especially if state officials are inter-

ested in better identifying local problems and needs. Additionally,

Thomas Owen Reel

the technique of utilizing some type of pre-conference and post-
conference questionnaire as an evaluation or planning tool is also
important to this process if overall effectiveness is expected.

4. The perceptions (opinions and knowledge) of local com-
munity leaders concerning the nature of the traffic crash problem
were not generally the same as those views held by state officials.
Specifically, state officials disagreed with local officials and
leaders on those questions dealing with the nature of the local
crash problem and the most critical local area traffic safety needs.
Further, most state officials indicated that they believed their
perceptions concerning local traffic safety problems were different
from those of local officials.

5. There appears to be only slight differences in the per-
ceptions of local community leaders on major safety issues from one
area of the state to another. However, it would still have to be
concluded that, with a few exceptions, local community officials
and leaders generally had the same or quite similar perceptions
about the nature of the local crash problem.

6. The most apparent differences between occupation groups
were in the perceptions of local traffic safety problems or needs.

On other issues, the differences were generally not as pronounced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this study would not have been possible
without the support and encouragement of a number of individuals
and organizations.

The author wishes first to express his sincere appreciation
to the chairman and members of the doctoral guidance committee:

Dr. Robert E. Gustafson, chairman; Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, Dr.
Donald L. Smith and Dr. Keith P. Anderson.

A special note of thanks is due also to the staff of the
Office of Highway Safety Planning for their efforts in planning and
conducting the local conferences, and to the Traffic Improvement
Association of Oakland County, and especially Mr. Bruce Madsen, TIA
executive director, for their assistance. Mr. Frank Churley, con-
sultant, should also be recognized for the excellent job he did in
planning and arranging all the details involved at each conference
site.

The author also wishes to acknowledge the contribution of
his secretary, Mrs. Raymond Bennett, for her assistance with this
project.

Last, but not least, to my family, for their patience and
understanding. This study would not have been completed without
the help and encouragement of my wife, Nancy, and the interest and
support of my children, Jeff, Kristin and Karin.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES .
LIST OF APPENDICES .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study .
Importance of the Study
Scope of the Study. .
Limitations of the Study.
Study Design . .
Definition of Terms . .
Organization of Remaining Chapters

II. LITERATURE REVIEW .

The Illinois Town Hall Meetings for Traffic Safety .

DOT - NHTSA Town Meetings . .
Public Opinion in Michigan on Traffic Accident
Prevention .
Public Concern About Traffic Safety .
Relative Usefulness of Different Traffic Safety
Programs . .
Responsibility for Traffic Safety.
What North Carolina Drivers Suggest for Improving
Highway Safety in Their State . . . .
Questionnaire Method Testing Project (QMT).
Summary .

III. STUDY DESIGN

Background Description of the Project
Preliminary Planning . . .
Project Goals and Objectives
Site Selection . .

Page

vi

xi

—J

mmwflmm

Chapter

IV.

Program Development .
Participant Selection
Field Visitations . .
Statistical Data Books .
Evaluation of the Project
Study Design
Research Questions . .
Questionnaire Development .

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems .
Awareness of High Accident Locations .
Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs

Personal Awareness of Traffic Safety Problems/Needs :

Official Awareness of Problems/Needs .
Community Concern for Traffic Safety. .
Comparison of Community Traffic Accident Problems
Perception of Local Traffic Safety Programs
Annual Costs of Accidents . .
Local Expenditures for Accident Prevention . .
Ease and Expense of Solving Accident Problems .
Awareness of Federal Program Assistance .
Awareness of Specific Local Projects . . .
Responsibility for Local Traffic Safety Programs .
Value of Local Traffic Safety Conferences
Overall Value of Forum . . . .
Comments from Participants . . .
Analysis of State Officials Questionnaires .
Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems

(Local Level)

Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs (Local Level) :

Local Awareness of Traffic Safety Problems .
Local Priority for Traffic Safety .

Need for Improved Local Management .
Perceptions of Local Safety Problems and Needs
Awareness of Federal Assistance Programs
Usefulness of Local Traffic Safety Forums
Summary . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Conclusions .

Recommendations . .

Recommendations for Further Research.
Discussion

iv

136
T36
144
147

149

Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Table

#wN

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

l4.

l5.
16.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparative Accident Trends-~United States and Michigan--
l968-l978 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relative Usefulness of Different Traffic Safety Programs
Responsibility for Traffic Safety .

North Carolina Survey .

Occupation or Profession of Conference Attendees .

Pre-Conference and Post-Conference Questionnaires:
Number Mailed and Returned . . . . .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems: Combined
Occupational Groups

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by Engineering-
Planning Professions . . . . .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by Education
Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by Enforcement
Officials . . . . . . . . .

Ranking of MajOr Traffic Accident Problems by Business
Professions .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by City-
County Officials . . . . . . . . .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by Courts
and Health Professions . . . . . . .

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems by Private
Citizens . . . . . . . . . . .

Awareness of High Accident Locations by Location .

Awareness of High Accident Locations by Occupational
Group . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

19
20
22
33

42

44

45

47

48

49

50

52

53
54

56

Table Page

17. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs: Combined
Occupational Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

18. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Engineering-
Planning Professions . . . . . . . . . . . 59

19. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Education
Profession .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

20. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Enforcement
Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

21. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Business
Professions . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

22. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by City-County
Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

23. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Courts and
Health Professions . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

24. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs by Private
Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

25. Personal Awareness of Traffic Safety Needs by
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

26. Personal Awareness of Traffic Safety Needs by

Occupational Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O
27. Official Awareness of Problems/Needs by Location . . 72
28. Official Awareness of Problems/Needs by Occupational

Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
29. Community Concern for Traffic Safety by Location . . 76

30. Community Concern for Traffic Safety by Occupational
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

31. Comparison of Community Traffic Accident Problems
by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

32. Comparison of Community Traffic Accident Problems by
Occupational Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

33. Perception of Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Location . . . . . 83

vii

Table Page

34. Perception of Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Occupational Group. . . . . . 85

35. Annual Cost of Accidents by Location . . . . . . . 87
36. Annual Costs of Accidents by Occupational Group . . . 88

37. Annual Costs of Accidents: Estimates Provided by
Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

38. Local Expenditures for Accident Prevention by
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

39. Local Expenditures for Accident Prevention by
Occupational Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

40. Ease and Expense of Solving Accident Problems by
Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

41. Ease and Expense of Solving Accident Problems by
Occupational Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

42. Awareness of Federal Program Assistance by Location . . 99

43. Awareness of Federal Program Assistance by Occupational
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

44. Sources of Federal Program Assistance as Indicated
by Conference Participants . . . . . . . . . . 102

45. Awareness of Specific Local Projects by Location . . . 104

46. Awareness of Specific Local Projects by Occupational
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

47. Categorical Identification of Local Federal
Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

48. Responsibility for Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Location . . . . . 108

49. Responsibility for Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Location . . . . 109

50. Responsibility for Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Occupational Group. . . . . lll

viii

Table Page

51. Responsibility for Local Traffic Safety Programs by
Occupational Group. . . . . . 112

52. Need for Improved Management by Location . . . . . 113
53. Need for Improved Management by Occupational Group . . 115
54. Value of Local Traffic Safety Conferences by Location . 117

55. Value of Local Traffic Safety Conferences by
Occupational Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

56. Overall Value of Forum by Location . . . . . . . 121
57. Overall Value of Forum by Occupational Group . . . . 122

58. Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems (Local
Level): State Officials Responses . . . . . . . 123

59. Ranking of Major Traffic Safety Needs (Local Level):
State Officials Responses . . . . . . 129

60. Local Awareness of Traffic Safety Problems--
Responses by State Officials . . . . . . . . . 130

61. Local Priority for Traffic Safety--Responses by
State Officials . . . . . . . 131

62. Need for Improved Local Management--Responses by
State Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

63. Perceptions of Local Safety Problems and Needs--
Responses by State Officials . . . . . . . . . 133

64. Awareness of Federal Assistance Programs--Responses
by State Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

65. Usefulness of Local Traffic Safety Forums--Responses
by State Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Summary of Respondent Comments About the Local
Traffic Safety Forums--By Location . . . . . . . 125

2. Comments About the Local Traffic Safety Forums--
By Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Sample Program and Agenda . . . . . . . . . . 155
B. Sample Letters of Invitation . . . . . . . . . 158
C. Pre-Conference Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 161
0. Cover Letter for Pre-Conference Questionnaire . . . 166

State Officials Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 168
Post-Conference Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 171

G. Cover Letter for Post-Conference Questionnaire . . . 176

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In spite of recent progress toward reducing traffic fatalities
and the mileage death rate, this nation still records nearly fifty
thousand highway crash deaths annually. In Michigan, the figure has
approached or exceeded some two thousand persons each year, although
the mileage death rate has shown steady improvement (Table 1). None-
theless, this problem continues to represent one of the most costly
societal problems facing this country today, both in terms of
personal human loss and suffering and staggering economic costs which
affect nearly every citizen.

Recognizing the serious and pervasive nature of the traffic
crash problem the Congress, in September of 1966, enacted the High-
way Safety Act of 1966. The intent was c1ear--federa1 government
assistance to the states in dealing with the problem was necessary.

Prior to this time, state and local highway safety program
efforts were largely disjointed and were seldom based on any sort of
empirical knowledge or reliable data. For the most part, state
agencies followed past traditions in administering their statutory
responsibilities: and there was little attempt to coordinate program
efforts at either the state or local level, or perhaps even more

importantly, between state and local jurisdictions.

TABLE 1.--Comparative Accident Trends-~United States and Michigan--

 

 

 

 

1968-1978.
United Statesa Michiganb
Mileage Mileage
Year Fatalities Death Ratec Fatalities Death Ratec
1968 54,862 5.40 2,392 4.97
1969 55,791 5.21 2,487 4.89
1970 54,633 4.88 2,177 4.09
1971 54,381 4.57 2,152 3.89
1972 56,278 4.43 2,258 3.91
1973 55,511 4.24 2,213 3.78
1974 46,402 3.59 1,875 3.36
1975 46,000 3.45 1,811 3.22
1976 47,100 3.40 1,955 3.16
1977 49,500 3.35 1,950 3.00
1978 51,500 3.39 2,076 3.10

 

aAccident Facts, 1978-79 editions, National Safety Council.
b

 

Michigan Traffic Accident Facts, Michigan State Police,
1978. ~

cDeaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel.

Even with the very formal and direct involvement of the
federal government with the states through the Highway Safety Act
and various program standards and requirements, it was evident that
program planning was accomplished largely without any significant
local or community level input. This situation has generally held
true throughout the eleven year life of the state-federal program
in spite of the fact the law has continued to require that at least
40% of the federal funds a state receives each year must be spent at
the local government level. It is also apparent that the traffic
accident problem is largely local in nature and therefore, solutions,
to be most effective, must be applied directly at this level.

Presently, each state is required to develop annually a

planning-funding document (Annual Work Program) in order to receive

 

their allotment of federal funds under the various Highway Safety

Act(s). The Annual Work Program (AWP) or Highway Safety Plan (HSP),

 

 

as it is now being termed, sets forth certain requirements which the
states are expected to meet in carrying out their responsibilities
under the state and community grant program (Section 402).

Recent concern was expressed by the Congress because of the
lack of local involvement in the state planning process and in the
development of locally-oriented countermeasure programs in the AWE.
As a result, the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted a require-
ment which states that "political subdivisions must have an active

voice in the initiation, development and implementation of those

safety activities so credited to assure that the local participation
in highway safety intended by Congress is achieved."1

Since the language of this new policy did not specify the
method or procedures which a state should or could follow in ful-
filling the requirement, a variety of approaches seemed possible.

In the Spring of 1967, while employed by the Missouri Auto
Club, the author was involved in the planning and implementation of
a series of three local traffic forums for the State of Missouri.
The purpose of these meetings, held primarily for state and local
officials, was to review and discuss the Highway Safety Act of 1966
which was then still less than a year old. These meetings generated
a good deal of interest on the part of local government, and it
seemed to the author that a similar approach could prove to be a
useful process for securing local level input in Michigan.

Prior to the promulgation of the federal requirement, how-
ever, the State of Michigan, as well as most other states, had not
established any procedure by which local officials and community
leaders could indicate their major concerns and needs to state
officials, or vice versa.

Although several states, including Michigan, had conducted
traffic safety conferences over the past several years, they had
generally been held in the state capitol and served primarily to
indoctrinate local officials and others on subjects of general

interest rather than provide any real opportunity for discussion on

 

1NHTSA/FHwA Order No. 462-8/7510.2 Political Subdivision
Participation in State Highway Safety Programs (June 23, 1976).

 

local level problems. In addition, little if any, substantive
evaluation was ever performed on these efforts.

Given this frame of reference, the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning (OHSP), being the state office responsible for the
state-federal highway safety program, determined that a series of
local or regional traffic safety conferences would provide a viable
process for better identifying local needs and problems. The con-
ferences could also provide a vehicle for bringing information to
local officials and community leaders as to successful program
efforts in other areas of the state. It was felt that this approach
would serve to meet the intent of the DOT policy by explaining
federal assistance through the OHSP and new programs being proposed

for these areas.

Statement of the Problem

 

When contrasted with other governmental programs, highway
safety has seldom enjoyed high visibility or support and is not,
generally, a politically sensitive or emotion-provoking issue. The
lack of public awareness of the magnitude of the traffic crash prob-
lem, particularly at the local level, has caused many communities to
fail to appropriate adequate funds to initiate or sustain effective,
comprehensive highway safety programs.

In addition, state-level traffic safety officials need to
become more acutely aware of local problems as perceived by community
officials and leaders. Direct input is required if state-level pro-
grams are to be developed which are truly responsive to the needs of

local citizens.

Purpose of the Study

The major purpose of this study was to identify the opinions
and knowledge of selected local officials and community leaders on
traffic safety, as expressed through their participation in a one-day
local traffic safety conference, and further, to determine through a
questionnaire technique, whether exposure to this type of meeting
produced any noticeable changes in their opinions or knowledge.

A related, subordinate problem also addressed in this
investigation concerned the overall effectiveness of these local (or
regional) conferences as a process for better identifying local
problems and needs related to traffic safety. Specifically, the
author was interested in determining whether such meetings could
produce a meaningful exchange of views and information between state
and local officials on specific problems and active or potential
countermeasure programs. Within this context, the study also sought
to identify any important differences between state and local offi-
cials, and among local officials themselves, insofar as the percep-
tion of local problems was concerned.

The author was of the opinion that an annual series of state-
wide local (or regional) traffic safety conferences can be, if
properly structured and conducted, an effective process for securing
meaningful input and information on local needs and problems. How-
ever, without careful pre-planning and unless some appropriate method
for feedback and evaluation is provided, such meetings will have

scant importance in the overall state planning process.

Importance of the Study

The effective planning of successful highway safety programs
requires significant expenditures of time and money at all levels of
government. Traditionally, a general lack of concern, especially on
the part of local officials about traffic accidents, their causes
and possible remedies, has frustrated state level efforts to impact
this problem. As a result, many resources which have been directed
to thelocal level have not typically or necessarily considered the
views and opinions of local officials or community leaders.
Obviously, there is dialogue on specific project proposals, but
there is seldom any formal discussion on broad-scale traffic safety
problems between local leaders and state officials. The only
process which corresponds, in any remote way, is the typical public
hearing on the location of a proposed highway or freeway.

This study, therefore, was designed primarily to provide an
analysis of the effectiveness of local or regional traffic safety
conferences as a process for securing local input to the state level
planning process. The results of the study should be particularly
important to those state level officials charged with the responsi-
bility for planning and administration of the state highway safety
program, and who may be considering this type of approach to improved

state—local relations in this area.

Scope of Study

 

This study project was designed to identify four sites which

would meet the following criteria:

1. Is the area or region experiencing a disporportionately
large share of traffic crashes?

2. Have there been any major federally-funded traffic
safety programs implemented in the area?

3. Does the area "fit" within an appropriate geographical
distribution?

4. Will the locations provide a mixture of governments
and regional areas?

5. Is the location reasonably convenient, and are
suitable facilities available for such a conference?

Utilizing these basic criteria as a general frame of
reference, four locations were selected: (1) Benton Harbor (three-
county area); (2) Muskegon (one county); (3) Saginaw (three-county
area); and (4) Traverse City (five-county area). Meetings were con-

ducted at each of these sites during the month of May, 1977.

Limitations of Study

 

There were three major limitations of the study. First, no
pilot study was conducted. The time constraints involved in schedul-
ing and conducting the four local conferences precluded any oppor-
tunity for an initial pilot conference. However, under other
circumstances this would have been most desirable.

Second, the opinions of the non-respondents on either the
pre-conference or post-conference questionnaires were unknown.

Third, since few respondents chose to identify themselves by
name on either the pre-conference or post-conference questionnaires,
it was not possible to determine whether individual opinions or
attitudes on local traffic safety issues were changed as a result of

the conferences.

Study Design

 

The project utilized a two-group pre- post-test type design.
The two groups questioned were: (1) a group drawn from the State
Safety Commission, staff members of its Operating Committee and
other state level officials with highway safety-related responsi-
bilities; and (2) a group of community opinion leaders (government
and business) invited to one of the local traffic safety conferences.
Their responses represented community leader opinion.

Each invitee was asked to complete a short questionnaire,
designed to identify his/her concerns about traffic safety matters
both before and after the conference. For invitees completing the
pre-conference questionnaire (Pre-Q), but not attending the confer-
ence, their questionnaires were discarded from further analysis.

Representatives of the State Safety Commission and their
operating committee representatives and advisors were also asked to
complete a similar pre-conference questionnaire prior to the conduct
of the local traffic safety conferences.

The state officials noted above were not given the post-
conference questionnaire (Post-Q) since it was assumed that their
opinions and knowledge would be unchanged as a result of the local
conferences. It was the author's belief that any significant dif-
ferences between these two groups could likely be observed by com-
paring the results of the pre-conference questionnaires alone.

Since a major purpose of this study was to determine whether or not
the beliefs, opinions and knowledge of local leaders changed after

being exposed to one of the local conferences, the primary emphasis

10

was placed on comparisons of this group's pre- and post-conference
questionnaires.

The questionnaire included items in the following general
categories:

1. The scope and cost of traffic accidents (statewide
and locally).

2. Traffic problems and possible solutions at the
local level.

c. Value of the conference to local officials.
d. Suggestions for improvement of subsequent conferences.
e. Items of interest not considered at the conference.

f. Items included in the conference which were not
applicable to the local area.

9. General attitude or awareness questions.

The OHSP retained the services of a consultant to act as
coordinator for the regional forums. It was this individual's
responsibility to initially contact local public officials and
business leaders to arrange for a local chairperson for each
conference.

As a guide to these preliminary discussions, a list of
questions was prepared relative to the objectives of the forums and
traffic safety concerns generally.

The initial questionnaire (Pre-Q) as finally developed was
mailed during the week of April 18th to participants in the Benton
Harbor and Muskegon meetings. The questionnaire (Pre-Q) for the
Saginaw and Traverse City meetings was mailed during the week of

May 9th.

11

Definition of Terms

 

To assist the reader in understanding the nature and scope

of this study, the following definitions are offered:

Annual Work Program: The name given to the state highway

 

safety planning document prepared by teh OHSP. Required by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, this plan describes both state and
local program activity anticipated during the year. Federal funding
under Section 402 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 is specifically

identified. Sometimes abbreviated AWE.

Highway Safety Act of 1966: This was the initial federal

 

highway safety act passed by the Congress in September 1966. There
have been several subsequent acts, each providing funds for state

and local community programs to improve highway safety.

Highwgy Safety Plan: This document is gradually replacing

 

the AWE as the state's annual program plan. Like the AWE, it
identified federal funding at both the state and local level and is
oriented to a problem-identification approach. It is sometimes

abbreviated-ESP.

‘Highway Safety Standards: The 18 federal (DOT) standards

 

which provide the framework for a state's highway safety program as
delineated in the AHE.°V.H§E- (Examples of standard areas are:
Driver Education, Motor Vehicle Inspection, Traffic Courts and

Emergency Medical Services.)

12

Traffic Safety Program or Countermeasure: A specific

 

planned activity to impact the traffic crash problem. It may have

local or state emphasis.

Organization of Remaining Chapters

 

In this chapter a statement of the problem was presented,
along with narrative background on the scope of the study and its
importance as a research topic. In Chapter II, appropriate litera-
ture is reviewed in the area of interest specific to this subject,
but will include literature in related fields where public forums
have been utilized in program planning efforts.

Chapter III deals with the details of the methodology
applied in conducting the study. In Chapter IV, the data which
were collected and analyzed are presented, including pertinent
research results and findings.

The final chapter summarizes the results of the study,
considers implications and the need for further study and research

on the topic.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Most of the literature dealing with the subject of public
attitudes or opinions on traffic safety described the results of
various studies or public opinion polls conducted in conjunction
with some type of special emphasis program. For the most part,
these kinds of studies were not helpful as references for this
particular project, although they did serve to indicate the general
level of knowledge and concern that the public has about the problem
of traffic accidents. Several sources were reviewed in this area
in order to better understand anticipated public official reactions
or support of the proposed local traffic safety conferences.

The Illinois Town Hall Meetings
for Traffic Safety,

 

In February and March of 1976, the Illinois Department of
Transportation initiated a series of five regional "Town Hall"
Meetings for Traffic Safety. This effort, which was structured at
least in part to develop local citizen support for safety improve-
ments, very closely paralleled the purpose and structure of the
Michigan Traffic Forums. There was, however, no formal report of

the results of these meetings.

13

14

Some of the priority issues addressed included emergency
medical services (response capabilities), improved driver education
(motorcycle safety and evasive action), alcohol awareness (adjudica-
tion and rehabilitation), roadside hazards, transportation of
hazardous materials and local safety projects (federal funding).

At least three of these same topics were also covered in the
Michigan program.

Although participants in the Illinois meetings were not
asked to complete a questionnaire as was done in Michigan, local
officials and citizens were encouraged to participate actively in
the discussions. It was reported that "A board of state and local
officials also met with area residents to review local problems,
make suggestions as to disposition, and motivate a progressive com-
munity program with the strength to influence legislation through

citizen information and education."2

DOT - NHTSA Town Meetings
In a desire to secure public input on various concerns and
issues affecting traffic safety, and specifically motor vehicle
safety problems, the U.S. Department of Transportation (National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration) conducted a series of "town
meetings" in various parts of the country. The meetings were held
in September and October, 1978, and in March, 1979. The locations

were noted as follows: Miami, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; Portland,

 

2"Town Hall Meetings Slated in Illinois," Traffic Safety,
(November, 1975), p. 31.

 

15

Oregon; Paramees, New Jersey; Hartford, Connecticut; Houston, Texas;
Boulder and Denver, Colorado.

In a summary document provided by NHTSA (the formal report
of the meetings is still in preparation), it was learned that the
purpose of the local meetings was "to provide a forum for indi-
viduals to express their views, ask questions, or describe problems
in the areas of motor vehicle safety, repair, defects, fuel economy,

3

and emissions." The agency further stated that the meetings tended

to break down into three categories of public involvement--

1. Citizens who participated provided significant
information which the agency believed useful in
the development of motor vehicle safety standards
and in the determination of the existence of motor
vehicle defects;

2. Citizens received considerable information on
subjects about which they knew relatively little.
For example, they were given statistics on motor
vehicle issues; given cost information on safety
standards; told of the importance of child
restraints, etc.; and

3. Citizens were able to obtain immediate counseling
and assistance with motor vehicle related problems.

Since the meetings were designed principally to secure local
citizen input, they should be regarded as a rather unique effort
insofar as traffic safety meetings are concerned. It was reported
that personal complaints or problems, again largely vehicle-related,
were handled directly during the course of the meeting. In a couple

of cases, NHTSA had defect experts, safety standard engineers, and a

 

3Letter and attachments from Ms. Karen K. Marcus, Chief,
Consumer Participation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Transportation, December 18, 1979.

16

former car dealer maintain a counseling room for those with specific
problems for the duration of the town meeting.

The agency indicated that many things were accomplished by
conducting these meetings. Most notable perhaps was the fact that
"strong lines of communication have been developed between the
agency and local consumer organizations and offices as a result of
the town meeting."4

Although the essential purpose and nature of these meetings
was different from that of the local Michigan conferences, both were
concerned with attempting to generate increased public attention to
traffic safety issues. The four Michigan meetings were "invita-
tional," and aimed primarily at local officials, whereas the NHTSA
meetings were open to any persons who had the desire to attend.

Public Opinion in Michigan on Traffic
Accident Prevention

 

The first organized effort to learn more about the attitudes
and knowledge of Michigan citizens on traffic safety took place in
1965. In November and December of that year, sixteen hundred
persons of driving age, living throughout the state, were personally
intereviewed in their homes by staff from Market-Opinion Research,
Inc. The study was conducted by Michigan State University. Funding
for the project was provided by the Chrysler Corporation Fund.

The intent of the MSU-MOR study was "to obtain precise
estimates of how serious Michigan residents judge the state's

traffic and accident problem, and what they think should be done

 

41bid.

17

5 Within this context, the study dealt with

about the situation."
six areas of traffic safety:
1. The driving experience of Michigan residents.

2. How important people think traffic safety is relative
to other governmental programs.

3. The methods seen as most effective in controlling
the traffic and accident problem.

4. The judged effectiveness of present traffic safety
programs, including driver licensing, driver
education, traffic law enforcement, and vehicle
safety maintenance.

5. The public's reaction to each of several ideas
that have been proposed for possible future traffic
legislation.

6. Who should have the primary responsibility for
controlling the traffic and accident problem.

Questions in several of the above areas were also included
on the pre- and post-conference questionnaires utilized in connection
with the Michigan regional traffic safety conferences. Following is
a summary of findings with respect to items 2, 3, and 6 above.
These topics related most closely to the concerns addressed on the

subject questionnaires.

Public Concern About Traffic Safety
In the MOR-MSU Study, respondents were asked to answer a
series of questions designed to determine their overall feelings

about the importance of traffic safety and their general awareness

 

5V. D. Troldahl and R. V. Farace, Public Opinion in Michigan
on Traffic Accident Prevention (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, Highway Traffic Safety Center, 1966), p. iv.

 

 

18

of traffic safety activity. When asked first, "What do you see as
major problems facing the State of Michigan today?" traffic safety
was the second most frequently mentioned topic. Crime was named
most frequently and a number of other problems were tied for third
place.6
A second question concerned the seriousness of the traffic
accident problem. The survey results indicated that about half or
46% of the respondents considered it "somewhat out of control."
Another question asked in this subject are was what was
being done to cut down accidents. Those responding to this question
stated that most was done in the areas of "driver competency" (53%),
"highway improvements" (48%), and "traffic enforcement" (38%).

Relative Usefulness of Different
Traffic Safety Programs

 

 

In an effort to determine which of a number of traffic
safety programs the public was most aware of, respondents were asked
to provide two answers (opinions) on what they thought would be the
best way to reduce accidents. “Driver licensing," "Roads," "Police
Enforcement" and “Courts" were noted most frequently. Answers as
distributed are displayed in Table 2.7

For the second part of this item, respondents were provided
with a list of nine possible methods for reducing traffic crashes.

From this list of nine they were asked first to pick three things

 

6Ibid., p. 13.

71bid., p. 19.

19

TABLE 2.--Relative Usefulness of Different Traffic Safety Programs.

 

 

Program Area Percentage of Respondents
Driver Licensing 32
Roads 27
Police Enforcement 26
Court Enforcement 24
Lower Speed Limits 14
Driver Education 13
Vehicle Safety Design 10
Vehicle Inspection 8
Miscellaneous 14
"Responsibility rests with the driver" 15

 

which they believed to be effective countermeasures; then they were
asked to choose the one single item judged to be most effective.
Answers were found to be similar to those noted on the previous
question (Table 2). However, the authors pointed out that with
respect to driver education, "[it] ranked higher than when respon-
dents were not reminded of [other] traffic programs available."
They went on to point out that "This suggests that driver education
is not readily recalled by members of the public, but when they
think of it, they consider it highly effective in cutting accidents.
In fact, almost half of the respondents picked driver education

among their top three choices of effective accident reducers."8

 

8Ibid., p. 20.

20

Responsibility for Traffic Safety

The MSU—MOR Study also sought to determine who people felt
were responsible for traffic safety. In this instance, respondents
were provided again with a list of possible choices and were asked
to pick a top choice and to indicate their top two choices. The

results are indicated in Table 3.

TABLE 3.--Responsibi1ity for Traffic Safety.

 

 

Percent Percent
Selecting Selecting as
as Top One of Top
Choice Two Choices
U.S. Government 3 6
Departments of Michigan Government 6 19
Michigan State Legislature 7 18
County Government 1 6
City or Township Government 7 28
Industrial Firms Concerned with 5 21
Automobiles
High Schools, Colleges and Universities 4 21
Car Drivers Themselves 66 79
Miscellaneous 1 2

100% 100%

 

21

This table indicates that two-thirds of the respondents
selected "Car drivers themselves" as the primary or top choice; and
79% (nearly four out of five) picked this item as the primary or
secondary source.9

What North Carolina Drivers Suggest for
Improvinngighway Safety in Their State

A state-wide survey of driver license applicants in North
Carolina was conducted in January of 1973. The main purpose of the
survey was to determine what drivers felt would improve highway
safety in their state.10

In addition to other information requested (age, sex,
education and accident experience), each applicant was asked to
answer the following open-ended question: "Have you any suggestions
for what North Carolina could do to cut down on the death and injury
caused by highway accidents? If so, please write below."

Although persons were not required to answer the question
about one-fourth did respond. Specifically, 21,680 questionnaires
were collected and of these, 5,550 (25.6%) had a suggestion(s) to
make regarding the problem.

The two areas of concern noted most frequently were
"alcohol" and "enforcement." Other responses are as noted in

Table 4.

 

9

10Patricia F. Waller, What North Carolina Drivers Suggest
for Improving Highway Safety in Their State (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, January 1974), p. 1.

Ibid., p. 37.

 

22

TABLE 4.--North Carolina Survey.

 

Areas of Concern and Proportion

 

of Respondents Mentioning Them Percent
Alcohol 48.3
Enforcement 30.6
Driver 11.0
Roads 9.7
Administrative/Legal 5.4
Vehicle 5.3
Signs, Signals, Pavement Markings 4.5
Education 4.1
Courts 3.9

 

The study report also provided several tables comparing
the variables of age, sex, education and accident experience with
responses to the open-ended question.

This study is probably most useful from the perspective of
public support or "grass roots" support for particular counter-
measures in North Carolina. The overall purpose of the study was
not clearly stated and comparisons with certain elements of the MSU-

MOR Study were not especially useful to the topic in question.

Questionnaire Method Testing Project (QMT)
The QMT Project, initiated in June of 1969 by the Highway

Traffic Safety Center at Michigan State University, was a project

23

designed to assess the highway safety programs of selected cities in
Michigan. As stated in the introduction to the study, "The intent

. was to determine whether a data collection instrument can be
relied upon to provide sufficient and valid information as to the
status and nature of local highway safety activities as they relate

"11 The project took two

to the National Highway Safety Standards.
years to complete (JUne 1969 to June 1971), and involved the
development of 12 questionnaires containing some 590 questions. The
study sample consisted of 65 Michigan cities with from 10,000 to
100,000 populations. Forty of the cities received their question-
naire packets by mail; the remaining 25 were personally hand-
delivered. Mayors and city managers were selected as the initial
point of contact for completion and distribution for the various
questionnaires. Overall, a total of 715 individual questionnaires
were routed to the 65 cities in the study. Final tabulations indi-
cated that 434 questionnaires were completed and returned for a 61%
response rate.12

This study was of particular interest because it was con-
cerned with determining how local (city) officials dealt with the

issue of traffic safety and specifically, how existing safety pro-

grams were organized and administered. It represented a unique and

 

nJames Carnahan, QMT Project, Technical Report (East
Lansing: Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center,
June, 1971), p. 1.

12James Carnahan, QMT Project, Data Report (East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center,
April, 1972), p. 1.

24

important effort to assess the problems and needs of the major

municipalities in Michigan.

Summar

In addition to the references described above, a search of
the available literature on the topic of local meetings and confer-
ences on highway safety and related subjects was conducted utilizing
the library resources of both the University of Michigan and Michigan
State University. Specifically, a computer-directed search using key
words associated with the topic in question was conducted through the
Continuing Education Library at Michigan State University. This pro-
gram (MSU Husler 2) produced no additional useful references
although some 70 sources were considered. Subsequently, a manual
search of potentially helpful references available at the Highway
Safety Research Institute Library at the University of Michigan was
conducted. This effort produced several additional documents that
were not in the Michigan State Library. However, the 14 items
checked dealt principally with state level public opinion polls and
proved to be of limited value to the thesis topic. It should be
noted that there were a number of published sources on state public
opinion surveys. Most dealt with topics such as public attitudes
on the 55 mph speed limit, alcohol abuse, motorcycle helmets and
safety belts.

When meetings or public forums such as the one in Michigan
were conducted, little or no evaluation was made to determine the

overall effectiveness or usefulness of such efforts.

CHAPTER III

STUDY DESIGN

The first part of this chapter is intended to provide a
summary description of the federally-sponsored project which pro-
vided for the series of local traffic safety conferences. This dis-
sertation, representing the focus of these remaining sections of
this chapter, deals with the evaluation methodology and research

questions which were proposed.

Background Description of the Project

 

During the months of May and June, 1977, four regional-local
traffic safety conferences were held at various locations throughout
Michigan. A brief overview of the goals and activities associated
with the conduct of these meetings is provided here for the reader

as background to the subject study.

Preliminary Planning

 

Prior to the actual structuring of the conferences and the
evaluation procedures, an ad hoc planning-advisory committee was
established. The purpose of this planning group was to assist the
Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) in determining the overall
purpose and direction of the meetings, persons to be invited, site

locations, program content and general administrative details. The

25

26

committee itself was formulated in early December, 1976, under the
direction of the OHSP and included state officials, representatives
of local government and private sector organizations.

Members were selected by the OHSP based on their organiza-
tions' responsibilities or interest in traffic safety programs and
their representativeness of local level interest groups. No attempt
was made to include all groups or organizations at the local level
who were concerned to varying degrees with traffic-related activities.
State agency staff made up the majority of the membership on the
committee.

After the initial meeting of the committee in December, two
additional planning sessions were held in January and a final meeting
was held in March. At the December meeting committee members were
asked to submit program topics to the OHSP for consideration at sub-
sequent sessions. From those items a proposed agenda was eventually
formulated.

Early in the initial planning stages it was determined that
due to the many administrative details that would be involved, a
full-time project coordinator should be hired. Furthermore, since
existing agency staff were not available for this assignment, the
planning group suggested that a consultant be retained on a sub-
contractural basis as a component of the overall project to be
administered jointly by the OHSP and Oakland County (Traffic Improve-
ment Association). At this point the planning group was asked to

submit names of possible candidates for this key position.

27

On March 4, 1977, the OHSP entered into a project agreement
with Oakland County and the Traffic Improvement Association (TIA) to
conduct the series of regional meetings. The project was funded
directly with Oakland County; the Traffic Improvement Association
provided staff services and overall project administration. Shortly
thereafter, the planning committee reviewed several of the names
that had been suggested as potential project coordinators, and Mr.
Frank Churley was subsequently selected to fill this position.

The input and advice of this committee proved to be
invaluable to the eventual successful development and conduct of
the regional seminars. Several members of the committee also later

served as resource staff for all or some of the meetings.

Project Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of the project, as stated in the project

application was:

To obtain from community leaders, an insight into
their perception of the traffic safety problems in
their areas and to provide to these community
leaders information related to the various resources
available to assist them in solving local traffic
safety problems.

In addition, two specific objectives were also proposed as

follows:

1. To conduct a series of four local traffic
safety conferences in varying geographical
locations throughout the state which will;

 

 

28

a. Inform community leaders of the annual scope
and cost of Michigan's traffic accident
experience and identif the specific problems
in the region where these leaders resided.

b. Aid state authorities in obtaining greater
insight into the real traffic problems and_
possible solutions at the local level.

 

2. To determine by pre- and post-attendee questionnaire
if the local traffic safety conference is an
effective medium in which to address the local-
state coordination of traffic safety programs.13

Site Selection

 

Several variables were considered in determining the areas
and sites for the conferences. First, each county in Michigan was
analyzed in terms of its trend of injury accidents, registered
vehicles and road mileage (IA/RV/RM). In this instance, the
question attempted to be answered was: Is the area or region
experiencing a disproportionately large share of traffic crashes?
For the three variables noted above (IA/RV/RM), county data was
reviewed by OHSP staff for the five year period (1970-1975), and
trend-line calculations were produced reflecting the rate of change
in the data from year to year. (The actual slope of the line, or
"beta," indicated the rate of change for the data. The term "alpha"
was used to designate the point at which the line started.) In
other words, "beta" was the descriptive measure utilized to demon-
strate the change and was represented by the term 95y. With one

exception, all of the counties of southern lower Michigan eventually

 

13App1ication for Highway Safety Grant," Local Traffic
Safety Conferences," MPA 77—002A (available through the Michigan
Office of Highway Safety Planning, Lansing, Michigan), p. 1+.

29

selected for inclusion in the projects met this criterion. None of
the counties in the Grand Traverse region were noted as having an
unusually poor experience, but were selected for other reasons.

Secondly, each county or region was reviewed within the con-
text of previous federal programs, i.e., were there any major
federally-funded traffic safety programs implemented within the
area in recent years? The list of possible candidate counties was
compared against the list of previous and current federal projects
throughout the state. It had been determined that any area or
county which had previously received substantial federal funds for
one or more local highway safety programs should not be given
priority consideration. The primary intent was to identify problem
areas or counties which had received little or no federal funding
assistance.

A third major question was: Does the area "fit" within an
appropriate geographical distribution? Early in the planning stages
it had been determined that the conferences should be held in
various parts of the state and reflect as equitable distribution as
possible. Travel times to the conference sites were also considered,
as was the availability of suitable, reasonably convenient facilities.

Finally, each potential conference site was analyzed in terms
of the number and variety of government agencies which could be
represented. Thus, in the four locations eventually selected, a
variety of approaches were attempted--in one instance, a single
county (Muskegon); in two other cases, a tri-county area (Cass, Van-

Buren and Berrien; and Bay, Midland and Saginaw) and a five county

30

area in the northern part of the state (Grand Traverse, Antrim,

Leelanau, Benzie and Kalkaska).

Program Development

The task of formulating the program and agenda for the con-
ferences was the joint responsibility of the OHSP staff, the con-
sultant and the planning committee. Each member of the committee
was requested to submit program topics which would be appropriate
to the perceived needs and interests of local officials.

Each topic, including suggestions for possible resource
staff and speakers, was considered in terms of the overall goals
and objectives for the conferences. From these general suggestions,

the following topics were subsequently selected:

The Highway Safety Problem
Statewide
Regional (local)

- Where Accidents are Occurring
(Michigan Accident Location Index)

- Legal Responsibilities of Local Officials

- Traffic Engineering Services for Your Community

- Educational and Rehabilitation Programs covering
driver improvement, alcohol rehabilitation,
high school driver education and bus driver
training programs.

- Police Manpower and Selective Enforcement

- Putting CB Radios to Work for Traffic Safety

- Legislative Concerns and Priorities

- Organizing for Community Action

- Technical and Funding Assistance

31

From these topics an agenda (see Appendix A) was formulated
and speakers were selected. After each major presentation, a dis-
cussion period was provided. Generally, the subject matter was the
same for each of the conferences, although several modifications
were made in the agenda between the first two meetings and the final

sessions in an attempt to encourage more audience participation.

Participant Selection
As program details were being completed, attention was
focused on developing a list of local officials and leaders who
were to be invited to each of the conferences. In each area, com-
munity leaders and officials were identified to receive letters of
invitation. Generally, the following types of persons were
invited to attend.
1. County Officials
a. Commissioners
b. Road Commission members
c. Sheriffs
2. City Officials
Mayors
City Managers/Village Presidents
Councilmen/Commissioners

Police Chiefs
City Engineers

(DQOU'CD
co...

3. Township Officials
4. District Judges
5. State and Federal Officials (local)

32

6. Businessmen

Chamber of Commerce Officials
Local Industrial Leaders

Owners of Local Retail Businesses
News Media Personnel

Utilities Managers.

(DQOU'Q!

7. Public School Officials

8. Private Citizens

The letters of invitation, personally signed jointly by the
Secretary of State (as Chairman of the State Safety Commission) and
the Director of the Office of Highway Safety Planning (see Appendix
B), were sent to key individuals in each of the categories noted
above. Generally, names were provided by the local Chamber of
Commerce, from various membership directories, government sources
and from other lists obtained during advance trips to the areas for
this purpose. These field visits not only produced names of business-
men, but identified a number of concerned citizens known locally to
be active in traffic safety matters. In addition, local representa-
tives of statewide safety groups such as Students for Michigan
Attaining Safer Highways (SMASH) and Michigan Women for Highway
Safety (MWFHS) were included.

In all, some 652 invitations were extended, with approxi-
mately 300 acceptances and 217 persons actually in attendance.
Analysis of those attending the four conferences on the basis of

occupational groups is presented in Table 5.

33

 

m—N om mm mm _m m4<hoh

 

e F _ _ F mee~_eeu dee>eed
mp _ m m o memo zupmm:\mpc:ou
mpmwu_mmo
Ne GP m op m Aawgmczohv zuczooixpwu
em m 0N N op mmmcmmzm
Fm NH m_ mF op acmemococcm
mm oN m e N meeeeeee\meeedme_aeu
N_ N m o N cowmmmmocm cowumuzuu
mpmuoh Auwo mmcm>mcp zmcwmmm commxmzz conga: copcmm azocw cho_wma=uuo

 

mcwvcmuu< censaz

 

.mmmccmpu< mocmcwecoo mo cowmmmmocd co cowpmaauuoii.m m4m<H

34

Field Visitations

An early activity of the project coordinator was to visit
the conference areas to discuss local traffic safety issues with
local officials and community leaders. The purpose of these visits
were four-fold:

1. To obtain a feeling for localized issues to aid
in programming.

2. To obtain names of businessmen and other leading
citizens for invitation lists.

3. To identify community leaders who would be suitable
Chairpersons.

4. To stimulate interest in and enthusiasm for the
conferences.

The top staff executives of the chambers of commerce in the
four areas were contacted by the project coordinator as starting
points in every instance, and they proved to be extremely helpful.
All had facts and opinions to express about local traffic safety
problems; all were cooperative in furnishing names of their members
for invitation purposes; all were helpful in suggesting names for
chairmen, and in some instances, made the initial approach to the
prospective chairmen.

Finally, the simple process of informing the local officials
and community leaders about the forums and their intended purposes
stimulated interest and undoubtedly led to larger attendance than

might otherwise have happened.

35

Statistical Data Books

 

For each of the areas where the conferences were held, the
OHSP staff prepared a statistical data report which provided a basic
profile of the local crash situation. These reports or "data books"
were utilized predominately during the initial presentations dealing
with the nature and extent of the highway safety problem. Each
attendee received a copy of the report.

The reports themselves included trend information on popula-
tion characteristics, motor vehicle registrations, number of fatal,
personal injury and property damage crashes, ages of persons killed
and the extent of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. More
detailed statistics covering additional crash factors were also
provided from reproductions of computer printout forms supplied by

the Michigan State Police, Safety and Traffic Division.

Evaluation of the Project
This section describes the process by which the project was
evaluated, including study design and methodology, preparation of
research questions to be answered and development of questionnaire

items.

StudyDesigg

 

The effort to identify changes in the level of knowledge or
opinions concerning traffic safety problems involved the development
of a pre- and post-conference questionnaire. These questionnaires

included items relevant to the topics which were addressed during

36

the subsequent conferences and will be described in more detail in
the last section of this chapter.

Several weeks prior to the time when a local conference was
to be held, persons invited to the conference were mailed a pre-
conference questionnaire (Pre-Q; see Appendix C) with a cover letter
(see Appendix D) asking that the items be answered and the question-
naire form be returned to the OHSP prior to their participation in
the meeting. A similar questionnaire (see Appendix E) was also
distributed to selected state-level officials, specifically members
of the OHSP staff, the State Safety Commission and the Operating
Committee of the Conmission for completion prior to the meetings.

Shortly after all the local conferences were concluded, a
post-conference questionnaire (Post-Q; see Appendix F) was mailed
to all local officials and others from the local area who had
participated in one of the meetings. Again, a brief cover letter
(see Appendix G) was attached with instructions for completing the
questionnaire. In this case, as with the pre-conference question-
naire, a stamped, self-addressed return envelope was provided for
use by each respondent.

As was noted in Chapter I, state officials were not given
the post-conference questionnaire on the assumption that their
particular opinions and knowledge would be largely unchanged as a
result of the local conferences. In some instances, several of the
state officials participated to only a minor extent in the meetings
or not at all. For the purpose of this study, therefore, it was

determined that any significant differences between these two groups

37

could be readily observed by comparing the results on the pre-
conference questionnaires alone. It should again be emphasized

that since the primary purpose of this study was to determine whether
the beliefs, opinions and knoweldge of local leaders changed after
their participation in one of the local conferences, major emphasis
was placed on comparisons of their pre- and post-conference question-

naires.

Research Questions

 

In addition to the general statistical techniques and
analyses which were applied to the questionnaire instruments, the
following research questions were proposed as a part of the overall
study design:

1. What are the perceptions (knowledge and opinions)
of local community leaders concerning the nature
of the traffic crash problem?

2. Do the perceptions of local community leaders
generally agree with those of state officials
and/or local leaders in other areas of the state?

3. 00 different groups of community officials and
leaders have different perceptions of local
problems? (For example, do police officials
hold different views than traffic engineers and
vice versa?)

4. Did exposure to a local one-day traffic safety
conference produce any measurable or noticeable
changes in the opinions or knowledge of the
participant?

Questionnaire Development

 

Since the major purpose of this evaluation effort was to

identify changes in opinions or knowledge of the participants in the

38

traffic safety conferences, a series of questions was prepared on
various aspects of traffic safety. Both the pre- and post-
conference questionnaires included the same items; however, two new
items were added to the post-conference form which related to the
overall value of the conference to the respondent.

The questions on both forms fell generally into the follow-

ing categories:

- The scope and cost of traffic accidents
(statewide and locally)

- Traffic problems and possible solutions
at the local level

- Value of the conference to local officials

- Suggestions for improvement of subsequent
conferences

- Items of interest not considered at the
conference

- Items included in the conference which were
not applicable to the local area

- General attitude or awareness items

From these categories a number of preliminary questions
were drafted. Using this initial series of items, further refine-
ments were made in language and design; however, no pilot testing
was conducted.

In all, three questionnaire forms were prepared; for the
pre-conference items, two separate forms were printed, one for each
two locations. These two forms were identical, except for the item

which indicated the location of the conference. The respondent was

39

asked to check the box which corresponded to the location of the
meeting he had been invited to attend. (One form indicated Benton
Harbor or Muskegon and the other Traverse City or Saginaw.) One
form could no doubt have been used with a box to be checked for one
of the four locations, but site locations were still somewhat
indefinite for the last two meetings when it was necessary to mail
out the pre-conference questionnaires on the first two meetings.
For the post-conference questionnaire, only one form was utilized;
the respondent could indicate on it which of the four meetings he
had attended. It was also printed on a light green stock to dis-
tinguish it from the white pre-conference form. The only other
additional information called for in the heading was the respondent's
occupation or profession; the respondent's name was optional. No
other information was deemed necessary.

The eighteen questionnaire items represented a variety of
types of construction; two required a rank ordering; nine were yes/
no/don't know style; five were multiple-choice type; and two were
open-ended. In some cases, additional information was requested on
the yes/no/don't know items to determine whether or not the
respondent had indicated they knew where the community's high
accident locations were (by a "yes" answer), they were asked to
list some of these areas or locations in part (b) of that item.

Data from those types of questions requiring a yes/no/
don't know response were summarized on the basis of occupational

groups and by location of the conference; and separate frequency

40

tables were developed on this basis which indicated the number and
percentage of respondents selecting each type of response.

Those items which called for a multiple-choice answer (one
or more) were summarized in a similar manner; again, frequency
tables were developed on the two variables--occupation and location.

In the case of the two questions which asked the respondent
to rank-order a number of items, the reporting method was somewhat
different. For analytical purposes, the total number of choices for
each indicated area were assigned an overall weighted rank value (RV)
according to the following procedure: (1) a "first" choice was given
a weight of "8"; a "second" choice a weight of "7", etc.; an item
ranked last or 8th received a weight of only "1"; (2) the N under
each rank was then multiplied by this weighted number. For example,
in Chapter IV, Table 7, the N of 21 noted under Rank l--"Lack of
traffic law enforcement" was multiplied by 8 (N = 168), etc. These
weighted "scores" were then totaled across and divided by the total
N (in this case, 738 - 146 = 5.05) to obtain the overall rank value
(RV). In each table, for questions one and three, the total N for
each ranked "problem" or "need“ area is indicated as well as the
overall N for that item and its RV on both a Pre-Q and Post-Q basis.

Comments provided by respondents on open-ended questions
were presented on the basis of occupation and location.

In Chapter IV, which follows, the results of the analysis of

the questionnaires and other pertinent data will be presented.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter provides, in tabular and narrative form, a
summary of the various responses to the questions asked of the
participants in the local traffic safety conferences. The responses
were analyzed from both the pre-conference and post-conference
questionnaires (expressed as Pre-Q and Post-Q). TWo variables were
considered, location and occupation or profession of the respondent.

As can be observed from Table 6, 652 pre—conference question-
naires (Pre-Q) were mailed to those persons invited to one of the
four conferences and 232 or 35.6% were completed and returned. The
highest percentage of returns were from the Saginaw and Traverse
City areas (both at 38.7%). The lowest rate of return was Muskegon
at 38.0%.

A somewhat higher rate of return was achieved for the post-
conference questionnaires (Post-Q)--46.l% overall. Specifically, 95
questionnaires were returned from a mailing of 206. This latter
figure also represented the total number of local participants in
the forums. In this case, the highest rate of return was from the
Muskegon area (52.8%) and the lowest was from Traverse City (42.4%).

Although the figures are not indicated in Table 6, nine
questionnaires (pre-conference only) were returned by 20 state

officials resulting in a 45% rate of return for this sub-group.

41

42

 

_.m¢

N.N¢

o.m¢

m.Nm

o.m¢

mm

my

Nm

mp

mN

com

me

cm

mm

—m

m.mm

m.mm

o.mN

n.3m

NmN

mm

em

mm

mm

Nmo

mm—

NPN

Pmp

mop

m4<hOH

Ammwucsou zucumm4

ecu mxmmxpmg .ewcpc<

.m_~=mm .mmcm>mcp ucmcwv
>PHo ummm><ap

Ammwpczou zucwmmm
use nca_u_z .xumv
3<zHa<m

Axucsoo commxmzzv
zoomgmzz

Amw_u:=oo cmcam cm>
new .mmmu .cmwccmmv
momm<z zopzmm

 

umccauom

a

umccaumm

2

8:2,.

z

emceaumm

&

umccaumm

z

copra:

z

 

 

cumucmcmmcooipmoa

cumucmcmecounmca

cowumoog

 

.vmccauwm uca empwmz conesz

"mmL vac—50.5525 muchw$coolumoa vcm mo:m&mw:001m&n_11.m w4m<h

43

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems

 

In Tables 7 through 14 the responses to question one are pre-
sented. This was a rank-order type item in which the respondent was
asked, "Generally, what do you think are your community's major
traffic accident problems?" Six different traffic accident "prob-
lems" were listed on the questionnaire. In addition, spaces were
provided whereby respondents could also list one or two additional
"problems" of their own choice. The purpose of this item was to
determine how well the respondent understood the nature of the
traffic crash problem generally, and also how well they perceived
the relative importance of each of several elements of the problem.

From Table 7 it can be observed that overall, on both the
Pre-Q and Post-Q, the problem of "drinking drivers" was judged by
local officials and community leaders to be the most serious local
problem. This issue received the highest rank values, 6.47 and 6.85,
respectively, on the Pre-Q and Post-Q. "Untrained, discourteous
drivers" was ranked second at 6.32 (Pre-Q) and 6.19 (Post-Q). On
the Pre-Q, the "Lack of traffic law enforcement" received the lowest
rank value--5.05; on the Post-Q, the "Lack of good data on problem"
was in last position with an RV = 4.76.

Table 8 presents the results of this question by the
"Engineering/Planning" professions. This group, on the Pre-Q, ranked
the problem of the "Lack of funds for programs" as the most critical
local issue (RV = 6.09). On the Post-Q, they ranked "Drinking

drivers" as the most important local problem (RV = 7.17). "Poor

44

.o:_o> xcom u >m mocwoccowpmoso mococomcouiamoo u cuvmoo mocwoccowummzo oucocmmcouioca u close u>mx

 

mm.o\on

om.¢\mm

¢N.m\mo

m_.w\~m

mm.m\Nn

om.¢\mm

N¢.e\Nmp

mN.m\m¢P

om.m\mop

Nm.m\mmp

mm.m\ocp

mo.m\m¢—

o

H

H

o

N

LO

m m

ma ma

N NH

oH 0N

0H MN

mp ON

m

ea

«a

op

to

¢H

NN

NN

ON

mN

m

NN

OH

o—

00

ON

mm

om

mN

Nm

up

ma

mH

NF

LO

do

mN

Nm

mm

NP

on

ma

H
H

me

«P

Nm

me

mm

mco>wco
aeexeeeo

meopooca co
ouoo coco
co New;
meocmoco
cow mound
mo New;
mco>wcc

msoopcsoumwo
.oo:_oep==
mcwcoocwmcu
owemoc»

good
“cosmocoecm
zoo ovwmoch
co goo;

 

>m\z

>¢\z

 

c-3moe

aimed

.moaocw Pocowpooaooo oocwosoo

b-4s0d

O-add

Z

O-lSOd

O-aJd

Z

0-150d

O-add

0-4s0d

O-lSOd

O-BJd

0-150d

0-150d

O-add

 

co

N

Nmeopooco
“coopouo owwcocu comma m.xuvczesoo coo» ago Nope» no» on was: .appococou

ooc< Empooco

”H onhmmzo

"msmpnoca acmcwuu< uwcwmch coho: mo mcwxcmaii.m m4m<h

45

o3~o> xcom u >m mocwoccowumozo oucocoecooiamoo u crumoo mocwoccowpmozo mucocomcooioco u aimed ">mx

 

 

 

 

 

NF.N\N~ Nm.m\¢N o o o o o m o e p N N o m m o o mcm>wco
mcwxcwco
mEmFAoco co
mN.¢\m NN.m\m_ o o o o e m P e P o o p N a _ N ouoo ooow
co New;
meocmocm
oo.o\Fp mo.o\NN o o o o o N F F N m m m N m P m com mesa;
co New;
mco>mco
oo.o\op em.m\mp o o o o F P N m P e o N e e N e mzooucsoumpo
.omcwocgcz
mcwcoocwmcm
No.¢\m mm.m\PN o o o o N m m m N m P N o m P m uwceoch
Loom
acoEoucoccm
mw.e\m m—.m\mp o o o o N e N m N N N N o m — N 3o; uwmeoch
we xuog

dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ

we 3... we we we we we we
>a\z >m\z Lw AU mu no no Au mu nu mu Au Lw AU mu Au mu AU wmg< Empaogm

z z z z z z z z
CIHmOQ UlGLn— m N 0 m XCGK V m N .H
NmEopooco

pcoowuoo ueweocp cones m.auwcassoo each one Newcp no» oo was: .appococou
.mcowmmowoco mcwccopdimcwcoo:_mcm an meoPoocd ucoowuo< owewoeh some: co mcwxcmmii.m u4m<p

up onhmmao

46

traffic engineering" as a local problem was ranked fourth and fifth,
respectively, on the Pre-Q (RV = 5.57) and Post-Q (RV = 4.67).

The problem of "Drinking drivers“ was ranked highest on both
the Pre-Q (RV = 6.88) and Post-Q (RV = 6.75) by the "Education" group
(Table 9). "Untrained, discourteous drivers" as a local problem was
ranked second and third, respectively, with rank values of 6.44 and
5.33. "Lack of good data on problems" was ranked as the lowest
problem on both questionnaires (Pre-Q RV = 4.22; Post-Q RV = 3.50).

Table 10 indicates that the "Enforcement" group felt that
the problem of "Untrained, discourteous drivers" was, in their view,
the most important local issue. This was true on both the Pre-Q
(RV = 6.10) and Post-Q (RV = 6.71). "Enforcement" officials also
ranked the problem of "Lack of traffic law enforcement" last on the
Pre-Q (RV = 4.89) and fourth in criticality on the Post-Q (RV = 5.55).

The "Business" group ranked the problem of "Drinking drivers"
as the most serious local problem on both questionnaires (see Table
11). This issue received a rank value of 6.71 on the Pre-Q and 7.62
on the Post-Q. The "Lack of traffic law enforcement" was ranked
lowest on both questionnaires (4.88 on the Pre-Q and 4.58 on the
Post-Q).

Table 12 shows that "City-county officials" on the pre-Q
believed that "Untrained, discourteous drivers" was the most
important local problem (RV = 6.19). However, on the Post-Q, "Poor
traffic engineering" was judged to be the most serious local problem
(RV = 6.25). "Lack of good data on problems'I was ranked last by
this group on both the Pre-Q (RV = 4.91) and the Post-Q (RV = 4.60).

47

osFo> scam u >m mmcchcoFumoso oucocowcounpmoo u cipmod moLFocconmoao oucmcoecoUioco u are»; ">mx

 

mn.m\m mm.m\m

om.m\¢ NN.¢\m
NF.m\m mN.m\w
mm.m\o ¢¢.m\m
om.m\m ow.m\oF

oo.¢\m

 

>m\z >m\z

 

oipmoa aimed

o

O

F

o

O

o

O

F

 

o o

O
F

o

P

0-450d

F

O-add

P
N
O

0-150d
O-BJd
0-450d

O-add

 

NmEoFooco

pcooFouo oFFchu cones m.»ch:EEoo Lao» ocm chza zoz oo was: .FFFococow

mco>Fca
mchcho
mEoFoocd co
ouoo ooom
co xooo
msocmoco
soc mocad
4o New;
mco>Fco
mzooucaoomFa
.oocFocuc:
szcoocchu
uFFFocF
good

acmeoucomcm
zed cheeeF
mo New;

oog< eoFooca

uF zoFmeao
.comeoFocd coFuousom Fa msanoca pcooFuu< uFFchF coho: Fo mchcmmii.m u4m<h

48

ano> xcom u >m FocFoccoFumozc oucococcooiumoc u oipmod mocFoccoFFmoao monococcouiocc u crocd ">mx

 

 

 

 

em.mNNN ow.m\Nm o o o o F F o N o N m m N m N m mco>Fcc
mchcho
meoFaocN :o
mm.¢NmF mm.m\oe o o o m N m m N F m m FF N m F m ouoo uoow
co coo;
mEocmocd
mm.m\¢N eN.mNN¢ o o o F o m m m m N N m m FF m N cow mocac
co coo;
mcm>Fco
FN.o\FN oF.o\mm o o o F o e N m N m e m m m m mF maooucsoomFo
.oocFocpca
mchoocchm
NF.m\mN mm.m\mm o F o F m N m m e v m m N e e FF oFFNocF
coon
pcmsoucomcm
mm.m\oN mm.¢\Nm o F o F e FF m m N N e m m m e m 3o; oFFcocF
co goo;
dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd
>~_\z >52 30 .n.uO .00 OD hub 30 muO muO ooc<EoFoocd
z z z z z z z z
m N m m e m N F
NmeoFooco

acooFouo uFFcocF cones m.»uF:=sEoo coo» oco chzu so» on Fog: .»FFoco:mw

”F coFumoac
.mFaFUFcco eepEddcocem ca meanocd eeooFod< occcecF cone: co oeeceam--.oF u4m<c

49

anm> xcom u >m mmcFocconmoao mocmcomcoouumom u crumom mmcFoccoFumoao mucocmccourocd u oioco ">Nx

 

 

 

 

 

Nm.N\mF FN.o\mm o o o o o N o m o o F e m FF m mF mco>Fco
mchcho
msoFooca :o
NN.mNFF ee.m\om o o F o F e F m m o N oF N oF F 0 name ooow
co goo;
msocmoca
m¢.m\¢F mm.m\N¢ o F o o N o F N m m m m m m o 0 com moss;
co coo;
mco>Fco
mm.0NmF mm.o\mm o o o o o N F N N N m o m eF m FF mzoogcaoumFo
.oocFocpcz
mchoocchm
mm.mNmF oo.mN¢¢ o o o F o e e e N m m m m e N «F chcocF
coon
ucosoucoccm
mm.¢NNF mm.¢NF¢ o o o N m FF N N F m o F o o m N 3o; oFFFocF
co com;

d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J

S a S a S a S a S a S a S a S a

1.. F 1.. F 1. . 1.. . 1.. . 1. . 1. . 1.. .
>m\z >mNz moc< eoFooca

z z z z z z z 2
F38; otca o N o m e m N F
Food
NmsoFooco

acooFuoo oFcchF coves m.»nFc:EEoo czo» oco chnu so» on Fog: .»FFoco:oo “F zoFmeao
.mcomemcoca «mocszm »o mEoFoocN FcooFuo< uFFFocF cone: co mchcmmir.FF NFm<F

50

.maFo> xcom u >m mocchcoFumozo ou:ococ:ou-umoa u crumoo mocFoccoFumozo oucococcouuoco u crocd ">mx

mm.m\N

oo.¢\m

mm.m\N

om.m\o

mN.m\¢

NF.o\m

oo.o\¢N

Fm.¢\NN

No.o\mN

mF.o\NN

mF.m\mN

N¢.m\¢N

o

O

F

O

o

o

F

N

O

m

6'

o

O

o

\O

O

N

N

N

N

o

m

N

m

N

m

l'\

mco>Fco
ochchg

msmFoocm
opoo ooou
co New;
msocmocd
coc mocam
co coo;
mco>Fco

maoouczoomFo
.oocFocpca
mchoocchu
chcocF

coon

ucosmucoccm
3o; uFFFocF
co cued

 

>m\z

>m\z

 

O-lSOd

O-add

O'lSOd

O-BJd

O-lSOd

O-aJd

0-450d

z
m

O-BJd

o-isOd

z
e

O-add

0-150d

mz

O-aJd

0-450d

NZ

O-BJd

0-450d

HZ

O-add

moc< EmFooco

no
[N
\o

c-3moa o-oca

ceem

NmEoFooco

FcooFuuo uchocp cones m.»uF::sEoo coo» oco chga so» on Fog: .»FFococoo "F zoFmeao
.mFoFchco »uc=ou-»uFo »o meoFooca pcooFoo< chcocF conoz co mchcomii.NF uFm<F

51

"Drinking drivers" was indicated as the most serious local
problem by the "Courts/Health" professions (see Table 13). This
issue received a rank value (RV) of 7.78 on the Pre-Q and 7.00 on
the Post-Q.

The "Private Citizen" group also placed the problem of
"Drinking drivers" on the top of the "problem“ list on both question-
naires (see Table 14). It received a rank value of 6.80 on the
Pre-Q and 6.67 on the Post-Q. "Lack of traffic law enforcement" was
the problem area ranked last on the Pre-Q (RV = 4.20) and the problem
of "Lack of funds for programs" was ranked last on the Post-Q

(RV = 3.67).

Awareness of High Accident Locations

The responses to Question two, "Are you generally aware of
the high accident locations in your community?" are indicated in
Tables 15 and 16.

Table 15 shows that 80% (or 185 out of 232 respondents)
answered yes to this question on the Pre-Q. This increased to 81%
(or 77 out of 95 respondents) on the Post-Q. Only 2% on the Pre-Q
(or 4 out of 232) said they didn't know (or did not respond), a
figure which increased to 3% (or 3 out of 95) on the Post-Q.

Table 15 also indicates that at the Benton Harbor meeting,
86% (N = 50) stated on the Pre-Q that they were aware of the high
accident locations. This was the highest percentage of any location.
However, on the Post-Q only 72% (N = 18) responded with a yes answer

to this item.

52

.ano> scam u >a mocFocconmozo oucococcouiumod u oiumoa mocFoccoFumozo mozococcouuoco u croca ">mx

 

 

 

 

oo.N\¢ mN.N\m o o o o o o F o o o o o o N m N mcm>Fco
meecche
meoFaoco co
oo.m\¢ oo.m\m o o o o o F F N F N o N F F F o mama ooom
co coo;
mEocmocd
oo.o\¢ oo.m\m o o o o o F o N F o N N F F o o coc moan;
co cooF
mco>Fco
mN.mNe mm.m\m o o o o F o o F F o F o F m o N maooucsoumFo
.oocFocF:=
mchomcchu
mN.m\¢ oo.m\w o o o o o m N o o N F F F F o F oFFcocF
coon
ucosoococcm
om.m\¢ oo.m\o o o o o m o o N F N o N o o o o zoo uFFcocF
Fo coo;
dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd
mm mu. mm mm mm Nu. m...” NF
2:: 2:2 we we mm mm M6 M6 M0 no 3:530;
z z z z z z z z
1 i m N o m o m N
at: .oeca Mam
NmsoFooco
pcooFouo oFcFocu cones m.»FF==sEoo czo» oco chcp :o» oo Fog: .»FFococow "F zoFmeao

.mcomeococm choo: oco mpczoo »n meanoca FcooFuu< chcocF coho: co mchcomii.mF uFm<F

53

.szo> xcmm u >m FocFoccoFumoao monocmwcoUipmoo u oipmoo mmcFoccoFumozo mucocwccouioco u crocc ">mx

 

Nm.m\m

oo.m\m

N0.M\m

Nm.m\m

oo.m\m

oo.m\m

om.o\oF

mm.m\N

om.m\o

mN.m\m

eF.m\N

0N.¢\m

o

O

o

o

O

o

o

F

o

o

F

N

o

O

o

F

O

N

O

N

O

c

o

m

mcm>Fcn
mchcho

meoFoocN co
upon coow
co comb
mEocmocd
coc mocac
co xqu
mcm>Fco

maoouczoumFo
.oocFocucs
mchoocchm
oFchcF

cooc

acosoucoccm
3o; uFFFocF
co come

 

>m\z

ciamom

>m\z

croca

0-150d

O-add

0-450d

O-add

0-150d

O-aJd

0'150d

m

O-BJd

 

xcom

o-isOd

v

O-aJd

0-150d

O-add

O-1SOd

O-aJd

o-isOd

O-BJd

omc< EmFooco

 

Nmeanoco
pcooFooo oFFFocp cowoe m.»FFc:EEoo cao» oco chgu so» oo Fonz .»FFococow
.mcoNFFFu opo>Fco »o msoFoocN FcooFuu< uFFFocF cone: co mchcmmii.eF mam<F

uF zoFquzc

54

ocFocooFmeoo oucococcouiumoo u onumoo

mocFoccoFumooo mucmcoecooimco u cimco ”Fug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coo» :F mcoFFoqu FoooFooo :mF; ecu co ocozo »FFococom oo» oc< ”N zoFmeoo
.ooFFoooo »o mcoFFoooo FcooFoo< ng: co mmococo3<ii.mF mom<F

m N N 4 NF oF NF Fe Fm NN om mNF mm NNN o<FOF
o o N F FF N NF oF mm NF NN Fe NF mm FeFo omco>ecF
N F F F oF m FN NF FN oN NN mo Nm 4N zeeFmem
N F N F oF m NF N 4N oF NN NN NF NN eooecmoz
e F N F 4N o , oF o NN NF om om mN mm conceo eoeeem
N z N z N z N z N z N z o-omoa o-oce eoFoauoo
o-Fmoc o-occ c-6moc o-eca o-omoc o-ecc z
zoox F.:oo oz mo>
co cozmc< oz
N»choesoo

55

In Muskegon, 78% (N = 29) answered yes to question 2 on the
Pre-Q; this increased to 84% (N = 16) on the Post-Q.

At the conference in Saginaw, some 77% (N = 65) answered yes
to this question on the Pre-Q, a figure which increased to 81%

(N = 26) on the Post-Q.

Finally, in Traverse City, again 77% (N = 41) answered that
they were aware of the high accident locations in their area on the
Pre-Q; this increased to 89% (N = 17) on the Post-Q. This was the
largest percentage increase of any location.

In Table 16 it is noted that of those occupational groups
responding, the enforcement group had the highest percentage of yes
responses--94% (N = 48) on the Pre-Q and 100% (N = 29) on the Post-Q.
Further, the education and engineering groups were next with scores
of 93% (N = 13) and 89% (N = 240), respectively, on the Pre-Q.

Their scores decreased somewhat to 91% (N = 10) and 82% ( N = 9)
respectively, in the Post-Q. The group with the lowest percentage
scores was the Courts-Health professions with 57% (N = 8) on the
Pre-Q and 33% (N = 2) on the Post-Q. The n's are relatively small,
however.

Only five respondents on both the pre- and post-questionaires
indicated that they didn't know or had no response to this item.

Although part b of Question 2 asked each respondent to list
some of the local high accident areas or locations, this information
was not tabulated due to the large number and variety of answers

that were indicated. A meaningful summary was not possible.

56

mgwmccowummzo mocmgmkcoufiwmoa u Olumom mmgwmccowummzo mucmgwaFOUIwLn— u 010.:— u>mx

 

 

 

 

 

 

om F a F o o o F om F Nm m N FF :oNFFFu opo>Fco
zFFoo:

NF F o o om N No 0 mm N Nm N m eF -choou
FoFoFFco

o o m N mF N oF 0 mm FF mN mN mF Nm »ucoou-»FFu

o o o o oN m Fm NF oN oF mm Nm mF om mmooFmom

o o o o o o m m ooF mN om we mN Fm Foosoocomcm
comeoFoca

o o o o o F N F Fm oF mm mF FF oF :oFFoooom
achcoFo

o o o 0 NF N FF m Nm m mm oN FF NN chFcooochm

a z a z a z N z N z N z oipmoo coco oomeooFoco

.11111. .11111. .11111. 111111. .11111. .111111 \coFFoooooo

oiumoo croca crumoo crocc oipmoa croco z
zocz F.ooo oz mo»

co cozmo< oz

 

NNchossoo
coo» cF mcoFFoooF FoooFouo szz ozu co ocozo »Fchocom oo» oc< “N zoFmeoo
.ooocu FocoFFoooooo »o mcoFFoooo FcooFoo< szz co mmococo3<ii.oF NFN<F

57

Rankingof Major Traffic Safety Needs

 

Question three was a rank-order type item which was designed
to determine how local officials and leaders perceived their local
needs in terms of traffic accident reduction. Specifically, each
respondent was asked, "What do you feel are the major traffic safety
needs in your area?" Six areas of "need" were listed on both the
pre- and post-questionnaires. This question was included as a
follow-up to Question one to identify any possible relationships
between major "problems" (01) and "needs" (Q3). It should also be
noted that the "problem areas" listed on Question one, with one
exception, were directly related to the stated "needs" in Question
three. The results are noted in Tables 17 to 24.

Table 17 presents the data on Question three across all
occupational groups on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q. As can be
observed, the need for "Improved driver education" was judged to be
the most critical need on both questionnaires. This item received
a rank value (RV) of 6.14 on the Pre-Q and an RV of 6.35 on the
Post-Q. "Improved traffic engineering" was ranked as the second
most critical need on both the Pre-Q (RV = 5.93) and the Post-Q
(RV = 6.17). "Better data on problem" was ranked last on both
questionnaires with an RV = 5.28 on the Pre-Q and RV = 4.60 on the
Post-Q.

In terms of specific occupational groups, the "Engineering/
Planning group (Table 18) ranked the need for "Improved driver
education" as the most important local need on the Pre-Q (RV = 6.53).

The need for "More funds to implement programs" was ranked first on

58

.ooFoo zoom u >z NocFoccoFFmooo oocococcooiumoa u oipmoo FocFoccoFFmooo oucmcoccoouoco u oioco "me

 

mm.m\Nm

om.e\om

mo.m\No

mm.m\mN

mm.o\me

NF.m\oN

mm.m\NoF

wN.m\mmF

mN.m\NmF

cm.m\¢oF

eF.o\moF

mm.m\NwF

o F F o m mN

F F o N mF FN

o o o 0 NF wN

O
O
O
m
0")
L0
P

FF

0F

oF

NF

FN

FN

m

¢F

mF

O
F

NN

mN

Nm

eN

FN

FF

mF

0F

mF

MN

NN

mm

NN

MN

F
d"

NF

¢F

0F

01
P

No

mN

mm

mm

mm

mF

FF

NF

0N

l\
P

msmcmocd
mm deoeoFaeF op
mococ ocoz

soFaoco
NF co memo
coooom

EoFooco mo

NN FcoEomocoz
copuom

Fcoeoucoccm

Fm 2oz uFFFocF
ocoz

:onouoom

Nm cooFco
oo>ocoEF

mchoocchm

no oFFFocF
oo>ocosF

 

>m\z

>m\z

0-150d
O-add
0-450d
O-aJd
0-450d
O-add

Z
Z
2

O-lSOd

O-add

0-480d

O-aJd

O-lSOd

O-aJd

0-1s0d

O-add

0-150d

O-aJd

edoz

 

 

c-3moe

croco

00
N
O

m

xeem

e

 

Nooco coo» :F momma »Focom chFocF conoe oz» oco Foo» oo» oo Fez:
Hmoooz Nuocom oFFNocF comm: co mchoozii.NF uom<F

.moooco FocoFFoooouo oooFoeoo

Fm zoFquao

59

.szm> xcmm u >m mmgchconmmao mucmngcouuumom u anamom mmLchcoFummac mucmgmmcouumgm u oumgm ">mx

 

 

 

msmgmogm
om.o\FF mm.m\NN o o o o o N F F N N N m w o N o ucwsmFasF ou
mugs; ago:
Eanoga
om.¢\m mo.m\oN o o o F m N F m o N o e N m F o co mama
gmuumm
Eanosa mo
Fm.m\FF Nm.m\mF o o o o o e N F N N w N F N N m pcmsmmmcmz
Loppmm
ucmsmugomcm
mN.m\FF N¢.m\mF o o o o F m F F m m N ¢ m m F m 3m; uFFFmgF
mgoz
:onmuzcm
om.m\oF mm.m\NF o o o o N o F e N F F o o m w m Lm>Fgo
um>ogqu
mcFmecchm
om.m\NF Fm.m\mF o o o F F N ¢ N F m N m N F N m uFFFmLF
um>oLaEF

dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
we “I. we “I. “I. m; um mm 2..
3.). 2.2 W0 mun muo nub W0 nub mu 0 oz

2 z z z z z
OIHMOQ GIULQ m 0 m V m N H
xcmm

 

Nomgm :30» :F mumwc Fummmm uFFFmgu gonna mgp ago mem :o» cu was:

an zoFmezo
.mcomemFoga mchcmFa-mcFmecchu Fa mummz Fummmm uFFFmgF Lona: mo mchcmm--.mF m4m<F

60

the Post-Q (RV = 6.36). The need for "Improved traffic engineering"
was ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, on the Pre-Q (RV = 5.37)
and the Post-Q (RV = 5.50).

The "Education“ group (Table 19) ranked the need for "Better
management of the problem" as the most critical local problem on the
Pre-Q (RV = 6.22), and both the need for "Improved driver education"
and the need for "More traffic law enforcement" as the most urgent
problems on the Post-Q. Each of these received a rank value (RV) of
6.50.

The "Enforcement" group (Table 20) ranked first on the
Pre-Q (RV = 6.34) the need for "Improved traffic engineering.”
However, on the Post-Q the need for "Improved driver education"
was ranked first (RV = 6.52). The need for "More traffic law
enforcement" was ranked third and fourth, respectively, on the
Pre-Q (RV = 5.85) and Post-Q (RV = 5.7l) by this occupational
group.

Members of the "Business" occupational group (see Table 2l)
on the Pre-Q felt that the need for "Improved driver education" was
the most pressing local need (RV = 6.3l). This also held true for
the Post-Q results and the rank value actually increased somewhat
(RV = 7.00). The need for "More funds to implement programs"
received the lowest rank value on both the Pre-Q (RV = 5.13) and
the Post-Q (RV = 4.92).

"City-county officials" (see Table 22) indicated on the
Pre-Q that the need for "More funds to implement programs“ was the

most critical local need (RV = 6.10). This issue was ranked second

6]

.msFm> xcmm u >m mogchconmmzo mucmgmmcouuumoa u clumom mmLchcoFummzo mococwwcoulmcm n oumca ”Fax

 

 

 

 

msmcmoca
oN.o\m FF.m\F o o F o F N F o o o o F N e F o acmemFaeF o»
mucam who:
EmFaoca
om.m\¢ No.m\m o o o o N F N m o F o o o F o m co mama
gmaumm
Eanoca we
oo.o\¢ NN.o\m o o o o o F F F F F o F F N F m acmemmmcmz
gwpumm
pcmsmucomcm
om.m\o oo.m\m o o o o o F o o N N F F F N N N 3m; uFFFmLF
moo:
coFumuzuu
om.o\o oo.o\oF o o o o o F o o F N m e o F N N go>Fgo
um>ochF
mchmwcchm
0N.m\m mm.m\m o o o o F o o m o N F m N o F F odemgF
um>ogqu
dd 100.0 dd dd dd dd dd dd
....... .2... ...,... .1
25. 2:: do nab ..00 do do do do do 802
z z z z z z z z
xcmm

 

Nmmcm sac» :F mummc zumme uFmecp Lewes on» mow mem so» on was: "m zoFmeao
.comemwocm coFFmozum Fa mummz Fummmm uFFchF Lona: we mchcmmnu.oF m4m<F

62

.szm> xcmm u >m mocchconmoso mocmcmmcoouumoa u cupmoa mmcchcoFumwzo mucmcmwcooumcm u clog; .>m¥

 

 

 

 

mangoes;
om.o\mN mm.m\¢¢ o o o o F m N e m m e e m FF e FF acmEmFasF on
macs; moo:
Eanoca
om.¢\ON eF.m\Fm F o o o o F m oF v o o m F m N e co memo
gmuwmm
smFaoga mo
mm.m\FN mm.m\Fm o o N o F F e m m N o N N m m m pcmsommcmz
meuwm
pcmeococh
FN.m\eN mm.m\F¢ o o o o m m N w N m m N a m m w 2m; uFmegF
moo:
coFuauzuu
Nm.o\mN mF.m\Ne o o o o m m F N F o a m e 0 OF oF cm>Fco
vm>oLaEF
mchmmcchu
om.m\¢N em.o\e¢ o o o F F F m m o N e mF m oF c NF uFFFmLF
um>ocasF

dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ

$3 $3 $3 $3 $3 59 $3 $3

1.1.17.1..1.1+.1..1..
>m\z >m\z Lw Nu Lw nu No no Lw nu Lw nu Lw nu No no No no umwz

z z z z z z z z
- - N F m m a m N F
0 “mom a we; xcmm

 

Nmmcm one» cF mama: Fumdmm oFFFmgu Longs asp mom Food so» on was: ”m zoFmeao
.mFmFUcho acmemucoccm Na mummz Ngmdam qudmcF Lena: do achcwa--.o~ m4m<F

63

.szm> xcmm u >m mmcchconmmso mocmgoFcooupmom u anamom mocchcoFamwzo mucocmmcouumcm u onmca "Fug

 

Nm.¢\NF

Nm.¢\mF

m¢.m\mF

mF.m\¢F

oo.m\mF

o¢.o\mF

mF.m\o¢

m¢.m\o¢

mF.m\m¢

mm.m\m¢

Fm.o\m¢

mN.m\om

o

O

o

o

FF

oF

mF

LO

oF

oF

0")

oF

mF

mamcuocm
acmEoFaEF o»
muss“ «so:

Eanogm

no name
cmppmm
eanoca mo
pcmsmmmcmz
coupmm

acmemucowcm
3.; uwcdacF
moo:

coFumoaum
cm>FLa
uw>ocaeF

mchmmcchm

uFFchF
um>oLaEF

 

>m\z

>m\z

 

o-omoa

c-mga

O'lSOd

O-add

Z

0'150d

O-add

[\Z

O-lSOd

O-aJd

Z

0'150d

O-aJd

O-lsod

0-150d

O-aJd

0'150d

O‘BJd

0-150d

O-aJd

ummz

 

Nmmcm Lao» :F memo: xumwmm oFFchp gonna mg» mom Foam no» ow awn:

"m zoFmezo
.mcomemmoca mmmcszm xn mummz Fumwom oFFchF comm: Fo mchcmm--.FN mom<F

64

 

 

 

 

 

.ozFo> xcom u >m mooFocconmozo oococoFcooupmoo u O'Hmom mooFoccoFumozo oo:oooo:oo-ooo u ouoco ”Fug
msoomoga
m¢.o\F oF.o\mN o F o o o o N F F o o F 0 OF o m ocosoFoeF o»
mocau oooz
sanoom
mw.¢\o oo.m\mN o o o o N o F m o o N m F m o o co opoo
ooupom
eanoco Fo
ON.o\m Nm.m\oN o o o o F N N o N o o F o o o m ucoeomocoz
ooppom
pcosoooomcm
mm.m\m Fo.m\om o o o o o m F o F m N m N o N o zoo oFFFocF
oooz
:oFFooaou
FF.m\o NF.m\om o o o N F m o N F o o m m F F o oo>Foo
oo>ooasF
mcFooocchu
oo.F\w mm.m\mm o o o o o o o F F m N m F m o m oFFFooF
uo>ooasF
o. o... ma o... oo oo oh. mu
u... n...“ um. o...” n... n... n... n...
>m\z >N\z Aw nu kw ho No no No no No no No no No nu Lw nu uooz
z z z z z z z z
u N F o m o m N F
o-amoo o oco xcoa

 

Noooo Lao» cF moooc auowom oFFFogp gonos on» oco Foo» no» on Fonz
.mFoFoFooo Focaoo-zo_o Fa muooz Foocmm oFccmcF coho: oo mewxcma--.NN oom<F

um zoFmeao

65

on the Post-Q with an RV = 6.43.. On the Post-Q, this group ranked
first the need for "Improved traffic engineering" (RV = 7.00).
"Better management of the problem" was ranked last on the Post-Q
(RV = 4.20). "Better data on the problem" was ranked last on the
Pre-Q (RV = 5.40).

Table 23 indicates that on the Pre-Q the need for "Improved
driver education" was identified as the most important local need by
the "Courts/Health" professions (RV = 7.33). On the Post-Q, this
group ranked the need for "Better data on problem" as the most
critical need (RV = 6.25).

Finally, Table 24 shows the results of the responses to
Question three by "Private citizens." This group, on the Pre-Q,
indicated that "Improved driver education" was the most important
local need (RV = 7.l3). 0n the post-Q, "Improved traffic engineering"
received the highest rank value (RV = 7.00). The need for "Better
data on the problem" was ranked as the lowest priority need by this
group on both questionnaires (Pre-Q RV = 4.67; Post-Q RV = 4.67).

Personal Awareness quraffic Safety
Problems/Needs

 

The purpose of question 4 was to secure information concern-
ing the respondent's personal or actual awareness of local accident
needs or problems. The item was worded in the following manner:
"How aware are you personally of your community's major traffic
safety problems or needs?" Three responses were possible. The

results are noted in Tables 25 and 26.

66

.osFo> xcom u >m mooFoccoFFmoao oocoooocooupmoo u o-pmoo mooFoccoFFmoao oo:ooow:oo-ooa u ouooo ">mx

 

 

 

 

msoomooo
m3: Foo; o o o o o. Fm Fo FF 0 N FN “55358
mucau one:
sanooo
mN.o\o mo.o\m o o o o F o o o o N F F o m N N :o ouoa
Lopaom
soFaooo Fo
oo.m\o mN.m\m o o o o o F o F N m o N N o o F pcoeomocoz
coauom
pcosoogoocm
oo.¢\o mm.m\w o o o o N o F N o N F N o F o F zoo oFFFoLF
ooo:
:onooaum
mN.m\o mm.F\m o o o o F o F o o o F N o N F m go>Foo
oo>ooasF
mchoocchm
mF.m\¢ oF.m\F o o o o o N F F F F o F N F o F onFooF
uo>ooqu

dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ

n... n... no 3... no no no no
>m\z >m\z mu nu MW nu mu nu mu nu mu nu mu nu Lw nu mu nu nooz

z z z z z z z z
clamoo ouooo N F o m xcom o m N F

 

Foooo Lao» :F moooc Foowom omeoou canoe osu ooo Foom no» on non:

"m zoFmezo
.mcomeoFoso guFooz uco muoaoo an moooz Fuomom oFFFooF coho: Fo mchcomuu.mN m4m<F

67

.osFo> xcom n >m FooFoccoFumozo oocooowcooupmoa u cuumoo mooFoccoFumosc oocooowcoouooa u anon; u>m¥

 

 

 

msocmogo
mm.m\m oo.m\m o o o o F F o F F o o N o o F F FcosoFosF ou
moczm ocoz
sanooo
Fm.¢\m Fm.¢\m o o o o o F N F o N F F o o o o co ouoo
oouuom
Eanoog do
oo.m\m om.m\m o o o o F o o o F F o o F N o N pcoaomocoz
oopuom
ucosouoowcm
Fo.m\m mN.o\F o o o o o o F N o o F o F o o F zoo oFFFooF
ocoz
:oFFouaum
mm.m\m NF.F\m o o o o F o o o o F F o F o o m co>Foo
uo>ochF
mcFooocchu
oo.F\m o¢.o\m o o o o o o o F F F o m o F N m oFFFoLF
uo>ooasF

dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd

OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ

no no no no no no no no
3:: 2:: do ..u0 do do Fob no.0 no.0 on U82

2 z z z z z z z
N F m m o m N F
oupmoa gloom mmmm

 

Noooo one» cF mooo: Fuowom oFFFoou canoe oz» ooo Food so» on won:

an zoFmezo

.mcoNFuFo ouo>Fsa an moooz apowmm umeoLF Leno: mo mcwxcomuu.¢N mFm<F

68

Table 25 indicates that overall most persons felt that they
were at least "somewhat aware" of local needs or problems. On the
Pre-Q, for example, 54% (N = 125) selected this response; on the
Post-Q, 51% (N = 47) answered in this manner. A large number also
indicated they were "very aware" of local needs--38% (N = 88) on the
Pre-Q and 46% (N = 43) on the Post-Q. Only 8% (N = 18) and 3%

(N = 3) on the Pre-Q and Post-Q, respectively, said they were "not
really aware."

The survey results in Benton Harbor reveal figures very

 

close to the overall results. No one (on the Post-Q) said they were
"not really aware" of local needs or problems.

In Muskegon, on the Pre-Q, l4% (N = 5) of the respondents
stated they were "not really aware" of local problems. This was
the highest percentage of any location. The other results were
close to the overall figures.

In Saginaw, there was very little variation in the data
from the overall results.

A somewhat higher percentage of persons in Traverse City

 

selected the "somewhat aware" response. Specifically, on the Pre-Q,
58% (N = 30) and on the Post-Q, 61% (N = ll) answered in this
manner.

In Table 26 the responses by occupational groups are pre-
sented. Again, the majority of responses in most groups were in the
"somewhat aware" category. The law enforcement group revealed the
highest percentage of responses in the "very aware" category--63%

(N = 33) on the Pre-Q and 60% (N = l8) on the Post-Q. The

69

.ogFoccoFumozo oocoooFcoouumoo u cupmoo

mooFoccoFumoac oocooowcoouooo u anooo "me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- n u - mm no mm mm Fm Fo om mNF m m w NF mm FNN 4<FOF
- - u . an F mm NF Fm FF mm on o o m o NF Nm FFFQ omco>ooF
- u u . Fo mF No mm Fo mF om mo o N m o Nm om 3ocFmom
. n u - mm oF om FF No m Fm FN m F «F m mF Fm :omoxmaz
. F u - no FF Fo oN om mF om oN o o m m oN mm Loaoo: :opcom
a z a z a z N z N z a z a z u z Gnome; o-ooo coFFoooo
o-pmoa o-ooa o-omoa o-oca o-omoa o-oca o-omoa o-oea z
omcoamoa oz ooo3< Foo> oooz< oooz<
Fogzosom FFFoom Foz

 

Fmooo: go msanooa

Fuowom oFmFooF gonos m.Fch=esoo Lao» Fa FFFocomooa so» ogo ooozo 3o:
.coFFouoo Fa muooz Fquom oFFFooF Fo mmocooo3< Focomgoouu.mN m4m<F

no zoFmezo

70

.ooFooooFumooo ooooooFooouumoo u c-umoo

mm... raccowummzc wuchOuFFOUImLm u Olmga u>m¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- u - - om F FN m om F on F o o o F N FF ooNFFFu opo>Foo
0F F - u o 0 mm m Fm o om F FF F N F 0 NF suFooIquooou
FoFoFFFo
. u u . mm F on mF No m mm NN o o N F NF mm nuoooo-FFFo
. - - - ON o 0N mF 0F oF mo co oF N FF F oN om mmooFmom
. - - u on NF mm mm oo NF mm NF 0 o N F on Nm Foosoooooom
oomeoFooo
- - n . oo o mF N mm m Ne w o o MN m m mF ooFFoooom
moFoooFo
. u - . cm m cm mF cm 0 No FF o o m N NF oN \moFooooFmom
a z a z N z N z m z N z N z N z o-umoo clog; :omeoFooo
Foonoooooo
o-omoa o-oca o-pmoa o-oca o-omoa o-oca o-omoa o-oca
omcoomom oz ooo3< Foo> ooo3< ocoz<
omgzosom FFFaoo ooz

 

Fmooo: co meoFoooo
Fuomom oFFFoop comma m.FuFo=sEoo coon Fo FFFooomooo so» ooo oooZo 3o:

no zoFquao
.ooooo FoooFuoooooo no moooz Fuooom oFFFoLF mo mmoooooz< Fooomooo--.mN mom<F

71

education group had the highest percentage of responses on the Pre-Q
in the "not really aware" category--23% (N = 3). However, none of
the respondents in this group chose this answer on the Post-Q.

The business group had the highest percentage of responses in the
"somewhat aware" category, i.e., 69% (N = 44) on the Pre-Q and 70%
(N = 14) on the Post-Q.

Official Awareness of ProblemslNeeds

Question 5 asked the respondent, "Do you feel that state
officials are generally aware of your community's problems or needs?"
The responses to this item are presented in Tables 27 and 28.

\Table 27 indicates that of a total of 232 responses on the
Pre-Q, 85 or 37% indicated a yes answer; however, this figure
increased to 57% (N = 55) on the Post—Q. Thirty-six percent (N = 84)
checked a don't know (or no answer) response on the Pre-Q. The
percentage decreased to 26% (N = 25) on the Post-Q.

Data from the Benton Harbor meeting, also presented in

 

Table 27, shows that 45% (N = 26) answered yes on the Pre-Q; 52%

(N = l3) responded in a similar manner on the Post-Q. Those
responding with a no answer on the Pre-Q amounted to 22% (N = l3);
24% (N = 6) answered no on the Post-Q. The percentage not answering

(or don't know) dropped from 33% (N = l9) to 24% (N = 6).

From the Muskegon conference, only l9% (N 7) stated yes

8), or more

on the Pre-Q, but this figure increased to 42% (N
than double, on the Post-Q. A high percentage also said they didn't
know (or didn't answer)--54% (N = 20) on the Pre-Q and 47% (N = 9)
on the Post-Q.

72

.ogFooooFFmoOO ooooooFooo-pmoo u Ouumoo

mocFooooFFmoOO oucoooFooonooo u Ouooo ">Oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON ON Om om FF OF FN mO FO OO Fm Om OO NON 4<FOF
ON o FN FF ON o oo FN OO NF oo FN ON OO FFFO omoo>ooF
OF O oo om mF o ON OF OO NN Fm Fm Nm om zooFOom
Fo O om ON FF N FN OF No O OF F OF Fm :oOozmoz
ON O mm OF ON O NN OF NO OF Oo ON ON OO ooooo: oopooO
u z N z a z N z N z N z Oupmoo Ouooo :oFuoooo
Oupmoo Ouooo Oupmoo Ouooo Ouuooo Ouooo

socz u.ooO oz moF

so oozmo< oz

Nmoooo go meoFoooo m.zuFooesoo
Loon Fo ooozo OFFooocoO oco oFoFoFFFo oaoum Fog» FooO oo» oO "O zOFFOOOO

.coFoaooo Fa moooZFmooFaoca co mmococmzz FmFoFooo--.FN oom<F

73

In Saginaw, the yes responses increased from 37% (N = 31)
on the Pre-Q to 69% (N = 22) on the Post-Q. The no responses
dropped from 23% (N = 19) on the Pre-Q to 13% (N = 4) on the Post-Q.
Again, a fairly large percent said they didn't know (or didn't
respond)--40% (N = 34) on the Pre-Q and 19% (N = 6) on the Post-Q.

The last part of Table 27 shows the tabulated responses from
the Traverse City questionnaires. It can be seen that there was an
increase in yes responses--from 40% (N = 21) on the Pre-Q to 60%
(N = 12) on the Post-Q. The percent of no responses was cut in
half--from 40% (N = 21) on the Pre-Q to 20% (N = 4) on the Post-Q.

Table 28 summarizes the responses by occupation/profession
and indicates that the education group (teachers, administrators,
etc.) had the highest percent of yes answers on both questionnaires--
54% (N = 7) on the Pre-Q and 80% (N = 8) on the Post-Q. The numbers
are quite small, however.

It should also be noted that the two groups with the larger
N's (enforcement and business) had fairly consistent responses, both
groups indicating 38% yes on the Pre-Q and 57% and 60%, respectively,
on the Post-Q. The yes responses from city-county officials were

also closely in line with the engineering group.

Community Concern for Traffic Safety
Question 6 attempted to learn how the participants felt
about the problem of traffic crashes in their community compared
to other issues or concerns. The question asked, "How would you

rank the problem of traffic accidents in your community compared

74

.ogFooooFumoOO oooogoyooO1umoo u O1FmoO

mmkwmccowvmwzo muchwVCOUIan— u 019:. u>mx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO F OO O OO F FN O O O OO O N FF ooNFpFO ouo>FgO
OO O OO F FF F Fm O OO N OF N O OF zpFooz1mpgooO
FoFoFOOO
ON O ON FF O F ON FF FO O NO OF NF Om xuoooO1FOFO
OO O OO ON OF N ON OF OO NF Om ON ON OO mmocFOOO
FN O ON OF FF O OO FF FO FF Om ON OO NO poosoogomom
:omeoOogO
O O FO O ON N OF N OO O OO F OF OF oonoooom
OoFoooFO
O F Fm OF ON O OO O FO O OO O NF FN \OoFgoooFOom
m z a z a z N z a z a z OupmoO O1ogO oomeoOogO
1111111 111111. 1111111 .111111 1111111 1111111 FooFFoooooO
O1umoO O1ogO O1umoO O1ogO O1umoo O1ogO z
zooz u.:oO oz mo>
go gozmo< oz
Fmoooo go meoFoogo
m.>pFoossoo goo» Oo ogozo OFFogoooO ogo mFoFoFOOo opoum Fog» Foo; no» oO "O zOFFOOOO

.ooogO Fooonoooooo Fa moooZFOEoFoogO mo mmooogoz< FoFoFOOO11.ON OOO<F

75

to other problems?" The respondent was directed to choose one of
four possible answers.' The results are presented in Tables 29 and
30.

Table 29 shows that overall most persons felt that the
problem of traffic accidents in their area ranked "low" compared to
other problems. Specifically, 57% (N = 130) chose this response on
the Pre-Q and 53% (N = 49) on the Post-Q. The category receiving
the next highest number of responses was "high" with 34% (N = 78)
and 30% (N = 28), respectively, on the Pre-Q and Post—Q.

The results of the data tabulation in Benton Harbor

 

indicate a pattern nearly identical to the overall figures. Very
few persons indicated that they felt the problem ranked either "very
low" or "very high." This latter pattern was also consistent with
the overall results.

A somewhat higher percentage of respondents at the Muskegon
conference chose the "low" answer--68% on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q.
Also, fewer persons selected the "high" response, 27% (N = 10) on
the Pre-Q and 16% (N = 3) on the Post-Q.

In Saginaw, a slightly higher number of persons selected the
"very low" answer--7% (N = 6) and 9% (N = 3) on the Pre-Q and Post-Q,
respectively. Other figures were fairly consistent with the overall
results.

In Traverse City, the most discernible result was the high

 

percentage of persons indicating they felt the problem of accidents

was a "very high" priority, at least on the Post-Q, 24% (N = 4)

76

ogFooooFgmoOO oocogoOooO1umom u O1OOoO

mm.» raccowuwmao mucmsmhconulmsn— u Olmgn— ">5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OF O O O OO ON OO OF OO OO FO OOF F O O NO ONN O<FOF
ON O O N ON O OO NN FO O OO ON O O O N FF FO OFFO omgo>ogF
O F O O FO OF FO ON FO OF OO OO O O F O NO OO zooFOoO
FF N O F OF O FN OF OO OF OO ON O F O F OF FO ooOoxmoz
O N O O ON F OO ON OO OF OO NO O N O N ON FO gongoz oouooO
a z a z N z a z a z a z a z N z O1umoO O1ogO oonoooO
O1omoa O1ooa O1omoa O1ogo o-omoa o-oga O1omoa O1ooa
zOF: xgo> zOF: so; 3o4 ago>
NmeoFoogo gozao op oogoosoo
OuFoosEoo goo» :F muoooFooo omeogp mo EoFoogo oz» xoog so» oFooz 3o: “O zoFFOOOO

.ooFuoooO an Fuowom oFOOogF goO ogouooO FnFcosEoO11.ON OOO<F

77

chose this response. The other figures were close to the overall
results.

Considering the various occupational groups (Table 30), the
law enforcement group had the highest number of "very low"
responses--10% (N = 5) on the Pre-Q and 14% (N = 4) on the Post-Q.
However, this group also had a nearly equal number choosing the
"very high" response--12% (N = 6) on the Pre-Q and 10% (N = 3) on
the Post-Q. The education group had the highest percentage response
on this item with 33% (N = 3) on the Post-Q. This group also had
the highest percentage response to the "high" category, 62% (N = 8)
on the Pre-Q.

Most answers were in either the "low" or "high" category.
There were also 17 questionnaires (combined) which fell into the
"unknown" category where no occupation or profession was listed.

Comparison of Community Traffic
Accident Problems

 

The responses to Question 7, "How would you compare your
community's traffic accident problem with neighboring communities
of similar size?" are displayed in Tables 31 and 32.

Table 31 shows overall that most respondents, 65% (N = 150)
on the Pre-Q and 67% (N = 64) on the Post-Q, felt that their local
traffic accident problems were "about the same" as in similar com-
munities. Fourteen percent (N = 33) of the respondents on the Pre-
Q stated they believed their problems were "worse than most,“ and

13% (N = 12) chose this response on the Post-Q. A nearly equal

78

.mgwmccowvmmzo mucmgmmconvlumon— u Glamom mwgwmccowummnc wucmLmu—EOUIQLQ u OlmLa n>m¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO F O O O O OO O OO F OO O O O O O N FF ooNFpFO opo>FgO
O O O F ON F OO O OO O NO O O O O O O NF zpFooIFOpgooO
FoFoFFFO
O O O N ON O NO NF OF O OO NN O O O N NF OO »poooO1»pFO
O O O O OO O ON OF OO FF OO NO O F O O ON OO mmocFmoO
OF O NF O ON O FO OF OO OF FO ON OF O OF O ON FO poosoogomom
oomeoFogO
OO O O O OO O NO O OO O OO O O O O O O OF oonoooom
OoFoooFO
FF N O O OO O ON F OO O OO FF O O O F NF ON \OoFgoooFOom
a z N 2 O z a z m z a 2 O z N z O1pmoO O1ogO oomeomogO
FoonoooooO
o-pmoa O1ogo o-pmoa O1ogo O1pmoa O-ooo O1pmoa O1oga z
zOF: »go> zOF: zoo zoo »go>

 

NF.opo .OoFmoo; .ongo ..O.ov msoFoogo gozpo op oogoosoo
»pFooEEoo goo» OF OpoooFooo oFFFogp Fo EoFoogo ozp xoog oo» oFooz 3oz ”O zOFFOOOO
.ooogO FooonoooooO »o »poFOO oFFFogF goF ogooooO »choEEoO11.OO OOO<F

79

.ogFooconmooO oooogomooO1pmoO u O1meO

mogFoooonmooO oooogomooO1ogO u O1ogO "FOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O F OF OF OF OF OO FO OO OO OOF OF NF OF OO OO NON o<FOF
O F O O FF N FF O FO FF OO NO NN O OF OF OF OO »pFO omgo>ogF
O F OF O O O OF NF OF ON OO OO OF O OF FF OO OO zooFOOO
O F O F ON O OF O OO NF OF ON O F O N OF FO ooOoxmoz
O N N F OF O OF FF OO FF NO OO O N FF OF ON OO googoz oopooO
a z u z u z a z a z m z a 2 O z O1pmoo O1ogo oonoooo
O1pmoo O1ogo O1pmoo O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogo O1pmoo O1ogO

:ooz p.ooO pmoz oEoO poo:

go gozm=< oz oozF goppoO oop pooo< oooF omgoz

NoNFm goFFsFm mo monFooEEoo OoFgoonFoo
zsz soFoogo poooFooo oFFFogp m.»pFooEEoo goo» ogooeoo oo» oFooz 3oz "F zOFFOOOO

.oonoooo »o msoFoogO poooFoo< oFFFogF »pFooEsoO Fo oomFgooEou11.FO O40<F

80

number said they felt that their problems were actually "better
than most."

The data from the Benton Harbor conference indicate a
pattern similar to the overall results. Some 62% (N = 36) on the
Pre-Q stated "about the same." This percentage increased to 68%

(N = 17) on the Post-Q.

Table 31 also indicates that at the Muskegon location, a
somewhat higher percent of respondents on the Pre-Q, 78% (N = 29),
stated their problems were "about the same.“ However, this figure
decreased to 63% (N = 12) on the Post-Q. The results of the Post-Q
also indicated that 26% (N = 5) felt that their problems were "better
than most." This was the highest percentage of any location.

In Saginaw, the results were also very close to the overall
figures. Some 63% (N = 53) on the Pre-Q stated "about the same."
This figure increased to 73% (N = 24) on the Post-Q.

The Traverse City results were also only slightly different

 

from the overall totals. This location did, however, indicate the
highest percentage, 22% (N = 4), of those stating they felt their
area was "worse than most."

Considering this question on the basis of occupational
groups (Table 32), on the Pre-Q, the courts-health group had the
highest percentage of respondents stating they felt their problems
were "worse than most," i.e., 43% (N = 6). However, no one in this
group chose this response on the Post-Q. The engineering group had
the lowest percentage of answers in this category, with 8% (N = 2)

on the Pre-Q and 9% (N = 1) on the Post-Q. The majority of the

81

ogFooconmooO oooogoFooo1pmoO u O1pooO

mogFoooonmooO oooogoFOOO1ogO n O1ogo "Fug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O F O O O O FO N NF O OO F OF N O FF ooNFpFO opo>FgO
OO N OF N FF F O O OO O OO O O O OO O O OF opFooIFOpgooO
FoFoFFFO
O O O F FO O OF F OO O OF ON O O O F OF OO »p=ooO1»pFO
O F O O O F OF O OF OF OO NO OF O OF O ON OO mmooFmoO
O F O N ON F ON NF OO OF NO FN ON O FN FF OO NO poosoogowom
oomeoFogO
FF F O O O O OF N OF F OO O FF F OF N O OF oonouoOO
OoFoooFO
O O NF O O O OF O FO OF OO FF O F O N FF ON \OoFgoooFOOO
a z N z N z a z N 2 O 2. O 2 O z o-pmoo o-ooa eomeoooga
FoonoooooO
O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoo O1ogO
zooz p.=oO pmoz osom poo:
go gozmo< oz oosF goppoO ozp pooo< oozF omgoz
No~Fm goFFsFm Fo monFoosEoo OoFgoonFoo
osz EoFoogo poooFouo uFFFogp m.»pFooEEoo goo» ogoosoo oo» oFooz 3o: "F zOFFOOOO

.ooogO FooonoooooO »o msoFoogO poooFou< oFFFogF »pFooEEoO Fo oomFgoosoO11.NO OOO<F

82

respondents in each group, with the exception of the courts/health
group, stated they believed that their problems were "about the

same" as those in other, similar-sized communities.

Perception of Local Traffic Safety Programs

Question 8 sought to obtain information on how thoroughly
respondents perceived the nature and extent of local traffic safety
efforts. The item asked, "Generally, how do you perceive the status
of traffic safety activities or programs in your community?" Four
possible choices were offered.

As can be seen in Table 33, overall most respondents felt
that activities or programs were “quite limited." Specifically, on
the Pre-Q, 56% (N = 130), indicated this choice and 59% (N = 56) on
the Post-Q. Very few persons felt that programs were "comprehensive"

(Pre-Q--3%, N = 6; Post-Q--2%, N 2).

In Benton Harbor, 59% (N 34) on the Pre-Q felt that pro-

 

grams were "quite limited," and on the Post-Q, 64% (N = 16) chose
this response. Also, on the Pre-Q, 14% (N = 8) said there was "no
visible effort" and only 2% (N = 1) stated that programs were "well
developed" and "comprehensive." There was little change in these
figures on the Post-Q.

Nineteen percent (N = 7) of those responding to this
question on the Pre-Q in Muskegon stated that they saw "no visible
effort." This was the highest percentage of any location. Also,
74% (N = 14) on the Post-Q stated that programs were "quite limited."

This figure was also the highest of any location.

83

.ogFoooonmooO ouoogowcoo1pmoO u O1pmoO

mogFoooonmooO oooogoOOOO1ogO u O1ogO "FOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N N O O ON ON ON OO OO OO OO OOF O O OF OO OO NON OOFOF
O F O O FF O FN FF FO NF OO FO FF N OF F OF OO »pFO omgo>ogF
O F F F NO OF ON ON NO OF OO OO O N FF OF OO OO zooFOOO
O O O O OF O ON O OF OF FO OF O F OF F OF FO ooOoxmoz
O O N F OF O ON OF OO OF OO OO NF O OF O ON OO googoz oopooO
O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O1pooo O1ogO oonoooo
O1pmoo O1ogO O1pooO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoo O1ogo

o>FmoozogosoO opooooOO oostFo pgoFmO

33583. 3:5 23...; oz
O»pFooEEoo goo» OF msogOogo go
monFonoo OuoOom oFFFogp Fo mopopm osp o>Foogoo oo» oo 3oz .»FFogoooO “O ZOFFOOOO

.oonoooo »o OEogOogO »pomom uFmOogF Foooo Fo :onooogoO11.OO OOOOF

84

In Saginaw, on the Post-Q, 42% (N = 14) felt that programs
were "quite limited," which was a decrease from 55% (N = 46) on the
Pre-Q. This location also had the highest percent response to the
third choice-~"reasonab1y adequate"--with 42% (N = 14). Twenty-four
percent (N = 20) had marked this answer on the Pre-Q.

Finally, in Traverse City, 58% (N = 31) on the Pre-Q felt

 

that activities were "quite 1imited"--this figure increased to 67%
(N = 12) on the Post-Q. The other figures were similar to the over-
all results, however, this location did show the highest percentage
of responses to the last choice--i.e., "well developed . . . compre-
hensive."

Table 34 presents the results of the data with respect to
occupational groups. It is noted that most persons felt that pro-
grams were "quite limited" on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q. The next
highest response chosen was "reasonably adequate." The courts/
health group had the highest percentage response to the choice--

"no visible effort"--on the Pre-Q at 33% (N = 5). However, no one

from this group chose this response on the Post-Q. The engineering
group evidenced the highest percentage responses to the final item--
"well developed . . . comprehensive" with 9% (N = 2) and 8% (N = 1),

respectively, on the Pre-Q and Post-Q, choosing this answer.

Annual Costs of Accidents

 

Question 9 asked each respondent, "Have you ever seen an

estimate of the annual cost of traffic accidents to your community?"

85

.ogFoooonmooO oocogomooO1pmoO u O1pmoo mogFoooonmooO oooogowooo1oga u O1ogO ”FOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O F O O OF N OOF O OO F O O O F O FF ooNFpFO opo>FgO
O O O O FF F FN O OO O OO O O O OO O O OF opFooz\mpgooO
FoFuFOOO
O F O F OO O NO NF OO O OO OF O O OF O NF FO »poooO1»pFO
O O O O FN O NN OF OO OF OO FO FF N OF O OF OO mmooFmoO
O O N F FF O FF O OF FN NO NO OF O OF F OO NO poosoogomom
:omeoOogO
O O O F OO O ON O OO O OO O OF F FF N OF NF oonoooou
OoFoooFo
O F O N ON O NO F OO F OO OF O F OF O NF NN \OoFgoooFOOO
O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O1pmoO .O1ogO oomeoOogO
\oonoooooO
O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO O1pmoO O1ogO z
o>FmoozogosoO opooooo< oostFo pgoOFO
»Foooomoom opFoO oFoFmF> oz

 

FOuFoosEoo goo» :F mEogOogo Fo
monF>Fpoo »poOom oFFFogp go mopopm oop o>Foogoo oo» oo zoo .»FFogoooO ”O zOFFOOOO
.ooogO FooonoooooO »o moogOogO »poFOO oFFFogF Foooo Fo oonooogoO11.OO OOO<F

86

- Table 35 presents the summary of responses by location. From
230 responses, only 10% (N = 24) answered that they had seen such an
estimate. This increased to 27% (N = 26) on the Post-Q, however. A
very low percent failed to answer the question or marked that they
didn't know--2% (N = 4) and 3% (N = 3), respectively.

In Benton Harbor, responses were quite consistent with the

 

overall figures, i.e., 10% (N = 6) answered yes on the Pre-Q and 24%

(N = 6) answered yes on the Post-Q.
Likewise, responses tabulated from Muskegon indicated 11%
(N = 4) yes responses on the Pre-Q and 21% (N = 4) on the Post-Q.

In Saginaw, 17% (N = 14) answered yes on the Pre-Q, a figure
that increased to 47% (N = 15) on the Post-Q. These were the highest
percentage figures of any location for this item.

In Traverse City, no one responded yes to this question on
the Pre-Q; thus, 100% (N = 53) answered no. 0n the Post-Q one
respondent checked yes (5%) and 89% (N = 17) answered no.

Considering this item on the basis of occupational group
(Table 36), on the Pre-Q the enforcement group lead all others with
the largest percent of yes answers--l7% (N = 9). The engineering
group had the smallest percentage responses on the Pre-Q--4% (N = 1).

0n the Post-Q, the business group had the highest percent of
yes responses-~40% (N = 8). Again, the engineering group had the
lowest percentage of yes responses--8% (N = 1).

Question 9 also asked the respondent to state an estimate of
accident costs. A fill-in blank was provided following the statement,

"If yes, give figure____." Initially, the purpose of asking for this

87

ogFoooonmooO oooogowooO1pmoO u O1pmoO mogFoooonmooO oooogomooo1ogO u O1ogO "FOO

 

 

 

 

go gozmo< oz

 

 

O O N O OO OO OO NON FN ON OF ON OO OON OOFOF
O F o o OO FF ooF OO O F o o OF mm FpFo omgo>OOF
O F O O OO OF OF OO NO OF FF OF NO NO OOOFOOO
o o O F OF OF OO NO FN O FF O OF NO comoxmoz
O F o 0 NF OF om NO ON O OF O ON OO ooogmo eopcom
O z O z O z O z O 2 O z o-pm0O o-ogO conmooo
O1pm0N O1oom O-OOOO o-oOO 01pmoa O1ooa z
zoox p.ooO oz mo>

 

F»pFooEEoo goo» Op

mpoooFooo oFmFogp Oo pmoo Foooco ozp Oo opostmo co zoom go>o oo» o>oz "O zOFFOOOO

.conoooo Fa upcoOFoo< Oo Fmoo Foo==<11.OO OoOOF

88

.ogFoooonmooO ouoogomooO1pmoO u O1pmoO

mogFoooonmooO oucogoFcoo1ogO u O1ogO u»o¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

go gozmo< oz

O O O O OO N FO OF Om F O F O FF OONFOFO opO>FgO
FF F O O OO O OO OF Om N F F O OF OOFOOOFOFOOOO
FOFOFFFO
O O O N OO O OO OO OO O O N NF Om FFOOOO1FpFO
O O O O OO NF FO OO OO O O O ON OO mmocFOOO
F N N F OF FN FO NO ON F FF O OO NO FOOOOOOOFOO
oomeoOogO
O O O O OO O NO NF OO O O F O OF OOFFOOOOO
OoFoooFO
O O O O NO FF OO ON O F O F NF ON FOOFOOOOFOOO
O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O1meO O1ooO OOFOOOFOOO
III |||1 1|1|l 11||1 I.) III \oonoooooO
O1pOOO O1ogO O-meO O1ogO O1meN O1ogO z
zoox p.ooO oz moF

 

FOuFoossoo goo»
op mpoooFooo oFFmogp Oo pmoo Fooooo oop mo opoermo co ooom oo>o oo» o>oz
.ooogO FooonoooooO »o mpoooFoo< Fo mpmoO Foooo<11.OO OOOOF

nO zoFmeso

89

additional information was to have a measure for determining whether
the respondent really had knowledge of this figure. Overall, on the
Pre-Q, only 5 respondents actually provided an answer to this item,
and all were from the Saginaw area; and on the Post-Q, seven
responses were noted. However, it should be pointed out that local
accident costs were not provided at any of the meetings. Thus,
respondents should not be expected to know this information. Table

37 presents the individual responses to this item by location.

Local Expenditures for Accident Prevention

The responses to Question 10, which asked, "Do you have any
idea how much is spent on an annual basis for accident prevention
and traffic safety in your community?" are presented in Tables 38
and 39. A yes or no response was possible.

Table 38 shows that overall, on the Pre-Q, 90% (or 209 of
232 total responses) stated they did not know how much was spent;
6% (N = l5) answered yea. A few of those who responded with a yes
answer also indicated, in a space provided, what they thought the
amount was. No attempt was made to check these figures with the
"official" estimate. 0n the Post-Q, only 6% (N = 6) answered yes;
89% (N = 84) stated no.

Table 38 also shows that at the Benton Harbor conference,

 

on the Pre-Q, 90% (N = 52) responded with a no answer; 7% (N = 4)
checked no. However, 96% (N = 23) stated no on the Post-Q and no

one checked yes; one person failed to answer the item.

90

 

ooo.oom.mpe .P

"Oomooomom

F u OOOOmm.Ooz

OF u z
mooz
"Oomcoommm

O u OOOOmm.Ooz
OO u z

:owppwe N” .m
cowppwe om» .N
ooo.oo_w .P

"mamcoomom

ON u OOOOOO

N

"44

oz
2

:oOFFOE H.FO .m
coOFFOE ONOO .O
ooo.o0NO .m
ooo.mN a .N
:oOFFOE m.FO .F
OOoOcoommm

OF n OOOme_Ooz
OO u z

ooo.o~a .P

OOoOooomoa
.lm u OOOO O ooz

Mr.
mp z

ocoz
“Oomooomom

FO u OOOOWM Ooz
FO u z

:OOPFPE omw .N
opm.m~¢m .p

"OmmooOOom

N u OOOOOM.OO2

mm n z
ocoz
"OmOcoOOom

O u OOOme Ooz
OO u z

 

muoogowcouuumom

 

mocmgoycoouoga

 

zuwu omgm>ogp

30=Omom

commxmaz

googo: copcmm

ogwmcooOOOmoo

 

Ogcoowouo upwwogu mo umoo Fmocco asp Oo muoswumo cm comm go>o so» o>o=
”OOOOOFOOO OO OOOOO FOOOOO--.FO OOOOF

Oaawooesoo goo» oa

.Opoooooomom an ooow>oga Omposwumm

"m onhmmzo

wgwmccowumwzo mUCQLmLEOUIHmon— n Glamon— mmgwmccowummzo mucmewcoolmLm u Olmga u>m¥

 

9l

 

 

 

 

 

O O O O OO OO OO OON O O O OF OO NON AOFOF
O F O O OO FF OO FO O F O N OF OO OOFO OOOOOOgO
O N O O FO ON OO OF OF O F O NO OO OOOOOOO
O O O N OO OF OO NO O F O O OF . FO OOOOOOOz
O F O N OO ON OO NO O O F O ON OO LOOOO: OOOOOO
O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O 2 O z O-OOOO O-OgO OOFOOOOO
0-0000 O-OgO 0-0000 O-OgO 0-0000 O-OOO z
gong u.=oo oz Oo>

go gozmc< oz

 

F»uOooEEoo goo» ow »uowOO owwmogp ooo ooOp=o>ogo
pooowouo goO OOOOO Foocoo :O :o pomom Ow zoos 3o; moom »:O o>oz oo» oo "oF zthmmoo
.oowuoooo »o cowuom>oga pooowoo< gow OogooOocooxm poooo--.wm mom<p

92

.ogFocconOooo oucogmmcooupmoa u o-pmoo

mogFOcooFOOooo mocogomcooioga u cuoga ">mx

 

 

 

go gozmc< oz

 

 

 

o o o F ooF m Fm 0F c o o o m FF ooNFaFu mpO>FgO

FF F o o mm m mm OF 0 o F F o OF zuFom=-Ougoou
FOFomeo

o o N O mm oF FO FN FF N FN m NF mm »ucoou-»uFu

o o o o om NF mm mm oF N N F ON Om OOocFOom

F N o m mm mN om FO o o O N on NO ucmsoogoOou
:oFOOmOogO

FF F o 0 mm N Na NF 0 o N F m mF :oFuoooom
moFcooFO

o o O F mm oF mm mN OF N m N NF ON \moFgoocchm

I mo ImL cowmmmwogm

O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z o a O a O \coFOOooooo

O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO
zocx u.:oa oz Oo>

 

pcooFuuo gow OFOOO

N»uFoosEoo goo» :F »umOOO oFmOogO oco coFo=o>ogo
Foooco co co uooom OF zoos 3oz omoF »:O o>os oo» on

HF: zoFmeoo
.Ooogw FocoFOoooooo »o :oFu=m>ogO ucooFuo< go» OogouFocooxm Foooo--.mm uom<F

93

Data tabulated from the Muskegon meeting shows that, on the
Pre-Q, 86% (N = 32) persons said they had no idea of local expendi-
tures and only 8% (N = 3) stated yes. The percent of no answers
increased to 95% (N = 18) on the Post-Q, with 5% (N = l) answering
yes.

The responses compiled from the Saginaw questionnaires
showed only slight changes from the norm. Some 88% (N = 74) answered
no on the Pre-Q and 7% (N = 6) checked yes. On the Post-Q, 81%

(N = 26) stated no, with 13% (N = 4) providing a yes answer. This
was the highest percentage of yes responses of any location on the
Post-Questionnaire.

In Traverse City, on the Pre-Q, 96% (N = 51) answered no to

 

this question. This was the highest percentage of no responses from
any location. 0n the Post-Q, this figure dropped to 89% (N = l7).

In Table 39 the responses by occupational groups are pre-
sented. It is evident from the results that most respondents were
not aware of local expenditures for traffic safety. The business
profession had the highest percentage of "no" responses on the Pre-Q
with 98% (N = 63). On the Post-Q, the private citizen group had the
highest percentage of "no" responses--lOO% (N = 3). City/county
officials ranked highest on the "yes" scale with 21% (N = 8) on the
Pre-Q and l7% (N = 2) on the Post-Q. The engineering/planning
group also had l7% (N = 2) "yes" responses on the Post-Q.

As in question 9, the respondent was asked to provide an
estimate of local spending for accident prevention and traffic

safety. A fill-in blank was provided--"If yes, give estimate ."

94

Very few respondents completed this part of item l0--ll on the

Pre-Q and 5 on the Post-Q. Answers ranged from $0 to $600,000.

Ease and Expense of Solving Accident Problems

Tables 40 and 41 present the data from question ll which
asked the respondent, "Do you believe that most traffic accident
problems (or potential problems) can be identified and solved
rather easily and at minimal cost?" The item could be answered
"yes," "no," or "don't know."

Of 232 overall responses on the Pre-Q, some 48% (N = lll)
checked airmanswer. The rest of the responses tabulated were nearly
equally split between the yes response (25%, N = 57) and don‘t know
(28%, N = 64). (Refer to Table 40.)

Table 40 also presents the total responses (N = 95) to this
question from the Post-Q. The figures tabulated closely corresponded
to those from the Pre-Q. The percent of no responses increased to
52% (N = 49), whereas the other categories decreased somewhat.

The Benton Harbor results are similar to the overall Pre-Q
results. Forty-eight percent (N = 28) answered no; 19% (N = ll)
answered yes; and 33% (N = 19) stated don't know. On the Post-Q,
40% (N = 10) answered no; 28% (N = 7) answered yes; and 32% (N = 8)
answered don't know.

In Muskegon, on the Pre-Q, the percentage of no responses
was 62% (N = 23), the highest of any location. The percent of yes
responses was also highest in Muskegon--32% (N = l2). 0n the Post-Q,
however, the percentage answering no dropped to 37% (N = 7) which

was the lowest of any location.

95

.ogFoocoFOOmoo mo:ogow=oo-pmoo u cuumom

mogFoocoFuOooo mooogoOcoouogO u ouogo ">mx

 

 

 

go gozmc< oz

 

 

 

ON ON ON OO NO OO OO FFF NN FN ON FO OO NON oOFOF
FN O ON OF OO NF OO ON OF O OO OF OF OO OOOO OOgOOOOF
NN F OO ON OO ON OO FO OF O FN OF NO OO OOOFOOO
NO O O N FO F NO ON NO O NO NF OF FO OOOOOOOz
NO O OO OF OO OF OO ON ON F OH HO ON OO gOOOOz OOOOOO
O. 2 O z O z. O 2 O 2.. O. z 0-0000 O-OgO OOFOOOOO
0-0000 O-OgO O-OOOO O-OgO O-OOOO O-OgO
zoox O.coo oz Oo>

 

Numou FOsFoFs no oco »FFOOm gozpog oo>FoO ooo ooFOFpomoO mo coo FOEoFoogo
FOFOcouoo gov OsoFoogo OcooFuuo omeogu pmos “on“ o>oFFmo oo» on
.Oonouoo »o OEOFoogO OcooFoo< mcF>Fom mo omcmoxm ocO oOON--.oO Nom<p

nFF zthmmac

96

.mgFOOOoFuOooo oucogomcoouumom u Oupmoa

mogFoccoFOOooO mocogoycooumgm n oumga ">Ox

 

 

 

go gonOO oz

 

 

 

OO F OF N OO F OO O OO F OO O O FF OONFOFO mOO>FgO

OO O ON O O O OO O FF F ON O O OF spFom=\OOgooO
FOFoFOmO

OO O ON O OO O OO FN FF N FN O NF OO »u=oou-»OFO

ON O NO ON OO FF FO ON ON O FN OF ON OO OOooFOoO

ON O ON OF OO OF OO FN ON O FO OF FO NO HomeoogoOcm
:oFOOOOogO

OF F OO O OO O FO O ON N ON O O OF :oFaouoOO
OOFOOOFO

FF N OF O OF O NO OF O F OF O NF ON \chgmooOOom

O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z OuumoO OuogO coFOOowogO

O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO z FOOOOOOOOOO

3ocx O.:oO oz Om»

 

NOOoo FOeFoFE HO ooo »FFOOO gocpog oo>FoO com omFOFuoooF on coo
FOEOFoogO FOFpompoo gov OsmFoogO OomoFooo uFOmogu uOos was» m>oFFmo oo» oO
.ooogO FOOoOOOOoouO »a OsmFoogO pooowuo< OOF>FoO wo mmcoaxm oom oOOO--.FO OOO<O

uFF onhmmzo

97

The conference in Saginaw produced the results also shown in
Table 40. On the Pre-Q, 44% (N = 37) answered no; 2l% (N = 18)
answered yes; and 35% (N = 29) stated don't know. The percentage
of no responses increased to 63% (N = 20) on the Post-Q and the
percent of yes and don't know answers both decreased.

Finally, in Traverse City, on the Pre-Q, 30% (N = 16)

 

answered yes; 43% (N = 23) answered no; and 26% (N = l4) stated
don't know. On the Post-Q, only l6% (N = 3) answered yes; but 63%
(N = l2) stated no (equal to the high percent noted in the Saginaw
results).

Table 4l indicates that of the occupational groups, the
private citizen group had the highest percent of yes responses on
both the Pre-Q and Post-Q, 36% (N = 4) and 33% (N = l), respectively.
The numbers (N) were very small, however.

The engineering group had the highest percent of no
responses on the Pre-Q with 62% (N = l6); they also had the highest
percentage on the Post-Q at 75% (N = 9).

The question also asked the respondents to indicate how they
felt local traffic accident problems could be solved. A fill-in
blank was provided.

On the Pre-Q, 49 persons indicated their thoughts on this
issue. This was 2l% of the total number of respondents. 0n the
Post-Q, l6 persons or l7% of the total number of respondents

answered this part of question ll.

98

For the most part, the responses on both the Pre-Q and
Post-Q indicated that "more," "better," or "increased" enforcement
or "improved“ traffic engineering were the most appropriate ways of
dealing with local accident problems. Several related examples were:
"educate the police on the problem"; "eliminate yield signs"; "strict
enforcement and lower speed limits in problem areas." Several
respondents made the comment that the solution(s) to the problem

was known, but that costs for correcting were too high.

Awareness of Federal Program Assistance

In an attempt to obtain information regarding the partici-
pants' knowledge of federal programs in the area of traffic safety,
question 12 asked, "Are you aware of federal assistance programs for
dealing with local traffic safety problems?" The results are indi-
cated in Tables 42 and 43.

As Table 42 shows, most persons were unaware of assistance
programs. Overall, on the Pre-Q, only 30% (N = 69) answered yes on
this item; 69% (N = l59) stated no. There was some increase in the
percent of yes responses on the Post-Q, however, with 39% (N = 37)
answering in this manner; 56% (N = 53) still said they were not
aware.

Those completing the Pre-Q in Benton Harbor and answering

 

yes to this question represented 29% (N = 17); 7l% (N = 41) checked
a no answer. 0n the Post-Q, those answering yes represented 33%

(N = 8); again, however, 63% (N = 15) stated no on this question.

99

.ogFOOOoFOOooO oucogmmcoouumoa u Oupmoa

"mgFOccoFuOooO oooogmmcouuoga n OumgO ">Ox

 

 

 

 

go gozmo< oz

 

 

O O F O OO OO OO OOF OO FO OO OO OO FON Oo<FOF
O F O O OO OF OF OO NO O FN OF OF NO OOFO OOOOOOgF
O N N N FO OF FO FO FO OF FO FO NO OO zOOOOOO
O O O F OO OF OF ON NO O OF F OF FO OOOOOOOz
O F O O OO OF FF FO OO O ON FF ON OO gOOOOI OOOOOO
O z O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O-OOOO O-OOO OOFOOOOO
0-0000 O-OgO 0-0000 O-OgO O-OOOO O-OgO z
zocg O.:oO Om>

 

OmsmFoogO Ouomom oOOmOgu
Foqu OOF: OOFFOoo gow OsogOogo OOOOOOOOOO FOgooow mo ogozm oo» og< "NF zOFFOOOO
.oonOuoO »o moOOOOFOO< EOgOogO Fmgmomu mo OOocmgO3<--.NO OOO<O

100

In Muskegon, on the Pre-Q, only 19% (N = 7) stated yes-~the
lowest percentage of any location; 78% (N = 29) stated no, the
highest percent of no answers. The Post-Q results were quite dif-
ferent, however, with 32% (N = 6) yes answers and 68% (N = l3) no
responses.

Data from the Saginaw conference indicates that there was a
higher awareness of federal programs. Some 37% (N = 3l) answered yes
to this item on the Pre-Q and 6l% (N = 51) answered no. 0n the
Post-Q, 47% (N = 15) answered yes--the highest percentage of any
location; likewise the percent of persons answering no was the
lowest at 47% (N = l5).

Observing the responses from the Traverse City meeting it is
noted that on the Pre-Q, 27% (N = l4) checked a yes answer; 73%

(N = 38) stated no. There was some improvement on the Post-Q with
42% (N = 8) answering yes and 53% (N = 10) responding with a no
answer.

Insofar as occupational groups are concerned, it is apparent
from the data shown in Table 43 that, on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q,
the "engineering" group was most aware of federal assistance programs.
Their yes responses represented 73% (N = l9) and 83% (N = 10),
respectively, on the two questionnaires. The "business“ and "courts-
health" groups had the lowest percent of yes answers on the Pre-Q
with l4% in each instance.

This question also provided the respondent with an oppor-

tunity to indicate where information on funding was obtained. A

lOl

.mgFocconOooO mocogOOcoouamoO u oupOoO

mogFoccoFOOmoO moomngoou-ogO u OumgO “>Ox

 

 

 

go gozmc< oz

 

 

 

O O O O FO N NO O O F OF N O FF OONOOFO OOO>FgO

FF F O O OO O OO NF O O OF N O OF OOFOozumugooO
FOFoOOOO

O O O N OO F OO ON NO O OO FF NF FO »pcooO-»OFO

O O O O OO OF OO OO ON O OF O ON OO OOooFOoO

F N N F OO OF OO OO OO OF OO FF OO NO Ocosoogowcm
ooFOOowogO

FF F O O OO O FF OF OO O ON O O OF :oFuOooou
OOFOOOFO

O O O O FF N FN F OO OF OF OF NF ON \OchwocFOcm

O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z Oupmoa OnogO :oFOOomogO

IIIIIII. .IIIII. .IIIII. .IIIII. .IIIII. IIIIII. \coFuOOoooo

cupOoO O-ogO O-OOoO oumgm O-OOoO Onogm
3ocg O.coO oz Oo>

 

FmsanogO »umOOO oFOpogp
FOooF OOF: OOOFooo gov OzogOogo oucOOOFOOO Fmgmoom Oo ogon oo» og<

uNF zOFFOOOO
.OOoogO FOcoFuoooooo »O ouOOOOFOO< EOgOogO Fogooou Oo OOocmgOzO--.OO OOO<F

 

102

fill-in space was provided following the statement--"If yes, from

WhOI'fl? . u

 

Thirty-nine persons completed this part of question 12 on
the Pre-O (17% of the total N); likewise, 28 persons (29%) completed
the fill-in on the Post-Q. Combining the responses from both

questionnaires, several sources were indicated as noted in Table 44.

TABLE 44.--Sources of Federal Program Assistance as Indicated by
Conference Participants.

 

 

Source Number (N)
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning 21
Michigan Department of Transportation 11
U.S. Department of Transportation 12
Michigan State Police 3
All Other 22

 

As can be observed, 21 persons stated that they became aware of
federal programs assistance through the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning. This choice was indicated more than any of the

others on both the Pre-O and the Post-Q.

Awareness of Specific Local Projects

 

Question 13 related very closely to the previous question.
The participants were asked, "Are you aware of any local traffic

safety projects or programs which have received federal assistance?"

103

As noted in Tables 45 and 46, on the Pre-Q, 29% (N = 68)
stated that they were aware of such a local project. Some 68%
(N = 157) answered no. Only 3% (N = 7) did not answer the question.
When the Post-Q results were examined, a slight increase in the
percentage of yes answers was evident--32% (N = 30). The percentage
of no answers dropped to 63% (N = 59).

The Benton Harbor results on the Pre-Q closely paralleled

 

the overall figures, i.e., 29% (N = 17) answered yes and 69% (N = 40)
stated no on this item. On the Post-Q, there was a slightly lower
percent of yes answers at 25% (N = 6). The no responses increased
to 71% (N = 17).

In Muskegon, 33% (N = 12) answered yes to this question on
the Pre-Q--higher than any other location. However, 69% (N = 25)
also stated no, which was one percentage point higher than the
overall percentage. The number of non-respondents on both the Pre-Q
and Post-Q was zero.

The results from the Saginaw conference, at least on the
Pre-Q, were also close to the overall results. Twenty-nine percent
(N = 24) stated yes and 64% (N = 54) answered no. However, on the
Post-O, 41% (N = 13) indicated a yes answer, the highest percentage
of any of the conferences; just half, 50% (N = 16) answered no.
Saginaw also had the largest number and percent of "no answer"
responses.

The Traverse City data was most similar to the overall

 

results. On the Post-O in particular, the results were exactly

parallel to the overall figures in each category.

104

.ogFocooFOOooO muoogmwoounumoa u oupmom

mogchcoFumooO mucogomcounmga u OnogO ">Ox

 

 

 

 

 

go gozmo< oz

 

 

O O O F OO OO OO FOF NO OO ON OO OO FON oOFOF
O F O O OO NF NF OO NO O ON OF OF OO OOFO OOOOOOOF
O O F O OO OF OO OO FO OF ON ON NO OO OOOFOOO
O O O O OF OF OO ON ON O OO NF OF OO OOOOOOOO
O F N F FF FF OO OO ON O ON FF ON OO OOOOOO OOOOOO
O 2 O 2 O z O 2 O 2 O z O-OOOO O-OOO OOFOOOOO
O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO
zoox u.ooO oz Oo>

 

FoocOOOFOOO FogOOOF om>Fouog m>Og
goFsz Osogmoga go Ouuonoga »OOFOO oFFFOgO FOooF »=O Fo ogozm oo» mg<
.ooFuOooO »o OuooOogO Foooo oFFFooam

"OF zoFFOOOO
OO OOOOOOO:<--.OO OOOOF

105

.mgFOooonOooO mooongoooupOoO u Onpmoa

OmgchooFuOooo muowgowooouogm u OnmgO "FOO

 

 

 

 

go go3Oo< oz

 

 

O O FF F FO N OF F OO F FF F O O OONFOFO OOO>FgO

OF F O O FO O OF FF ON N FN O F OF OOFOOO-OOOOOO
FOFOFOOO

O O O O OO OF OO ON FF N OO OF NF OO OOOOOO-OOFO

FF N N F OF OF OO OO FF N O O OF OO OOOOFOOO

O F N F S : OOOO O : OOOF O O OSEEEE
:oFOOmFogO

FF F O O OO O FF OF OO O ON O O OF OOFOOOOOO
OOFOOOFO

O O O F OO O FO O NO O OO FF OF ON OOOFOOOOFOOO

O 2 O 2 O z O 2 O z O z O-OOOO O-OOO OOFOOOFOOO

.IIIIII. .IIIII: .IIIII. IIIIIII .IIIII. .||||:. \oonOOoouO

O-OOOO 0-000 O-OOOO O-OOO O-OOOO O-OOO
zoox O.=oO oz Oo>

 

NooOOOOFOOO FOgoomF om>Fouog m>OO
zong OEOgOogO go Opomnoga »OOFOO OFFFOgu FOooF »=O Fo ogmzm oo» og<

HOF zthmmzo
.ooogO Foconoooouo On Opoowogm FOooo oFFFOOOO Fo OmooogOz<--.OO OOO<O

106

In Table 46, which displays these data by occupation, it is
seen that the engineering group was "most aware" of specific local
projects with 65% (N = 17) and 62% (N = 8) yes answers respectively
on the Pre- and Post-Q. The "business" group had the lowest per-
centage of yes answers with only 9% (N = 6); this percentage did
increase to 11% (N = 2) on the Post-Q, however.

Fifty-five (55) persons, or 24% of the total number of
respondents on the Pre-Q, also completed the fill-in section of
this item. To support their answer, respondents were asked to
describe any local traffic safety projects or programs which had
received federal assistance. On the Post-Q, 24 persons, or 25% of
the total N completed this part of Question 13.

For purposes of summarizing the data, the responses on
both the Pre-Q and Post-Q were arranged into three categories--
engineering related projects, enforcement programs, and "other"
types of local highway safety programs. Table 47 indicates the

number of responses in each category (all locations combined).

TABLE 47.--Categorica1 Identification of Local Federal Assistance

 

 

Programs.
Category Pre-Q Post-Q Total (N)
Engineering 39 13 52
Enforcement 9 7 16
Other 7 4 11

 

Key: Pre-Q = Pre-conference Questionnaire;
Post-Q = Post-conference Questionnaire

107

As can be observed, the largest number of responses fell
into the "traffic engineering" area; a total of 52 persons provided
an answer which indicated their knowledge about traffic safety
projects related most directly to some type of engineering function.
Several examples of responses were: "pavement markings," "TOPICS"
programs, "traffic control signs," and "intersection improvements."

Responsibility for Local Traffic
Safety Programs

 

 

Question 14 was an open-ended item which asked the respondent,
"In your opinion, who do you feel has major responsibility for
traffic safety programs in your community?" The question appeared
on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q conference questionnaires. The purpose
of including this question was to identify any group, profession or
agency believed by most respondents to be chiefly responsible for
accident prevention or traffic safety at the local level.

Because of the wide variety of responses to this question,
a method of categorizing the answers was developed and tables were
prepared on the basis of location (and total responses). This was
also done on the basis of occupational groups (see Tables 48-51).

The data indicate that most respondents felt that law
enforcement officials were primarily responsible for traffic safety
programs (Tables 48 and 49). This was evident on both the pre-
conference and post-conference questionnaires. Most also felt that
it was the responsibility of the local police department. "Govern-
ment“ in general, and local government in particular, received the

next highest number of votes on this item.

108

mgFocooFuOooO ouoogomoooumgm

 

ON N O F OM OF oF F NF Fm N NF N F F O. OO OOF NF O ON FF OF m4<h0F

 

 

 

FOO u 2O
.35
N O O N FF F O F O OF O O F O F N O OO O O O O OF mwg¢>ogF
FOF u 2O
OF F N F OF O F O NF OO O N O O O N ON OO O O F O ON socFOOO
FFO u 2O
O O O F F O F O O O O F O O N F O NN O O O N FF :oOoxOoz
FFO u zv
googO:
F F O O O F O O O FN N O F F F O OF OO O N O O ON coacmO
OQSSlSO1lIFannJIJSOJfilIFNPSS—I
I." 90 01.00 J 00 00 3 1.0 000 0 q+U.O
HS 4.0.1.9 . D o. 11. L.n PD. n 3 11. L. p. a 3 c0535..—
OOOOwmuwuwsqumwwwstuw
3K 1.. 0 .L. d S D. 9A d I...
S S HOD. “03 98 ud I. .13 vddlvd
53 100.0 003 . 0 a 0 0
/0 all. D. 3AI..S 31L...) I. l
I" H opu 313d . I’d I? I...
U u M 055 “CI... I... 3 3
0.3 V m l..N3 3 a 3
"I... ..A U Np D.
5 IL . a 3
1. 3 m
MM J
gosuo .OOOO ooom-»o3;OFz pooscgm>ow Ocosmugomcm 3OO

 

F»OF=oEEoo goo» OF mamgOogO »OOFOO

oFFFOgO goF »OFFFOFO=oOOmg goOOs OO; FOOF oo» on on: .ooFcFOo goo» OF OOF zOFFOOOO
.ooFuOuoo »o OeOgOogO OumFOO uFFFogF Fouoo goF »OFFFOFO:ooOOO--.OO OOO<F

109

mgFOOOoFOOmoO mocogwmcoo-OOoO

 

 

 

 

NF N O O FF O O O O ON O N O O O O OF OO O F OF O FO O4<FOF
FOF . z.
3.5
O O O O O F N O F O O F O O O N O NF F O O O O oOgo>ng
FON . 2.
O O F F O O N O O O O O F O F F F OF N O F O OF 3OOFOOO
FFF . 2.
O F O O O O O O O O O O F O F O O OF O F N F NF coOmeoz
FFN u z.
googm:
O F N O O F N O N F O F F O N O O OF O O O O O coacmO
0 8 S S I. S OJ .1. 1.. I. N n.. OJ I... S «J .I. I. N nl S S .I
I. n p. 3 0 1 O O J 0 O 0 0 a 1. 0 O 0 O O 1. u. 0 F5533.—
" S I: U. I. D. . D D. I. 1.. l. n D. D. n D I. 1.. I... D. a 3 .
3 l. a 0 UV 1. D. I: V U J a 1.. U D. V U 1.. J D.
no u 1. O .l a no I. I... .I S 1. 1 J a 1 I. .I S .4 a L. I.
3 Oh I. 0 l. d S D. OA .0 I:
S S H U D. ud 3 9 3 U IL .I a U .0 I: d
S 3 .I. 0 D. 0 0 3 a . 0 3 0 0
/ 0 9 I.— D. 3 A I... S 3 .L. S .I. IL
.I. n H 3 D. U 3 I: d . I: d .L. I...
u u M o S 6 a lo 0 I... o 3 3
D. 0 V m l. N a 3 a 3
n l. IA U N D. D.
5 II. o a 3
1.. S a N
.M J I.
gszO .OOOO omom.»OchF: Ocmsogm>oo Homeougomou 3mg

 

F»chossoo goo» OF OsOgOogo »OOFOO

uFFFOgu goF »OFFFOFO:oOOmg gowns OOz Foo» oo» oo ogz .ooFcFoo goo» :F OOF zoFFOOOO
.conOooo »a OEOgOogO »OmFOO uFFwogF FOooo go» FuFFFoFOOoOOOO--.OO OOO<F

110

On the basis of occupational groups (Tables 50 and 51),
most respondents felt that "law enforcement" was primarily respon-
sible for traffic safety. Only the education group and the courts/
health group did not rank law enforcement first; on both question-

naires each indicated that "government" was principally responsible.

Need for Improved Management

Question 15 required a yes/no/don't know response to the
question, "Do you feel that there is (or may be) a need for improved
management or coordination of your community's traffic safety
efforts?" The results are shown in Tables 52 and 53.

As can be observed from Table 52, most persons, 60%
(N = 139) overall felt that there was (or may be) need for better
management; moreover, 35% (N = 78) didn't answer or stated they
didn't know. These percentage figures changed only slightly on the
Post-Q. Only 6% (N = 15) and 12% (N = 11) respectively answered no
to this question.

The highest percent of yes responses was observed in the
Benton Harbor data. Here, 71% (N = 41) answered yes on the Pre-O;
24% (N = 14) stated don't known and 5% (N = 3) said there was no
need for improved management. On the Post-Q, 56% (N = 14) said yes;
8% (N = 2) said no, and 36% (N = 9) said they didn't know. This
last figure was the highest percent of don't know responses.

Almost half of those individuals who responded to this
item on the Pre-Q from the Muskegon area stated that they believed

there was room for improved management, although at 49% (N = 18),

lll

mgFocooFOOmoO oocmngcoOIOgO

 

 

 

 

 

OONFOFO
N O F F O F F O F N O O F O O O F O F O N F N OOO>FgO
O O O N O O O O O F O O O O F O O O O O O O O OOFOOIOOOgooO
FOFOFFFO
O O O O O O O O O FF O N O O O N F ON O O O O OF »O:ooO-»OFO
O O O N OF O N F O OF N OF O O O N FF OO O OF N O OF OOmoFOoO
O F N O O N F F N O O N O O F N O FO O O O N ON gowEmugoFcO
F O O F N F O F O F O F O O O O O O O O O O O :oFuoooom
OOFOOOFO
O O N O F F O F F O O O O O O O N O O O O O O \OoFgomoFOOO
0 8 S S I. S 3 1| 1. I. N P. 3 I: S 3 .I I. N P. S S .1 cowmmmmbgn.
m... O O... m m O. .o O O m O. O. m W m. O O m m. m. m. w O FOOFOOOOSO
F...— l. a 0 V 10. D. I: V U J a 1.. U D. V U 1.. J D.
U U 1.. 0 .I a U I. I: .I. S 1. 1.. J a 1.. I. .I S 1.. a l.. I.
S 3 ..A I 0 I. d S D. K d I:
S S H U D. U 3. DJ 3 U I. .I a U .0 I: d
S A... I 0 D. 0 0 3 3 . 3 a 0 0
/ O 9 l D. 3 A I... S 3 I... S I.. II.
I n H 3 D. u 3 I: d . 1. d L. L.
u u W O S 6 w I... o I.. o 3 3
D. 3 m I.. a a a a
n l. IA U N D. D.
S I.. o a 3
19. a N
.M J I.
gospo .pOmO ooom-»Oz;OF: ucmscgm>oO pooEmugoFom 30;

 

N»uF:oEEoo goo» OF OeOgOogO »um.OO

oFFFOgO go. »OFFFOFO:oOOog goOOs OO; FOO. oo» oo oz: .coFoFOo goo» OF ”OF zoFFOOOO
.OoogO FOooFuOOoooo »o OEOgOogO »ao.om oFFFOgF Foooo go. »uFFFOFO=oOOmO--.OO OOO<F

112

ogFocooFummoO mocwgowooo-pmoa

 

 

 

 

 

=m~...o
O O O O O O O O O N O F O O O O F N O O F O F mpO>FgO
O O O O O O O O O N O O F O O F O F F O O O O OOFOOIFOHgOOO
FOFUFOOO
F O O O O N F O O O O F O O O F N OF F O N O O »p:=ouu»pFO
N O N N F O F O O O O O F O F O O OF N O O O O mmmcwmom
O F F F N O O O N O O O O O O O F ON F O O O O pcmsmugoycm
N O O O F O O O F O O O O O O N N O O O O O O :onmuoum
OchooFO
N O O O N O F O F O O O O O O O N F F O F N O \OchOOOFOcm
0 an S S I. S 3 .l I. I. N P. 3 4. S 3 .l I. N P. S S .l
I. n p. 3 0 1. O O J 0 0 O O a 1. 0 O 0 0 O 1. u. 0
H S I: U. I. D. . D D. I. 1. l. n D. n. n 3 I. 1. l. n. a 3 commmwmogm
3 l. a O V 1. n. I: V u J a .4 u n. V u 1. J p.
N. u 1. O .I a no I. J .l S 1. 1. J a 1. I. .I S 1. a l. l \cowumazuuo
S a K I. O l. d S D. K d I...
S S H G n. no 3 9 a H. I. .l a no A. I: d
S 3 I 0 D. O 0 3 a . 3 a 0 O
/ O 9 I.- D. 3 A I.. S 3 In. S I. II.
I n H n... D. u 3 1.. d . I: d l. l.
u u M o s 6 a lo 0 lo 0 3 3
D. 3 V w l. N a a a a
n I.. 1A U N D. D.
5 II. o a F.1—
1. a N
.M J I.
gmguO .uomO ooom-»ozzOFz pom2ogo>oO pomsmugomou so;

 

F»choEEoo goo» OF msogOogO »uomom
omeogu go» »uFFFochoowog gonna mo: Foo. oo» on on: .ooFcFoo goo» OH "OF ZOHFOOOO
.ooo.O FocoFumoouoO »o mangOogO »uowmm umeogF FouoO go. »uFFFoFmooomomuu.HO OOOOF

113

.mgwoccopummoc muomgmmooouumom u OquoO

.wgwooooOOOmoO mocmgOOOooumgO u O-mgO "FOO

 

 

 

go gmzmc< oz

 

 

 

 

ON ON OO O. N. .. O O. OO OO OO OO. OO NON .O.o.
ON O OO O. O . O O OO O. NO OO O. OO OO.O OOOO)...
on O OO ON O. O O O OO O. OO OO NO OO 3O=.OOO
ON O OO O. .N O O O OO O. OO O. O. NO OOOOOOOz
OO O ON O. O N O O OO O. .N .O ON OO OOO.OO OOOOOO
O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z O z O-OOOO O-O.O OO.OOOOO
O-OOOO O.O.. O-OOOO O-O.O O-OOOO O-O.O
zocx p.=oO oz Om>

 

«OugoOOO »uo.OO o..mogu O_xu.=ossoo goo» .o ooOOO=.ogooo
go pomEmOOoms om>ogas. go. omm: O FOO ads gov O. «.mzu wasp FOO. oo» oO

uOF ZOFPOOOO

.oowumooO »o OOOEOOOOOO omoogOEF go. Ommz--.NO OOOOF

114

this was the lowest percentage of yes answers. This same group also
producted the highest percent of "don't know“ answers at 43% (N = l6)
on the Pre-Q. 0n the Post-Q, this group also had the lowest percent
of yes answers--53% (N = l0) and, in turn, the highest percent of

no answers--2l% (N = 4).

In Saginaw, 60% (N = 50) of the respondents on the Pre-Q
answered yes to this question. This was the same as the overall
figure of yes responses. In the other two categories, the results
were similar to the overall totals. There was little change
observed in the Post-Q results.

Finally, in considering the results from the Traverse City

 

conference, it was apparent from the table that there was little
variation from either the Pre-Q or Post-Q results overall at this
location.

Table 53 indicates little variation among the various groups
in the percent of yes responses on the Pre-Q. The "lowest ranking"
groups were the engineering and private citizens, both at 50%; the
courts/health group was high at 7l% (N = l0). 0n the Post-Q, the
"city-county official" group demonstrated the most noticeable change
from the Pre-Q; from 62% (N = 23) yes responses to 25% (N = 3);
from 5% (N = 2) to 25% (N = 3) no responses.

The second part of Question 15 also asked the respondent to
suggest how the management or coordination of local traffic safety
efforts might be improved. 0n the Pre-Q, 99 respondents completed

this part of Question l5; and, on the Post-Q, 42 respondents had

115

.Ewmccowvmwzo wucwgmmcoolvmom n Olpmom mmemccomewzo muchmwcoolan— u OIOLn— u>u¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O OO O O O O. . OO. O OO O O O. OON.O.O OOO>..O
OO O ON O O O O O N. . .N O. O O. OO.OOO-OO.OOO
.O.O...O
OO O NO N. ON O O N ON O NO ON N. NO , OOOOOO-OO.O
ON O .O ON O . O O ON O. OO OO ON OO OOOO.OOO
N. O NN O. O. O O. O ON .N OO OO OO NO OOOOOOOO.OO
coOOOm.ogO
NN N .O O .. . O O NO O OO O O O. OO.OOOOOO
Oc.o:OFO
ON O NO .. O . O N NO O OO O. N. ON \OO..OOO.OOO
O z O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z 0-0000 O-O.O OO.OOO.O.O
III III III ..III. III \oofioooooo
0-000. O-O.O 0-0000 O-O.O O-.OO. O-O.O z
zocx p.:oO oz Om>

go gmzmc< oz

 

OOpgo..m OOO.OO o...O.O 0.0u.coseoo .oo» .o =o.»mo.ogoou go
pcmEOOOcos om>ogas. go. ommo O Foo »os go. O. mgosu pong Foo. oo» oO "OF ZOHFOOOO
.OoogO FOOoOOOOoooO »n OOOEOOOOOz Om>ogosH go. ommz--.OO OOOOF

116

specific suggestions to offer. These numbers represented 43% and
44%, respectively, of the total number of respondents.

From a review of the comments, it was apparent that many
persons felt that there was a need for better planning and coordina-
tion of scarce resources at the local level. Some suggested that
this could best be accomplished through a local safety council or a
working committee of some sort to deal with accident problems.

It was also frequently noted that both engineering and law enforce-
ment officials should be involved. Typical comments were "more
selective enforcement is needed"; "a method is needed to make the
public more aware of our problems"; "establish a board with all
agencies involved"; and "[we] should work through the local safety

council."

Value of Local Traffic Safety Conferences

Question l6 asked each respondent, “Do you feel that a local
'forum-type' discussion of traffic safety issues with state officials
can be a beneficial and effective process for developing appropriate
preventative measures?" Tables 54 and 55 indicate the results of
the data tabulation.

Table 54 shows overall that most persons felt that a local
"traffic forum“ was a beneficial process--81% (N = l88) responded
with a yes answer on the Pre-Q. A similar percentage (N = 77)

answered yes to this item on the Post-Q.

117

.og.Oooo.OOmoO mocogo.:oo-uOoO u OnpOoO

mmgwmccowflmmso mucmgmwconulmLm u OIan— u>mx

 

 

 

 

 

go gonOO oz

 

N N N O. N. .. N. ON .O NN .O OO. OO NON O0.0.
.N O .. O O. N O O OO O. .O OO O. OO OO.O OO.O>O..
O . N O O. O .. O .O ON NO OO NO OO OOO.OOO
O . O N .. N O. O OO O. ON ON O. NO OOOOOOOz
O . O N O N O. O OO NN .O NO ON OO .OO.OO OOOOOO
O z O 2 O z O 2 O 2 O z O-OOOO 0-0.0 OO.OOOO.
O-OOOO O-O.O O-OOOO O-O.O O-OOOO O-O.O
zocg u.coO oz Oo>

 

OOmgoOOoE o>.pano>ogO OOO..OogOOO OOOOoFo>mo
go. OOooogO o>.pom..o OOO FOOo..ocon O on OOo OFO.o...o opOpO on. OO.:
OooOO. »um.OO o...ng .o coOOOoom.o OOO»O-Eo.o.= FOooF O OOOO FOO. oo» oO

uO. 20..OOOO
.oo.uOooO »o Ooocogo.oou »OO.OO o...OgF FOooO .o ooFO>--.OO OOOOF

118

In Benton Harbor, 8l% (N 47) answered yes on the Pre-Q, a

 

22) on the Post-Q. This was the

figure which increased to 88% (N
highest percentage response on the Post-Q of any location.

Table 54 also indicates that at the Muskegon conference,

78% (N = 29) stated yes to this question on the Pre-Q; l6% (N = 6)
answered no. Both figures were slightly above the overall per-
centages. The Post-Q results were also very similar to the overall
results.

At the conference in Saginaw, most respondents, 82% (N = 69),
answered yes to this item on the Pre-Q; on the Post-Q, l6% (N = 5)
checked a no answer which was the highest percentage of any of the
conference locations.

In Traverse City, the most evident change was the decrease
in yes responses between the Pre- and Post-Q, from 81% (N = 43) to
68% (N = l3). This location also reported the highest percentage
of non-responses, 11% (N = 6) on the Pre-Q and 2l% (N = 4) on the
Post-Q.

In considering the information in Table 55, it is noted that
most persons, in every category, felt that the meetings were useful.
In three instances, the percentages increased on the Post-Q; in
four categories, however, the percentages actually declined. The
"education" group had the highest percent of no answers on both the
Pre-Q and Post-Q, at 31% (N = 4) and 22% (N = 2), respectively.

On this question, the respondent was also given the oppor-
tunity to explain his "yes“ or "no" choice (why or why not).

Specifically, on the pre-conference questionnaire 36 (l6%)

119

.o..Ooco.uOmoO mooogm.coo-OOoO u OupOoO .mgOOocoOOOmoO moomgm.=ouuo.O u OnogO ">mx

 

 

 

 

 

 

go gonOO oz

O O OF N O O O O OOF N NO O N FF cm~...o OOO>.gO

OO N F F O O OF N FO O OF FF O OF OOFOmxqugooO
FOOo...O

O F O F O O OF F NO FF OF OO NF OO »u=ooO-»0.0

O F O O OF O O O FO FF OO OO FN OO OOoc.OoO

O O O O FF O O O OO ON FO OO OO NO a:o5oogo.=m
coOOOO.ogO

FF F O F NN N FO O FO O NO O O OF ooOOOooom
O:.::OFO

O F O N O F O N NO O OO NN FF ON \Oc..ooc.O:O

O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O 2 O z Ouumom OuogO oo.OOo.ogO

.IIIIII. IIIIII .IIIII. .IIIII: .IIIII. IIIIII \oo.OOOoooO

OuaOoO OuogO OupOoO OuogO O-uOoO O-mgO z
zocg u.:oO oz Om>

 

OmmgoOOme o>OOOOoo>mgO OOO.gOo.OOO O:.OoFo>OO
go. OOmoo.O o>.uoo..o OOO FOOU..ocmo O on =Oo OFOOo...o OOOOO OO.:

OmoOO. »O0.00 o...O.p .o ooOOOooO.o =oo»uusogo.= FOooF O “OO. Foo. oo» oO "OF zOHFOOOO
.OoogO FOooOOOOoooO On Ooooogm.=oo OOO.OO o...OgF FOooO .o ooFO>--.OO OOO<F

120

respondents chose to explain their answer. 0n the Post-Q, ll (12%)
respondents completed this part of question l6. A majority of the
comments were positive. Examples were: "the exchange of ideas was
good"; "a step forward"; and "[the forum] should enlighten state
officials to local problems." Some of those who responded negatively
stated such things as: "this type of discussion usually does not

get any follow-up action"; "the state doesn't listen"; and "people
recognize the problem, but don't know how to organize to accomplish

changes."

Overall Value of Forum

 

Question l7 was included on the post-conference question-
naire (only) in an attempt to identify the participants' attitudes
regarding the overall value of the meeting. Six possible responses
were provided. One or more of the responses could be checked.

Overall, the greatest number (N = 67) and highest percentage
(35%) of respondents chose the answer which indicated that the forum
was most valuable as a method for "providing for an exchange of views
and opinions of state officials and local leaders." The item checked
next most frequently was (N = 46) (24%), "[the forum] increased
knowledge about the accident problem." Other summary results were
as indicated in Table 56. Only three persons or 2% stated that,

"The meeting was not worthwhile." These percentages generally held
true for each of the individual meeting locations.

0n the basis of occupational groups (Table 57), it can be

observed that the highest number and percentages across all groups

121

.apco mgwoczowpmmzo mucmgmwcouupmoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

N m mm Ne w _P PF 0N mN me ¢N me amp 4<hop
o o em mp N m a e NN op NN N_ we xpwo mmem>mep
N _ mN mp m m mp op mN mp NN N_ we zmcwmmm
N _ mm mp N _ o. e em o_ eN o. Ne commxmzz
m _ me mp op c m N ON m N, N ow conga: season
a z a z N z a z a z a z z :o_amuo4
Page»
mp_;zngo3 mzov> cowpo< newcczu mangoes; smpnoga
Ho: mo ucm pecanam pmgmumu zummmm pcmu_uu<
mm: mmcmcuxm zgwczssoo co uwwemg» :0 «cu paon<
35$: cm L8 .8“. $2232 :oEmanEH $3395.
ugh mcwuw>ogm mcw~wcmmco mcwmmmgucH mcwcw>ogm mcwmmmeucH

 

.Amgos go mco xoozuv . . . mo magma cw «Pam=~m>
_Pm pm mm: umucwupm appcmumg so» ;o_;z Esgow as» was» m>mvpmn so» on

”up onHmmzo

.cowumUOJ an Essen we mzpm> Ppmsm>ouu.mm m4m<p

122

.cho mgchcoFummao mucmgmmcouupmom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o me m «F F o o «F F mN N N cmNFpFu wpm>Fga
o o om m oF, F o o o o ea c oF chmmINmuczou
FmFoFNFo
o o oN m FF e m m mN m mN oF mm zpcaoo-NuFu
m F mN m m N oF e mN oF mm wF oe mmmcszm
N F Ne mN N F oF m NN NF FF 0 mm “cosmogomcu
comemmoga
o o F¢ N o o NF N mF m mN m NF conmuaum
mchcmFm
m F mm N m F m F mm N mF a FN \mcFemm=Fm=w
a z a z a z a z a z u z z :omemmoga
FmpoF \coFuquuuo
mFngspgoz msz> coFuu< mchcsu msmgmoga smFaogm
use ugoaasm Fmemumu zngmm pcmuFuu<
mmcmsuxu NnFcaesou mo oFNFmgF so may uzon<
3.53: an :8 Low 322mg 2335.85 mmum F305.
mcFuF>oem mcFNchmgo mcmemgucF mchF>ogN mcmemgucF

 

.Fmgoe so ago xuosuv . . . mo magma :F anmaFo>
FFm um mm: umucmpum ancoumg so» :quz Ezgom msp was“ m>mFan so» oa
.azogc chonmaauuo an Sago; No

"NF zoFmeao
m=Fm> FFmgm>0nn.Nm m4m<h

123

waFm> xcom u >m ">mx

 

 

 

 

oo.o N o o o N o m mem>Feo mcheFeo
mEoFooLN co

m¢.o N o o o o m F moon ooou No xooo
msosmogo pcoeoFoEF

mN.m m o o F F o o op mocsu mo xoog
mgo>Fgo maoopcsoo

FN.N N o m F o o o -mFo .oooFoguca
poosomocoz

No.0 m o o F o o m oouocFogoou No goo;
mchoocchm

oo.¢ N o F N m o F oFNwoeF Loom
“cosmogomcm 3o;

mm.¢ m o F N F F F oFFmoeF No goo;

>m z z z z z z z oog< sanoLo

mFSoF m N o m N F
xcom

 

NFmsaF FmooF on“

no msanogo pomoFooo oFmNoL» gowns ocu oso Fomw oo» oo was: .AFFoLoooo
"AFm>mo Foooov msanoea “cooFUUN oFooaeF town: oo mchcmm--.Nm N4N<F

.momooomom mFoFoFmNo macaw

uF zomhmuzo

124

were indicated forithe following three items: (1) "Increasing
knowledge about the accident problem"; (2) "Providing for an exchange
of views . . . "; and (3) "Providing information on traffic safety

programs."

Comments from Participants

 

Question l8 was included as a final item on the Post-Q
(only) to give participants a further opportunity to express their
thoughts about the forums. It was an entirely open-ended item,
stating, "Please note below any other comments you have about the

meeting: " "

 

A tabulation of the number of responses revealed that 36
persons completed the item, representing approximately 38% of the
number of respondents (N = 95).

In Benton Harbor, nine persons completed this item which

 

was 36% of the total. In Muskegon, the number was seven or 37%; in
Saginaw, the number was 13 or 4l%; and, finally, in Traverse City,

 

the figure was seven or 37% of the total number of respondents.
Figure 1 presents a summary of the responses to question l8
on the basis of location.
Figure 2 presents the comments on this item on the basis

of occupation or profession.

Analysis of State Officials Questionnaires
In an attempt to determine the perceptions of selected state-
level government officials on local traffic safety issues, a separate

questionnaire was developed. This instrument was an abbreviated and

11255

 

. acFuool oga «soon o>os so» mucossoo goguo no. onoo coo: omooFo "NF zoFquac

.35 .33.: .3333 3:25.: 3&8 2:9; F83 9: 33¢ 35:5 23533. No :33--.— :8:

 

ucFoo noon--uoosu
neocouu- o>og F mquuoos
oochoago anon .o>Fu:ugugosoo
£2ququ uno- ofi No 0.5

u>FauoNuo
no: coFuoucomogn Fa¢xiamz «Fog

ooogoaou oFooe «so: Lagoon on:
u>og vFaogm-.mcFuoul ooaoncm

uochoogo woo nanosecoo FFos
oFnggugos FFox

N . . . :oFuuo o>FuFmoo
:F uFamoL oFom no: Nos: FFF:

oo coo NgumaooF
«as: o» no moFFFuoom zuooco uoz

moogoom
coFuosgoFcF mo ago)» woos no:

oFuFooom
who: coon o>og uFaou coFuogcou=F

Naowom

oFFFogu goons oocgoocoo meoguo
gqu ouooFuFagoo ou NaFcoasoooc
oFstzugor AFFogocow

. . . .3..an 38

2.2.3 .33:
co coFuolgoucF guano-us u.=ou

seas oFuuFF a your mosoo
oFoooo Foqu sass uaocF Foo; oz

sauna can :F
moxoa .o>chonogoeou .cag FFox

moooso :oquaomFo
goFF-sa oucF coxoga o>og ou cox—4

NFco «co—yo: sauces» u:93--¢go:u
mgoxosucanFooo oo» o>og u.coFo
--uchoogm no: ucFuooe No Fo>oF so;

mmeFoco acouFuuo No acouxo an
“.3335 no: 7:552:85
No qu o ouFoo omco>ou

mgooccho
muouom woo uFNNogu tosgoFcF
Lacuna gqu uooucoo «so: coo:

ocFuoos as on
oFoocm coeFFocooo AuFo «no:

A: F258 o :93...
--oouoo=oxo no: coFua-coch

“FoaoF>FocF oFoFmooomog “on
icoFquoNS «com 3538

ocFocom
Fogouuu co mFFouoo «so: you:

achcFoon coon <

macFuuos soFFsoo
Fo muouoog ago: mason glow

:3: 88m
.3... m... «5 3.885 8.. an.

mFmoo LoFanos o go on
Basaloczuy. 2.553:

an: o» nacogF
o>FuolsowcF auo>

Fawn“: uno- moz coFumom
:oFu-chougo qucasuou

oFoooo muons
mucounaam Lou FoNum: uoz

2.32.5.5
«age No: .ochFousoucu

moFoou neon oo» .mgoxouon
new; oou--ocF:cFuoa ooou

«Loo Fauna: “no:
no: gouoom m.cFuu:< .uom

 

>F_u um¢u><¢F

3<z_w<m

zoauxmat

uon¢<z zowzmo

lZEi

.coFuoooouo No assoc; Noomom oFFNoLF Fooog onu uaoa< mucossou .N Nana—u

 

o>FuooNFo new: mooFu
-Nocomoto _o¢:-amz “Foo

mmeFoco

acooFuuo No acouxo

an oommogosF no:

F . . . :oFuosgomcF
No qu o ouFoo ooeo>ou

. . . ou__oa mason
cooFgoF: co mxcogF

N . . . :oFuuo
o>FuFmoo :F “Fawn; oFom no: ans: FFF:

woman can :F
ago: moxoo .o>Fm:ogogosou .cag FFoz

«FoaoF>FocF anchoomoL
uosnucoFuosgowcF osom oocFouoc

3cm; oFuuFF o «no: moxoo

mcFaooe
no on oFaosm :oEFFucoou NuFo «so:

. . . ochcFuoo oooa <

mmoFuooE
goFFLoo No muoooos ago: mason meow

mFmoo goFomog
co on oFaogmuumcFuoos oFFzznugoz

ugoo Famom:
«woe no: goooom m.=Fum:< Ngouogoom

oo coo
NeumoooF «on: ou mo moFuFuoom smooco uoz

aFco mcoFaoe canoes»

acoxu-ogogu mgoxosucoFmFooo no» o>og
u.coFo--a=F¥oo=m no: acFuoos No Fo>oF 3o;
oFFFuoom woos coon o>og uFaoo :oFuossoucF
oFnggucoz NF.2233
soguogo coow

moFocau
F233 no 532585 gofififis 3:8

oFoooo FoooF sou» woocF Foo; oz

NuFFossoF
o NFoLoe--oomcogoxo no: :oFuosgoucF

NFEFF woman goo
mm as» o=_otocco no: oUFFoa «Noam =~o.gu_:

o>FuosgoN=F uogu uocuuuchFougoucu

moFoou oco mgoxooom zoos oo»--o=Fchaoo ooou

 

wzez<AA\uzF¢muzFuzu

bzuzuu¢0mzu

mamo<u4 mmwz—mam

 

127

.uoscFucounu.~ uzacFu

 

ocFoa ooox .uoogw

ooNFoomgo
oco ooaoooooo FFoz

moogaom ooFuoELoqu
No ogozo oooe no:

FoFoma umos no: comeom
coFaonFcomgo NchosEou

oFoooo omaoo
ooooumoam co» FoFomo uoz

concouuo

o>og F mmcFuooe ooNFcomgo

-umoo .o>Fmoogosoeoo
.o>FaoELoF:F «mos o:» No ooo

oFngzugoz FFoz

mgoocFoco

Nuouom uco oFuuogu ooELoF:F
Louuoo guF: Noouooo ooos oooz

quooou
Foeooou co mFFouoo ogos use:

o>FuoseoFcF Ago>

Naomom oFFNogu gqu
ooogoucoo mgozuo guF:
ouooFoFugoo on achougoooo

omogo>oo

onos mzoc gouuoo on:
o>og oFaogmuuacFuooe ooxoncm

monoga :omeaomFo LoFFosm
oooF :oxogo o>og o» ooxFa

 

mzuNFFFu uF<>F¢m

m4<zomemuc¢m :F4<m:\mh¢:ou

m4<Fuquo >hz=cuu>huu

chmmuuomm chhcuaau

128

somewhat modified version of the pre-conference questionnaire
utilized for local officials and community leaders distributed prior
to their participation in the local conferences. The eight items on
the questionnaire were specifically designed to elicit the opinions
of state officials on the nature and status of local traffic safety
issues and programs.

Of twenty questionnaires mailed to state officials, nine were
returned. This resulted in a return rate of 45% which approximated
the return rate from the local participants. Tables 58 through 64
present the results of these questionnaires.

Ranking of Major Traffic Accident Problems
(Local Level)

 

Table 58 presents the results of the questionnaire responses
on Question one (l) which asked the respondent to rank a series of
seven local traffic accident problems. As can be observed, state
officials ranked "Lack of coordinated management" as the number one
traffic accident problem at the local level. This issue received a
rank value of 6.67. "Lack of good data on problems" (RV = 6.43), and
"Drinking drivers" (RV = 6.00) were ranked second and third,
respectively. The problem of "Untrained, discourteous drivers"
received the lowest rank value (2.7l).

Rankingof Major Traffic Safety Needs
(Local Level)

 

Question 2 (Table 59) was also a ranking type item. The
respondents were asked to rank order a series of seven traffic

safety needs (as applicable to the local government level).

129

osz> xcom u >m ">mx

 

om.m

mm.m
mo.m

mF.N

mm.¢

me.N

FN.m

mgo>Fgo mchcFLo
co ucoeoogomcm coupon

mEogmooo
pcosoFosF ow mocou ogoz

soFoogm co ouoo Louuom

soFoogm FoooF
No pcoEomocoz Louuom

meoFanoF> 3a; oFFFaeF
Fo ucosoogomcm ogoz

coFooozou
oo>Fgo oo>ogosF

mooFuoogm mcFLooochm
oFFFoLF oo>ogoEF

 

>m

 

 

mFopoF

xcmm

oomz

 

NFo>oF FoooF one an moooc Nquom oFFFoeu gonna ogu ooo FooF so» on was:
"FFm>oo Faooov moooz Ngoomm oFFFeeF Lowe: No mchcmN--.mm NANNF

.momooomom mFoFoFFFo ouopm

uN zonhmmao

130

Table 59 indicates that state government officials felt that
"Better management of the total problem" was the most important local
traffic safety need. This item received a rank value of 7.13. This
was also consistent with the responses to Question one which indi-
cated that the “Lack of coordinated management" was the number one
local level traffic accident problem. State officials ranked in
second priority the need for "Better data on the problem" (RV =
6.63). "Improved driver education" was ranked last with an

RV = 2.43.

Local Awareness of Traffic Safety Problems
Question three asked, "Do you feel local officials or
leaders are generally aware of their community's traffic safety
problems?" Respondents could answer "yes," "no" or "don't know."

The summary of the responses to this item are as noted in Table 60.

TABLE 60.--Local Awareness of Traffic Safety Problems--Responses by
State Officials.
QUESTION 3: Do you feel local officials or leaders are
generally aware of their community's traffic
safety problems?

 

Number
Yes No Don't Know No Answer

2 5 l l

 

 

131

A majority of state officials (N = 5) felt that local

officials were not generally aware of their local problems.

Local Priority for Traffic Safety
In this item (Question 4) state officials were asked, "Do
you feel that local officials or leaders are placing a high priority
on traffic safety problems?" This was also a yes-no type item. The

results are noted in Table 6l.

TABLE 61.-~Local Priority for Traffic Safety--Responses by State
Officials.
QUESTION 4: Do you feel that local officials or leaders
are placing a high priority on traffiC‘
safety problems?

 

 

Number
Yes No No Answer
0 8 1

 

State officials unanimously (N = 8) indicated that traffic

safety was not being given a high priority at the local level.

Need for Improved Local Management
Question 5 was a two-part item which was stated as follows:
"Do you feel that there is a general need for improved management
or coordination of traffic safety programs at the local level?"
The respondent could answer "yes," "no" or "don't know." The second
part of this question requested an explanation of a "yes" response.

Refer to Table 62 for the results on Question 5.

132

TABLE 62.--Need for Improved Local Management--Responses by State
Officials.
QUESTION 5: Do you feel that there is a general need for
improved management or coordination of
traffic safety programs at the local level?

 

Number
Yes No Don't Know No Answer

 

7 l O l

 

Table 62 shows that a majority of state officials (N = 7)
indicated that there is a need for better management or coordination
of local safety programs.

In addition, the following three comments were noted:

l. YES -- "Generally speaking . . . there are
exceptions."

2. YES -- "Need all to work for same goals."

3. YES -- "Local agencies are too autonomous;

they don't interrelate enough."

Perceptions of Local Safety Problems and Needs

Question six was included to determine if there were differ-
ences in the perceptions of state-level officials vis-a-vis local-level
officials on traffic safety issues. The question was phrased as
follows: "Do you feel that your perceptions of local traffic safety
problems and needs are similar to those of local officials and
leaders?" The results are noted in Table 63.

Most state officials believed (5 vs. 2) that their perceptions
concerning local traffic safety problems were different from those of

local officials.

133

TABLE 63.--Perceptions of Local Safety Problems and Needs--Responses
by State Officials.

QUESTION 6: Do you feel that your perception of local
traffic safety problems and needs are
similar to those of local officials and
leaders?

 

Number
Yes No Don't Know No Answer

 

2 5 l l

 

Awareness of Federal Assistance Programs

In Question seven respondents were asked, "Do you feel that
local officials and leaders are generally aware of federal assistance
programs for traffic safety?" This item which could be answered
"yes," "no" or "don't know," was designed to find out whether state
officials felt that local officials had been made aware of the
relatively new (since 1967) federal program for community level
traffic crash prevention. Results obtained are indicated in

Table 64 .

TABLE 64.--Awareness of Federal Assistance Programs--Responses by
State Officials.
QUESTION 7: Do you feel that local officials and leaders
are generally aware of federal assistance
programs for traffic safety?

 

Number
Yes No Don't Know No Answer

 

3 4 l l

 

134

In this item opinion was nearly divided, although a majority
(N = 4) did indicate that they felt local officials were not

"generally aware" of the financial assistance program.

Usefulness of Local Traffic Safety Forums

The final item (Question 8) asked state officials, “Do you
believe that a local "forum-type" discussion of traffic safety issues
with local officials and leaders can be an effective and beneficial
process for state-wide program planning?" This question was
particularly important in terms of the perceived usefulness of such
local meetings as a "planning tool." A "yes" or "no" response was
possible. A brief explanation could also be indicated. Table 65

presents the results on Question 8.

TABLE 65.-~Usefulness of Local Traffic Safety Forums--Responses by

State Officials.

QUESTION 8: Do you believe that a local "forum-type"
discussion of traffic safety issues with
local officials and leaders can be an
effective and beneficial process for state-
wide program planning?

 

Number
Yes No Don't Know (Written in) No Answer

 

 

Although two respondents indicated a "don't know" answer, the

majority (N = 6) responded with a "yes" answer to this item.

135

The following (verbatum) explanations were also noted:

1. YES --
2. YES --
3. YES --
4. YES --

"Information exchange is extremely important.
Make locals aware of available assistance
and program help."

"Periodic meetings of those involved in
various disciplines is necessary."

"Stimulate action and coordinate efforts."
"If properly handled, a forum can provide

an excellent two-way interchange of ideas
and problems."

Summary

In this chapter were presented, in tabular and narrative

form, the data from the questions from both the pre-conference and

post-conference questionnaires.

In Chapter V, the summary, conclusions, recommendations

and discussion are presented.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The primary purpose of this study was to identify the

opinions and knowledge of selected local offiCials and community
leaders on traffic safety as expressed through their partiCipation
in a one-day local traffic safety conference, and further, to
determine through a questionnaire technique, whether exposure to
this type of meeting produced any noticeable changes in their
opinions or knowledge.

A related question concerned the overall effectiveness of
these local (or regional) conferences as a process for better
identifying local problems and needs related to traffic safety.

The study sought to identify, again through a questionnaire
method, any important differences between state and local officials,
and among local officials themselves, insofar as the perception of
local problems was concerned.

A review of the literature revealed that there were no pub-
lished sources which described the results of local conferences on
traffic safety. Only the state of Illinois (Office of Traffic
Safety) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration) have held similar conferences, and

no formal (or even informal) written evaluation was conducted.
136

137

Sources in NHTSA have indicated that the agency does intend to
prepare a report of the accomplishments of their "Town Hall" meet-
ings. The review of literature also indicated that there were a
number of published sources on state-level public opinion surveys;
however, these proved to be of limited value to the thesis topic.
This study represents, within the framework of the goals
and objectives noted above, the evaluation component of a federal
highway safety project initiated by the Michigan Office of Highway
Safety Planning in March, 1977.
The overall goal of the project was stated as follows:
To obtain from community leaders an insight
into their perception of traffic safety problems
in their areas and to provide to these community
leaders information needed to assist them in
solving local traffic safety problems.
In addition, two specific objectives were also proposed:
1. To conduct a series of four local traffic

safety conferences in varying geographical

locations throughout the state which will:

a. Inform community leaders of the annual scope
and cost of Michigan's traffic accident
experience and identify the specific problems
in the region where these leaders resided.

b. Aid state authorities in obtaining greater
insight into the real traffic problems
andypossible solutions at the local level.

2. To determine by pre- and post-attendee question-
naires if the local traffic safety conference is

an effective medium in which to address the local-
state coordination of traffic safety programs.14

 

14Application for Highway Safety Grant, "Local Traffic
Safety Conferences," MPA 77-OOZA, approved March 4, 1977.

138

Several questions were considered in determining the geo-
graphical areas and sites for the conferences. Four locations were
eventually selected: a single county (Muskegon); two tri-county
areas (Cass, Van Buren and Berrien; and Bay, Midland and Saginaw)
and a five county area in northern Michigan (Grand Traverse, Antrim,
Leelanau, Benzie and Kalkaska).

The task of formulating the program and agenda for the con-
ferences was the joint responsibility of the Office of Highway
Safety Planning staff, the project consultant and the planning com-
mittee. A broad range of topics, generally designed to address
local problems and needs (at least as perceived by state officials)
was selected for inclusion on the agenda. Generally, the subject
matter was the same for each of the conferences, although several
modifications were made in the agenda between the first two meetings
and the final two sessions in an attempt to encourage more audience
participation.

A total of 652 pre-conference questionnaires (Pre-Q) were
mailed to those persons invited to each of the four conferences;
and 232 or 35.6% were completed and returned. A somewhat higher
return rate was noted for the post-conference questionnaires
(Post-Q)--46.l% overall (N = 95). A total of 9 questionnaires
were returned by 20 state officials resulting in a 45% rate of
return for this sub-group.

The responses to each question were tabulated and summarized
on the basis of number (N) and percentage (%). Frequency tables

were prepared for each item indicating the results on the basis of

 

139

(1) location and (2) occupation/profession. The response to
questions 1 and 3, both rank-order type items, were also assigned
a weighted rank value (RV) for purposes of determining the overall
rank order of the issues listed in the question.

The major findings of the study were as follows:

1. The problem of "drinking drivers" was identified by
most local officials and community leaders as the most critical
local traffic accident problem. This concern received the highest
overall rank value (RV) on both the Pre-Q (6.47) and the Post-Q
(6.85). On the Pre-Q, however, the engineering/planning group
along with enforcement officials and city-county officials selected
other problem areas. On the Post-Q, enforcement officials and city-
county officials indicated other local problems ahead of "drinking
drivers." State officials ranked this problem third from a list
of six problem areas (RV = 6.00), and indicated that they believed
the most important local problem was the I'lack of coordinated
management" (RV = 6.67). Most state officials (N = 5) also stated

that local officials were generally unaware of local problems.

2. "Improved driver education" was identified as the most
important need at the local level by a majority of local officials
and community leaders. This was evident on both questionnaires
(Pre-Q, RV = 6.14; Post-Q, RV = 6.35). It was also noted that, on
the basis of individual occupational groups, there were several
exceptions to the overall ranking of "improved driver education" as

the most important local traffic safety need. "Improved driver

140

education" was ranked last by state officials (RV = 2.43) who
indicated that "better management of the total problem" was the
most important local traffic safety need. This choice received a

rank value (RV) of 7.13.

3. Most respondents stated that they were generally aware
of the high accident locations in their community. On the Pre-Q,
80% (N = 185) answered yes to this question; on the Post-Q, this
percentage increased slightly to 81% (N = 77). Law enforcement
officials had the highest percentage of yes responses on both
questionnaires (Pre-Q = 94%; Post-Q = 100%). Although those
responding from the Benton Harbor conference indicated the highest
percentage of yes answers on the Pre-Q (86%), this same group had

the lowest percentage of yes answers on the Post-Q (72%).

4. Most respondents indicated that they were personally at
least "somewhat aware" or "very aware" of local needs and problems
related to traffic safety. This was evident on both questionnaires.
There were only slight variations among occupational groups or
locations. However, law enforcement officials, as a group, revealed
the highest percentage of responses in the "very aware" category on

both questionnaires (60% and 63%, respectively).

5. Although on the Pre-Q only 37% (N = 85) of the respond-
ents felt that state officials were aware of local problems or needs,

this percentage increased substantially on the Post-Q, to 57%

141

(N = 55). This positive change was consistent across all occupa-

tional groups, with the only exception being "private citizens."

6. Most respondents felt that the problem of traffic
accidents in their local area ranked "low" compared to other com-
munity problems. Specifically, 57% (N = 130) chose this response
on the Pre-Q and 53% (N = 49) on the Post-Q. Although this finding
was true across all locations, on the Pre-Q both the education and
courts/health groups indicated they would rank the traffic accident
problem "high" contrasted to other community problems. Most state
officials (N = 8) also indicated they felt that traffic safety was

not being given a high priority at the local level.

7. In answering the question, "How would you compare your
community's traffic accident problem with neighboring communities
of similar size?" most respondents, 65% (N = 150) on the Pre-Q and
67% (N = 64) on the Post-Q, indicated that their local traffic
accident problems were "about the same" as in similar communities.
This result was evident in all locations. On the basis of occupa-
tional groups, on the Pre-Q, only the courts/health group did not
have a majority to indicate this response; as a group, they were
evently split between indicating their problems were "worse than

most" (43%, N = 6) or "about the same" (43%, N = 6).

8. On the Pre-Q, most respondents indicated that local
traffic safety activities or programs were "quite limited" (56%).

On the Post-Q, 59% indicated a "quite limited" response. The only

142

exception to this overall pattern was Saginaw where on the Post-Q

42% (N = 14) stated that programs were "reasonably adequate."

9. Few persons indicated that they had ever seen an estimate
of the annual cost of traffic accidents to their community (10% on
the Pre-Q; and 27% on the Post-Q). A negative answer on this
question was evident across all occupational groups and locations.
Moreover, very few respondents had any knoweldge of how much was
spent annually for traffic safety in their community (only 6% on
both the Pre-Q and Post-Q). In another related finding, it was
evident that most persons believed that most traffic accident prob-
lems (or potential problems) were not subject to easy solutions or
minimal corrective costs (48% on the Pre-Q; and 52% on the Post-Q).
For the most part, the “written in" responses on this item indicated
that "more," "better" or "increased" enforcement or "improved"

traffic engineering were the best ways to deal with the problem.

10. Most respondents on both questionnaires, and across all
locations, stated that there was (or may be) need for "improved
management or coordination" of local traffic safety efforts (60% on
the Pre-Q; and 59% on the Post-Q). The only major exception was the
courts/health group which indicated a high percentage of "don't know“
responses (83%, N = 5) on the Post-Q. Most state officials (N = 7)
agreed that there was "a general need for improved management or
coordination" of local programs. On a related question, most state

officials (N = 5) also indicated that they believed their perceptions

143

concerning local traffic safety problems were different from those

of local officials.

11. Most persons were unaware of federal assistance programs
for dealing with local traffic safety problems. On the Pre-Q, 69%
overall responded no on this item; this percentage decreased some-
what on the Post-Q--56%. The engineering/planning group, however,
was the exception; they indicated a very high awareness of federal
assistance programs (73% on the Pre-Q; 83% on the Post-Q). The
opinions of state officials on this issue were nearly divided,
although a majority (four out of seven who answered) did indicate
that they felt local officials were not "generally aware" of avail-
able financial assistance. In addition, most respondents, 68%
(N = 68) on the Pre-Q and 63% (N = 59) on the Post-Q, across all
locations, stated they were unaware of any specific local traffic
safety projects which received federal assistance. However, most
of the respondents in the engineering/planning group indicated that
they were aware of specific local projects which had received

federal assistance (65% on the Pre-Q; 62% on the Post-Q).

12. Most local officials and community leaders felt that
law enforcement officials were primarily responsible for community
traffic safety programs. This was evident on both the pre-conference
(N = 133) and post-conference (N = 60) questionnaires. Only the
education group and the courts/health group did not rank law
enforcement first; on both questionnaires each indicated that

"government“ was principally responsible.

144

13. Most respondents, across all locations and occupational
groups, indicated they felt a local traffic safety forum could be a
"beneficial and effective process for developing appropriate pre-
ventive measures." Some 81% indicated a yes answer to this item
on both the Pre-Q and Post-Q. State officials (N = 6) also agreed
that the local forums could be a useful process for state-level

program planning.

14. In terms of the overall value of the forum, the largest
number (N = 67) and highest percentage (35%) of respondents (Post-Q
only) indicated that the meeting was most valuable as a method for
"providing for an exchange of views and opinions of state officials
and local leaders." This was true across all locations. However,
the business group and city-county officials indicated that the
meeting was most valuable to them in terms of "increasing knowledge
about the accident problem." Only three persons, or 2% overall,

stated that "the meeting was not worthwhile."

Conclusions

 

Conclusions in this section, based on the stated purposes of
the study, the conditions under which it was conducted and the find-

ings reported in the previous section are as follows:

1. The study did identify the opinions and knowledge of
selected local officials and community leaders on a number of traffic
safety related issues and concerns. Specifically, the participants

identified "drinking drivers" as the most critical local traffic

145

crash problem; however, some differences were apparent among the
various occupational groups on this issue. In addition, most
respondents indicated that "improved driver education" was the most
important local level need; however, again there were some exceptions
on the basis of occupational groups. Most local participants also
indicated that they were generally aware of the high accident loca-
tions in their area; that the problem of traffic accidents ranked
"low" compared to other local problems; that their local problems
were generally "about the same" as in similar communities; that most
local safety programs were "quite limited"; that they were largely
unaware of the costs of accidents or crash prevention efforts in
their area; that there was a need for "improved management or
coordination" of local programs; that they were mostly unaware of
federal assistance programs; and that law enforcement officials were
principally responsible for community traffic safety programs.

There were some exceptions in each of the above areas on the basis

of either: (1) geographic location, or (2) occupation/profession.

2. Exposure to a one—day local traffic safety conference
generally did not produce any overall noticeable changes in the
opinions or knowledge of the participants. Respondents usually
selected the same answers on both the pre-conference and post-

conference questionnaires.

3. Since most participants indicated a favorable response
to the forums, and further stated that this concept was most

valuable as a method for "providing for an exchange of views and

146

Opinions of state officials and local leaders," it can be concluded
that the process of periodically conducting local traffic safety
conferences may be useful to continue, especially if state officials
are interested in better identifying local problems and needs. Addi-
tionally, the technique of utilizing some type of pre-conference and
post-conference questionnaire as an evaluation or planning tool is

also important to this process if overall effectiveness is expected.

4. The perceptions (opinions and knowledge) of local com-
munity leaders concerning the nature of the traffic crash problem
were not generally the same as those views held by state officials.
Specifically, state officials disagreed with local officials and
leaders on those questions dealing with the nature of the local
crash problem and the most critical local area traffic safety needs.
Further, most state officials indicated directly that they believed
their perceptions concerning local traffic safety problems were dif-

ferent from those of local officials.

5. There appears to be only slight differences in the per-
ceptions of local community leaders on major safety issues from one
area of the state to another. However, it would still have to be
concluded that, with a few exceptions, local community officials and
leaders generally had the same or quite similar perceptions about

the nature of the local crash problem.

147

6. The most apparent differences between occupation groups
were in the perceptions of local traffic safety problems or needs.

On other issues, the differences were generally not as pronounced.

Recommendations

 

The following are recommendations based on the findings and

conclusions of the study:

1. That the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning con-
tinue to periodically conduct local traffic safety conferences to
assist the agency in identifying the nature and trends of the local
accident problem. Further, these conferences should be rotated to
various geographical areas of the state to insure that the broadest

possible perspective be obtained.

2. That subsequent conferences be evaluated utilizing a
questionnaire technique similar to that which was employed in this

study.

3. That the Office of Highway Safety Planning include as a
part of any subsequent evaluation of similar local conferences SOme
of the same questions and occupational sub-groups that were utilized
for this study. This process would permit the identification of
trends or changes in the perceived nature of the local traffic acci-

dent problem.

4. That subsequent conferences be designed to permit a maxi-

mum of local level input and participation. The initial four

 

148

conferences were too structured and did not provide enough oppor-
tunities for questions and comments from the audience. Formal pre-

sentations by state officials should be held to a minimum.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

This study represented an attempt to evaluate the overall
usefulness of one approach to better identification of local level
traffic safety problems and needs. The review of the literature
indicated that several other types of approaches have been utilized.
However, there was little evaluation of the processes used, and there
seemed to be a very clear need for additional and continuing effort
to refine a process so that, hopefully, resources directed to the
local level will ultimately be applied to the most critical problems
and needs. Within this context, the following recommendations for

further research are offered:

1. That a study be done comparing the views of local
officials and community leaders exposed to a similar one-day local
traffic safety conference with a sub-sample not exposed to such a

conference.

2. That a replication of this study be done utilizing an
evenly distributed sample size on the basis of both (1) location

and (2) occupational group.

3. That a follow-up study be conducted to determine whether

any noticeable changes have occurred in the attitudes and knowledge

149

of the participants since the last (Post-Q) questionnaire was com-

pleted.

4. That if subsequent local conferences are held, every
effort be made to obtain a higher response rate as well as a truly
representative sample of local officials, community leaders and
private citizens. While this may be difficult to accomplish, it
would greatly enhance the validity of the evaluation and question-
naire results. Also, specific individuals, having completed a
questionnaire should be identified on a pre-conference and post-
conference basis for the purpose of analyzing the results in more
detail. This further refinement of the evaluation methodology would
pinpoint specific changes in individual participant opinions result-
ing in their having attended one of the conferences. This procedure
was not possible in the present study since most respondents chose

not to identify themselves.

Discussion

 

Traffic accidents are a local problem. Yet, with few
exceptions, planning for accident prevention is done almost entirely
at the state level. While it is true that a substantial share of
state and federal resources are being directed at local problems,
it is difficult to find any real evidence of local level input to
remedial programs which are typically implemented.

Although the results were not particularly surprising, it
was somewhat discouraging to find that most state officials held a

rather dim view of the efforts of local community leaders in

150

attempting to deal effectively with their traffic crash problems.
This probably says something about the need for some sort of
dialogue on a regular basis between local leaders and state
officials. However, both "official" and "citizen" input are needed.
A serious weakness in the approach utilized in conducting the con-
ferences was the failure on the part of state officials to follow
up on issues and problems raised during the meetings. This could
probably be accomplished through the designatiOn of an appropriate
staff person who would become an official point of contact for local
officials once a conference had been concluded.

Another problem which became apparent as the conferences
were being concluded was the role of the local chairperson. These
individuals, although well known in their communities, were not
familiar enough with the local accident problem(s) to be really
effective moderators. Although they undoubtedly helped to attract
other community leaders to the meetings, they very often had to
rely on support and assistance from the state or local people in
attendance in order to adequately answer questions or handle the
discussion that arose during the conference.

Since the process of planning and conducting any type of
conference is a time consuming and expensive process, state officials
should give serious consideration to some sort of alternative method
for securing local level .1nput to the state planning process. An
approach using an instrument similar to that employed in the Michigan

State University QMT Project would appear to be a feasible and less

151

costly approach. Adoption of an approach of this nature with the
addition of an annual "public opinion poll" of the type recently
utilized by the Michigan Office of Highway Planning would give state
officials a useful profile of the views and opinions of local

citizens and officials.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

152

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carnahan, James. QMT Project, Technical Report. (The Design and
Testing of a Questionnaire Method for Assessment of Local
Highway Safety Programs in Cities with 10 to 100 Thousand
Populations). East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Highway Traffic Safety Center, June 1971.

QMT Project. Data Report. (The Design and Testing of
a Questionnaire Method for Assessment of Local Highway
Safety Programs in Cities with 10 to 100 Thousand Popula-
tion). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Highway
Traffic Safety Center, April 1972.

Market Opinion Research. A Survey of Driver and Motorcyclists'
Attitudes Toward Highway Safety Issues. Detroit: Market
Opinion Research. Job #8848. September 1978.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation. Personal correspondence (with attachments)
between Ms. Karen K. Marcus, Chief, Consumer Participation,
and the writer. December 18, 1979.

"Town Hall Meetings Slated in Illinois," Traffic Safety, November
1975, p. 31.

 

Troldahl, V. C., and Farace, R. V. Public Opinion in Michigan on
Traffic Accident Prevention, Final Report. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Highway Traffic Safety Center,
April 1966.

‘Waller, Patricia F. What North Carolina Drivers Su est for

Improving_Highway Safety in Their State. C apel Hill:
University of North Carolina, January 1974.

153

 

APPENDICES

154

 

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE PROGRAM AND AGENDA

155

LEDCSIRGLN TORNQFFIC SAFETY FORUm 43.3
0 MU E 4:!Eiliik

CO-SPONSORED BY: Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning ~w~w-~'§i‘

oo

:00
:30

on

C0

:35

9:45
10:15
10:30

& Mic igan State Safe Commission umuwnv

SRFETY M00106

Registration and Coffee

Introduction of Chairman

Tom Reel, Executive Director
Office of Highway Safety Planning

Chairman's Opening Remarks

Marshall W. Graves, President
Muskegon Federal Savings 5 Loan Association

The Highway Safety Problem

(1)

(2)

STATEWIDE
Capt. Paul Ruge, Commanding Officer
Safety and Traffic, Michigan State Police

REGIONAL
Phil Haseltine, Chief, Program Planning and Analysis Section
Office of Highway Safety Planning

Traffic Engineering Programs

(1)

(2)

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL OFFICIALS
Richard Blost, Supervising Engineer of Safety Programs Unit
Department of State Highways and Transportation

UNIFORM STANDARDS OF DESIGN AND CONTROL
Michael Jones, District Traffic Safety Engineer
Department of State Highways and Transportation

Discussion

Break

Pglice Traffic Services

(2)

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
Bill Siewertsen, Senior Program Specialist
Office of Highway Safety Planning

MICHIGAN ACCIDENT LOCATOR INDEX (MALI)

Tom Krycinski, Chief, Traffic Engineering Services
Office of Highway Safety Planning

156

11:05

11:50

12:30
1:30

2:00

2:30
2:45

\N/ilg‘

MUSKEGON-MAY 12, 1977 AWE-1

I J

S /-

(3) CITIZENS BAND MONITORING PROGRAM } i
Lt. Rod LaMore, Assistant Division Commander . ,1

Safety and Traffic, Michigan State Police-

Educational and Rehabilitation Programs

(1) DRIVER IMPROVEMENT
George Stevens, Driver and Vehicle Administrator
Department of State

(2) ALCOHOL REHABILITATION
Lee Juenker, Alcohol-Highway Safety Education Coordinator

Department of Public Health

(3) HIGH SCHOOL AND BUS DRIVER PROGRAMS
Phil O'Leary, Safety and Traffic Education Supervisor
Department of Education

Sheridan Rhoads, Coordinator, Program Development
Office of Highway Safety Planning

Discussion

Luncheon

Luncheon Address
"MICHIGAN STATE SAFETY COMMISSION'S CURRENT

LEGISLATIVE CONCERNS "
Tom Reel, Executive Director
Office of Highway Safety Planning

Organizing for Community Action
Bruce Madsen, Managing Director
Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County

Discussion on Above

Closing Comments
Tom Reel

Programmed with the assistance of . . . . . .

Automobile Club of Michigan
Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County

157

 

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE LETTERS 0F INVITATION

158

1978

MARY CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN
Governor

CHAIWAN
RICHARD H. AUSTIN
Secretary of State

VICE CHAIIIAAN

JOHN P. WOODFORD
Dovector

Don-«mm of State
Highways and Transportatmn

COL. GEORGE L. HALVERSON

Director
Deanna-m of
State Police

on. JOHN w. PORTER
mutton-hm oi
Mic Instruction

THOMAS O. REE L
(native Director
Office of Hi'tvtcv
titty Running

”MON SECRETARY
MRS. ERANCES J. MILLER

79.. “All“ DRIVE. «tum OFFICE ms m. “I“ .13

.7111 OF MICHIGAN

WE...”

ITA‘I’E IAFE‘I’Y COMMISSION
alum-m all I‘I'ATI FOLIO-

A conference that will address itself to the traffic safety problems
of southwestern Michigan will be held in the Benton Harbor/St. Joseph
area on May 10. The conference will have a dual purpose: to give
local citizens an opportunity to express their needs to state govern-
ment. and to increase local awareness of the financial and technical
resources available to them to assist in resolving these problems.

Participants will include local government leaders, traffic officials,
and outstanding citizens from other fields of interest. In this
sense. we feel it is important to have a solid representation from
the business comunity and for this reason, we sincerely hope you will
be able to join us and provide the benefit of your views on the traf-
fic safety needs in your area.

The conference will be one of four local Traffic Safety Forums to be
held in key areas of the state. Not only will it deal with ongoing
concerns such as driver improvement, alcohol rehabilitation and
enforcement programs. but a number of new trends and developments
will be presented. He believe you will be particularly interested

in such things as the new, computerized accident locating system that
is being introduced in your area, the legal responsibilities now
faced by your local officials--and consequently the taxpayers-~for
proper roadway design and control. and the utilization of a citizens
band radio network by the State Police to reduce traffic fatalities.

The Forum will be held at the Benton Harbor Holiday Inn beginning
with a reception/registration from 8-8:30 a.m. and ending by mid-
afternoon. If you are unable to attend personally, please feel free
to send a ranking member of your staff to represent you. We hope
you will at least join us for lunch at 12:30 and remain for a brief
address by the Chairman of the State Safety Comission, on legisla-
tive developments and concerns in the field of traffic safety.

Please use the enclosed card to let me know that you will be joining
us. There is no charge for the conference or the luncheon.

Sincerely,

RICHARD H. AUSTIN and
Secretary of State

THOMAS 0. REEL
Governor's Representative
for Highway Safety

TILWE III?) 373-1010

159

STATE OF MICHIGAN

WILLIAH a. MILLIKIN. oovumott
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

7| IO NANNI. DNIVI. OININAI. OFFICE ILDON LANSING. MICHIGAN COOI I
PHONE: (II 1] 313‘1’3.

This office, in cooperation with the State Safety Commission, is preparing a
series of Local Traffic Safety Forums in four key areas in Michigan next month.
These meetings will have a dual purpose: to give local officials an opportunity
to express their needs to state government, and to increase local awareness of
the financial and technical resources available to them to assist in resolving
these mutual problems.

One of the areas chosen includes Bay, Midland and Saginaw Counties. We hope
that you, as a leading citizen dedicated to the welfare of your community, will
be able to join us and contribute your thinking to the objectives we share in
common. Topics to be discussed will include:

Current data on the highway safety problem for your area and statewide.
Uniform engineering standards for highway design and control, along with

a review of the legal responsibilities of local officials.

State Police traffic safety services, including selective enforcement tech-
niques, progress on the MALI programs, and citizens band radio monitoring
activities.

Educational and rehabilitation programs covering driver improvement, alcohol
rehabilitation and high school driver and bus programs.

Means by which local traffic jurisdictions may increase their effective-
ness through coordinated action and citizen involvement.

Presentations will be made by the most knowledgeable people obtainable in these
fields and ample time will be provided to express your views. Additionally, Mr.
John P. Woodford, Vice Chairman of the State Safety Commission and Director of
the Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation will deliver a lunch-
eon address covering current legislative concerns in highway safety.

The Forum will be held on May 24 at the Bay City Holiday Inn beginning with a
reception/registration from 8-8:30 a.m. and concluding by mid-afternoon. There
will be no cost to you for the conference or the luncheon.

Sincerely,

THOMAS O. REEL
Governor's Representative
for Highway Safety

160

 

APPENDIX C

PRE-CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

161

STATE OF MICHIGAN

@
WILLIAM G. MILLIKIN. Govumon
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE
CDFTWKZEECDF’PINEIIVVVKV'EEAJEEETW!I’LJAIUDHHNC3

7150 HARRIS omvr. GENERAL orrtc: BUILDING 4-18-77
LANSING. MICHIGAN ants (Pre-Conf.)
PHONE: (an) szz-tuz

Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

 

 

 

Location: [:7 Benton Harbor [:7 Muskegon
Occupation/profession:
Name:

(optionaITT

Directions: Please answer the following items to the best of your know-
ledge. Check only one answer to each question unless other-
wise stated. Returfi_Tn the enclosed self-addressed envelope.

1. Generally, what do you think are your comnunity's major traffic
accident problems? (Please number in rank order - with 1 equal
highest, 2 next, etc.)

[—7 Lack of traffic law enforcement

[_/ Poor traffic engineering
1:7'Untrained, discourteous drivers
[:7 Lack of funds to implement programs
[:7'Lack of good data on problems
.[:7'Drinking drivers

[:7'Other:
fl Other:

2. a. Are you generally aware of the high accident locations in your
community?

U Yes _/___7 No

b. List some of these areas or locations:

 

 

 

 

162

163
Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

3. What do you feel are the major traffic safety needs in your area?
(Please number in rank order - with 1 highest, 2 next, etc.)

[:7 Improved traffic engineering practices
(i.e. better signing, signal systems, etc.)

[:7 Improved driver education/retraining programs
[:7 More enforcement of traffic law violations
[:Y’Better management of total problem
[:Y’Better data on specifics of problem

.[:7 More funds to implement programs

[:Y'Other:
[:7'Other:

 

 

4. How aware are you personally of your community's major traffic
safety problems or needs?

[:7 Not really aware
[:7 Somewhat aware
[7 Very aware

5. Do you feel that state officials are generally aware of your
community's problems or needs?

[:7 Yes g No U Don't Know

6. How would you rank the problem of traffic accidents in your
community compared to other problems? (e.g. crime, housing, etc.)

[:7’Verylow (no concern)
[:7'Low (some concern)
[:7 High (occasionally receives top priority)

[:7 Very high (always a top priority item)

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

164
Questionnaire for Participants in Local-Traffic Forums

How would you compare your community's traffic accident problem with
neighboring communities of similar size?

[:Y'Worse than most
.[:7'About the same

[:7 Better than most

Generally, how do you percieve the status of traffic safety activities
or programs in your community?

[:7 No visable effort
.[:7 Programs appear quite limited
.[:7'Programs appear reasonably adquate

[:7 Well developed, well organized, comprehensive

Have you ever seen an estimate of the annual cost of traffic
accidents to,your community?

U Yes [_7 No
If yes, give figure

00 you have any idea how much is spent on an annual basis for
accident prevention and traffic safety in your community?

/__/ Yes H No

If yes, give estimate:

00 you believe that most traffic accident problems (or potential
problems) can be identified and solved rather easily and at
minimal cost?

.[:7 Yes [:7 No .[:7 Don't Know
If yes, state how

 

 

 

Are you aware of federal assistance programs for dealing with local
traffic safety problems?

U Yes _/:_7 No

Are you aware of any local traffic safety projects or programs which
have received federal assistance?

1:7 Yes /_7'No

Describe:

 

In your opinion, who do you feel has major responsiblility for traffic
safety programs in your community?

 

 

15.

16.

165

Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

Do you feel that there is (or may be) a need for improved management
or coordination of your community's traffic safety efforts?

[:7 Yes 1:] No [:7'Don't Know

If yes, what suggestions would you make.

 

 

Do you feel that a local "forum-type" discussion of traffic safety
issues with state officials can be a beneficial and effective
process for developing appropriate preventative measures?

[:7 Yes _/_:7 No
Why or why not?

 

 

APPENDIX 0

COVER LETTER FOR PRE-CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

166

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN

w .
1r

mutant o. MILLIKIN. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

'II I. NANNIE ONIVE. GENENAL OPPICE ILOO. LANEING. MICHIGAN ‘I’I I
PHONE: ("1| 313-803.

May 5, 1977

Dear Conference Participant:

You were recently invited to participate in a local one-day
conference on traffic safety.

Since the meeting which you will be attending is one of only four
to be held throughout the state this year, we are quite anxious to
determine whether these "pilot" conferences are serving their intended
purpose, and in fact whether the proposed structure provides for the
best interchange of ideas between state authorities and local leaders.

As an essential part of our overall effort to evaluate the
productivity or effectiveness of this process, we have developed a
brief questionnaire which we would like you to complete for us rior
to your actual attendance at the conference. Frankly, we feel that
the opinions and attitudes of local leaders and officials are often
not solicited when state-wide program planning takes place. Thus,
your answers on this questionnaire, plus your participation in the
forthcoming meeting, are essential to the success of this effort.
You may also be asked to complete a similar questionnaire after the
meeting to help us determine whether the program was useful to you.

We need to have the enclosed questionnaire completed and returned
prior to the actual meeting, since your comments will help us to deter-
mine how best to answer your specific concerns. A self-addressed,
stamped envelope is also provided for your use. Questions may be
directed to Thomas 0. Reel at OHSP (517) 373-2930.

Thank you for your assistance in this most important matter. We
look forward to your early response.

Sincer ,
éHOMAS o. REEL.
Executive Director

Enclosure
167

APPENDIX E

STATE OFFICIALS QUESTIONNAIRE

168

STATE OF MICHIGAN

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN. GOVENNON

DEPARTMENT or STATE POLICE
OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

1: so HARRIS DRIVE. GENERAL orrIcE DUILDING 4-18—77
LANSING. MICHIGAN ants
PHONE: (an) szz-qu (Pre-Conf.)

Questionnaire for State Officials on Local Traffic Forums

Name:

 

Position:

 

Directions: Please mark only one answer to the following items unless
otherwise stated.__REturn this form in the enclosed envelope.

1. Generally, what do you feel are the major traffic accident problems

at the local level? (Please number in rank order - with 1 highest,
2 next, etc.)

11:7 Lack of traffic law enforcement

.[:7 Poor traffic engineering

1:7 Lack of coordinated management

‘[:7 Untrained, discourteous drivers

[:2 Lack of funds to implement programs

1:7:Lack of good data on problems

.117 Drinking drivers

[:7'Other:

1:7'0ther:

 

 

2. What do you feel are the major traffic safety needs at the local
level? (Please number in rank order)

[:7 Improved traffic engineering practices
(i.e. better signing, signal systems, etc.)

[:7 Improved driver education/retraining programs
[:7 More enforcement of traffic law violations
1:7'Better management of total problem
[:7'Better data on specifics of problem

U More funds to implement programs

.[:7'Better enforcement on drinking drivers
1:7'Other:
[:Y'Other:

 

 

169

UT

\I

-2-

Questionnaire for State Officials on Local Traffic Forums

Do you feel local officials or leaders are generally aware of
their community's traffic safety problems?

_/_7_' Yes /_7 No _/_7 Don't Know

Do you feel that local officials or leaders are placing a high
priority on traffic safety problems?

/7 Yes L7 No

Do you feel that there is a general need for improved management
or coordination of traffic safety programs at the local level?

[:7 Yes Q N0 [_7 Don't Know

If yes, explain why

 

Do you feel that your pefceptions of local traffic safety problems
and needs are similar to those of local officials and leaders?

U Yes /___7 No L7 Don't Know

Do you feel that local officials and leaders are generally aware
of federal assistance programs for traffic safety?

1:7 Yes [:7 No [:7 Don't Know
00 you believe that a local "forum-type" discussion of traffic

safety issues with local officials and leaders can be an effective
and beneficial process for state-wide program planning?

[:7 Yes [:7'N0

Why or why not?

 

 

170

APPENDIX F

POST-CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

171

STATE OF MICHIGAN

'II-LIAM G. MILLIKEN. GOVENNON

DEPARTMENT or STATE POLICE
OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

7I IO HARRIS DRIVE. GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING 6-]0_77
“.5222 193722313?" (Post-Cont)

Follow-up Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

Location: /_‘_7 Benton Harbor _/_'_7 Muskegon _/__7 Saginaw L7 Traverse City

Occupation/profession:

 

Name:

 

(optional)

Directions: Please answer the following items to the best of your know-
ledge. Check only one answer to each question unless other-
wise stated. Returfi_Th the enclosed self-addressed envelope.

1. Generally, what do you think are your community's major traffic

accident problems? (Please number in rank order - with 1 equal highest,
2 next, etc.)

[:7'Lack of traffic law enforcement

‘[:7 Poor traffic engineering

[:7 Untrained, discourteous drivers

[:7 Lack of funds to implement programs

[:7 Lack of good data on problems

U Drinking drivers

 

 

[:7 Other:
1:7'Other:
2. a. Are you generally aware of the high accident locations in your
community?
1] Yes [7 No

b. List some of these areas or locations:

 

172

173

Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

3. What do you feel are the major traffic safety needs in your area?
(Please number in rank order - with 1 highest, 2 next, etc.)

[:7 Improved traffic engineering practices
(i.e. better signing, signal systems, etc.)

[:7 More driver education/retraining programs
[:7 More enforcement of traffic law violations
[:7'Better management of total problem

[:7 Better data on specifics of problem

[:Y'More funds to implement programs

_/_7 Other:

 

[:7 Other:

 

4. How aware are you personally of your community's major traffic
safety problems or needs?

‘[:7 Not really aware
[:7 Somewhat aware

11:7 Very aware

5. Do you feel that state officials are generally aware of your
community's problems or needs?

[:Y'Yes 1:] No ‘[:7 Don't Know

6. How would you rank the problem of traffic accidents in your
community compared to other problems? (e.g. crime, housing, etc.)

[:7 Very low (no concern)

[7 Low (some concern)

[:7 High (occasionally receives top priority)
.[:7 Very high (always a top priority item)

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

174
Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

How would you compare your community's traffic accident problem with
neighboring communities of similar size?

_/_'_7 Worse than most

1:7'About the same

fl Better than most
Generally, how do you perceive the status of traffic safety activities
or programs in your community?

1] No visable effort

[:7 Programs appear quite limited

[:7 Programs appear reasonably adequate

[:7 Well developed, well organized, comprehensive
Have you ever seen an estimate of the annual cost of traffic
accidents to your community?
_ U Yes [7 No
If yes, give figure
00 you have any idea how much is spent on an annual basis for
accident prevention and traffic safety in your community?

[7 Yes H No

If yes, give estimate:

00 you believe that most traffic accident problems (or potential
problems) can be identified and solved rather easily and at
minimal cost?

 

 

.[:7 Yes [:7'N0 .[:7 Don't Know
If yes, state how

Are you aware of federal assistance programs for dealing with local
traffic safety problems?

[:7 Yes _/_7 No

If yes, from whom

 

 

Are you aware of any local traffic safety projects or programs which
have received federal assistance?

U Yes 1:] No
Describe:

In your opinion, who do you feel has major responsibility for traffic
safety programs in your community?

 

 

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

175
Questionnaire for Participants in Local Traffic Forums

Do you feel that there is (or may be) a need for improved management
or coordination of your community's traffic safety efforts.

[:7 Yes /___7 No U Don't Know

If yes, what suggestions would you make.

 

 

Do you feel that a local "forum-type" discussion of traffic safety
issues with state officials can be a beneficial and effective
process for developing appropriate preventative measures?

1: Yes L7 No
Why or why not?

 

 

Do you believe that the forum which you recently attended was at all
valuable in terms of: (check one or more)

‘[:7 Increasing your knowledge about the accident problem in
your community?

[:Y'Providing information about successful traffic safety
programs?

[:7 Increasing your awareness of federal funding programs?

[:7 Knowing how to approach the problem of organizing for
community support and action?

[:7'Providing for an exchange of views and opinions of state
officials and local leaders?

[:7 The meeting was not really worthwhile?

Please note below any other comments you have about the meeting:

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

COVER LETTER FOR POST-CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

176

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN

‘3'
@

RILLIAM G. MILLIKIN. GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

TI .0 HARRIS DRIVE. GENERAL OFFICE ELDG. LANSING. MICHIGAN ‘I’IE
PHONE! (II?) 313.293.

June 10, 1977

Dear Conference Participant:

As we indicated to you prior to your attendance at the local
Traffic Safety Forum last month, we are sending alon a follow-up
questionnaire (very similar to the first one we sent in an effort
to measure the value of the meeting.

We sincerely hope you will take just a few minutes to complete
the form and give us your impressions of the meeting (there is space
for this at the end of the questionnaire).

Your attendance and participation in the meeting was appreciated.

We look forward to working with you to make your community a
safer place to work and live.

 

Executive Director

Enclosures

P.S. We have again provided a self-addressed stamped envelope for
your use in returning the questionnaire.

177