COM 0042.010 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appendix II and 111 Appendix II -TERMINOLOGY Terminology should be clarified so that the Mayor's office, policy makers and elected officials know the importance of tracking all victims killed in motor vehicle related crashes including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and occupants. Therefore, the Department of Health Injury Prevention Epidemiologists recommends the terminology "motor vehicle-related fatalities." This term is preferred over "motor vehicle crash (MVC) fatalities' because "crash" could connote that there is only concern with occupants. The terminology of "traffic crash fatalities' is not preferred because "traffic crash" could leave the impression of excluding pedestrians and cyclists. The term motor vehicle or traffic "accident" is no longer used because it is generally agreed that many of the crashes are both predictable. Appendix III -DATA DEFINITIONS 8 EXPLANATIONS DEFINITIONS (i) Benchmark #1 The Hawaii County Five-Year Alcohol-Related, Fatal Crash Rate is defined as the following ratio: the annual number of fatal crashes that are alcohol-related (averaged over the most recent five years) divided by the annual number of registered drivers in Hawaii County (also averaged over the most recent five years). Five year averages are used because the number of fatal crashes fluctuates greatly from year to year. (ii) Benchmark #2 The Hawaii County Five-Year Proportion of Fatal Crashes that are Alcohol-related is defined as the following ratio: the annual number of fatal crashes that are alcohol-related (averaged over the most recent five years) divided by the annual total number of fatal crashes in Hawaii County (also averaged over the most recent five years). Five year averages are used because the number of fatal crashes fluctuates from year to year. EXPLANATIONS for Recommendations: B 2. Although the interventions ideally address impaired driving from drug use as well as alcohol, these benchmarks only track alcohol-related crashes because interventions to reduce alcohol impairment have been studied and recommended extensively at the national level. We are currently studying whether there is evidence that benchmarks and intervention programs to reduce drug-related fatalities are also effective. The benchmarks track the number ofalcohol-related fatality causing crashes, rather than the total number of deaths related to crashes. This is because the intervention will be designed to reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road, and may not affect numbers ofmulti-occupant fatalities involved in alcohol-related crashes. We define two benchmarks because the first one takes into account the annual change in the number of registered drivers on the road, and the second benchmark takes into account changes in driving habits or road conditions, which could affect the likelihood of both alcohol and non-alcohol related crash fatalities from year to year. B 3. By jointly monitoring "hot spots," Police, Liquor Control, Department of Health and Department of Transportation/County Department of Public Works could identify nearby stores, bars, clubs (or other favorite party locations) indirectly causing the high risk of crashes in one area. Another example: "hot spots" with more than the usual number of teen drivers involved in crashes may point to nearby schools or other teen "hang-outs," and this information could be useful to Department of Health, Department of Education and parent-organizations to target effective interventions. Motor Vehicle Related Gash Fatality Reduction Group - 2004 6