Question & Answer Forum

 
HSIP 5% requirement (Posted 9/14/2006 8:20:01 PM)
What is the REAL reason why States need to report on 5% of locations most in need of safety improvements, and then have that information exposed on a public website? I don't think drivers are going to start avoiding these locations, especially if no alternative routes are available. Seems like we are just providing ammunition for plaintiff attorneys and the media.
Re: HSIP 5% requirement (Posted 9/15/2006 5:29:00 PM)
As we all know, a problem well stated is a problem half solved (Emerson), and at least on the surface, one could assume that this is Congress' way of encouraging the states to use data to identify their high crash locations and find the most effective and efficient countermeasures. We are not privy to the discussions that go on in Congress, but perhaps your Congressman or Congresswoman could shed some light. Please let us know if you learn anything more. We are always interested in data improvements and analysis tools.
Re: HSIP 5% requirement (Posted 9/18/2006 8:23:37 PM)
I believe the 5% requirement was championed by Sen. DeWine (Ohio) and supported by the Sandy Johnson Foundation, to alert motorists of dangerous highway locations, and encourage States to develop systems that can identify dangerous locations. They claimed that State's were not releasing this information to "keep the public ignorant" or because States claimed they did not have the capability. That could be easily be interpreted the wrong way because States are required to have systems to identify high accident locations to receive HSIP apportionments. Also, some States may be reluctant to release the information due to lack of protection by 23USC409 in courts.

P.S. - That quote was by Kettering (Electrical Engineer). I think the quote by Bismarck is more fitting (funny), "If you like laws and sausage, you should never watch either being made".
Re: HSIP 5% requirement (Posted 9/21/2006 12:22:32 PM)
The congressional intent would be interesting, but the effect of the law could be very positive.

It's one thing to say that "safety" is the top priority but it's quite another to say that we know where the biggest problems are (what is the best balance between a rate-based approach and one that looks at collision counts?); how to spend safety funds most effectively (do you spend money on the biggest problems, or maximize lives saved?); and what's the socially-optimal level of spending on safety projects (safety vs more but narrower freeway lanes?).

I see the 5% list as part of the broader effort to reinvigorate highway safety programs in the light of growing safety problems. And that's definitely a good thing.
Post a new response:
*Contact information is required when submitting a question or response. Contact information will not be shared and will not appear with your post.