<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Traffic Conflict Studies Before and After Introduction of Red-Light Running Photo Enforcement in Maine</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/790247</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Red-light running is a major safety concern in Maine.  It can probably best be reduced by enforcement.  This pilot study uses crash data, traffic conflict data, video and field observations of behavior to evaluate the potential effectiveness of photo enforcement in Lewiston and Auburn in Maine.  The intent of the pilot study was to demonstrate the need for photo enforcement, to show that it can work in Maine, and to help the legislators make informed, educated decisions on legislation affecting this program, which may include a shift in policy to allow photo-enforcement activities.  The ultimate purpose of the activity is to improve safety at intersections, thereby reducing fatalities and injuries.  Five signalized intersections in Lewiston-Auburn were outfitted with photographic equipment in the pilot study, which was funded by the Federal Highway Administration, Maine Department of Transportation and the Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center.  The equipment vendor operated and maintained the equipment, and viewed photographic images to insure quality.  The respective Lewiston or Auburn police departments reviewed each potential violation to determine whether a red light violation had occurred, and issued warning letters to the registered vehicle owners of the offending vehicles.  The police were conservative when determining if a red light violation had occurred - likely more violation warning letters could have been issued.  Even with some periods with the systems inoperable and the conservative approach, over 4,600 warning letters were issued during the six-month pilot project, resulting in an average of over 5 violations per day for each intersection, proving that red light running is indeed a major problem.  For a variety of reasons, the system was not operating 100% of the time.  Still, it was shown that automatic enforcement can be used even during Maine's severe winter conditions.  The effectiveness could be further improved with a careful maintenance program.  A system that catches only 50% of all offenders would be about 2000 times more effective than today's enforcement level.  A question that has been addressed through this study is whether automatic enforcement, using video and digital camera technology, effectively can reduce red-light running frequencies even if violations only result in warning letters.  (Maine law currently does not allow issuing citations based on photographic evidence, so only warning letters were issued to violators.)  Observations of red-light running indicate that the violation rate dropped by around 28% between December 2004 (when the system was first installed) and May 2005, when the system had been operational for several months.  But it was the infractions that occurred at low speeds and within the first second or so that were reduced.  Infractions more than 3 seconds into red and at speeds above 35 mph actually increased.  However, it is unlikely that the enforcement system in any way led to this increase in the more serious infractions.  It is possible that weather and roadway conditions explain the higher speeds during the later months.  Future studies should address that.  Conflict and crash data indicate that there were no great improvements in safety between the before period and the period when the system was in operation.  Actual fines rather than warning tickets may have produced greater safety effects.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:26:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/790247</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>APPLICATION OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENHANCED CALIFORNIA NEGLIGENT OPERATOR TREATMENT AND EVALUATION SYSTEM</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/731038</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Through this critical review of the literature and evaluation of warning letter contents, the foundation has been set for the development of an enhanced negligent-operator treatment and evaluation system (ENOTES) for California.  Criteria to evaluate the treatment letters were developed from the 16 components of the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change that, incidentally, incorporates the majority of the recommendations made by the traffic safety researchers over the past 50 years. The evaluated studies were tabulated by the strength of the evidence supporting each treatment in terms of the quality of the research and the validity of the methods as defined by the degree to which they reflected components of the TTM.  Overall, the research designs were outstanding.  However, the warning letters themselves were weaker, and generally not strongly tied to a theory of behavior change.  On average, 2.5 of the six General Stage, 1.8 of the five Early Stage, and 0.29 of the five Late Stage TTM elements were utilized.  No balanced treatment letters were identified that incorporated the majority of the TTM elements available from all three stages.  A definite opportunity exists to strengthen the effectiveness of letter treatments through intelligent use of the TTM.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/731038</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AGE DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE TO HIGH AND LOW-THREAT DRIVER IMPROVEMENT WARNING LETTERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/474671</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper is based on an evaluation of Oregon's Driver Improvement Program, which monitors driver records and takes corrective administrative action at four levels.  The paper focuses on the second step in the program, the warning letter. Data are based on drivers who qualified for warning letters in 1993.  Records of 8,462 letter recipients and 456 controls were monitored for 26-38 subsequent months.  Of 8,462 letter recipients, 4,181 received a standard letter and 4,278 an experimental soft-sell letter.  Overall, the effect of letters on accidents and moving violations depends on age.  The program seems to work as intended for people over 25.  Both letters are effective, and the soft-sell letter is the more effective of the two.  However, for people under 25, accident free survival is significantly poorer for both letter groups, and differences in effectiveness between the letters are smaller.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/474671</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>TRIAL OPERATION OF A NEW PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY SYSTEM USING INFRARED BEACONS FOR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/574485</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Universal Traffic Management Society of Japan (UTMS Japan) and the Hokkaido Prefectural police HQ as a joint development team developed a new Public Transportation Priority System (PTPS).  This system performs bus-prioritized traffic-actuated control on traffic signal controllers at a group of intersections, right turn bus-prioritized signal control at an intersection where a bus route turns right, and displays a warning message on a display board to alert a violating ordinary vehicle traveling on an exclusive bus lane by employing newly developed roadside infrared beacons and in-vehicle units, both dedicated to two-way communication, mounted on buses.  In the new PTPS, because the identification number (ID) information of a bus can be transmitted to the system through the roadside infrared beacon, the traveling position of the bus can be readily recognized by the system.  Conversely, the system can convey various items of information to the bus through the roadside infrared beacon.  This means that the PTPS of a traffic administrator can be linked to bus management systems independently operated by local bus service companies to form an integrated system, which can contribute to the rationalization of investment (savings in investment cost).  With assistance from a local bus service company, the joint team for PTPS development put the newly developed PTPS into trial operation in March 1966 on National Highway Route 36 in Sapporo City, Hokkaido Prefecture, verified the effectiveness of the developed PTPS for maintaining bus service on a fixed-time and fixed-speed basis, and experimentally used information collected on the traveling position of each bus from roadside infrared beacons for information provision service to both the bus service company and the bus users.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/574485</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DRIVER IMPROVEMENT INDEX PILOT STUDY. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/367628</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A linear discriminant function named the Driver Improvement Index, developed in previous research sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, was applied to a novel and expanded group of drivers to test its accuracy in classifying accident-involved versus non-accident-involved operators, using historical accident data.  A superior level of accuracy for this instrument as compared to the number of points on a driver's record was clearly indicated, in terms of correct accident group classifications.  Refinements to the instrument were suggested and also evaluated in this project.  Driver improvement program treatments were developed, implemented, and evaluated in this research, targeted to three levels of demonstrated negligence (points).  These interventions included an advisory/warning letter, a Special Written Point Examination, and a classroom exercise for small groups labeled Decisions for Safe Driving.  While the letter achieved moderate effectiveness in violation reduction and the written examination achieved significant reductions in both accidents and violations, the class failed to demonstrate a benefit on either measure.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Sep 1993 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/367628</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DRIVER DEMERIT POINT WARNING LETTER: FOCUS GROUP TESTING OF ALTERNATIVE LETTERS: FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/356141</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study was conducted in March 1989 among 85 Ontario drivers, selected to represent different segments of driving population in age, sex, educational achievement or vocational driving.  The respondents were divided into 14 small groups of 6 individuals, with each group reacting to the current warning letter and to 4 alternative versions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Aug 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/356141</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>POST LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM: NEGLIGENT OPERATOR PROGRAM COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS. PERIODIC STATUS REPORT NO. 3</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/349514</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Post Licensing Control Reporting and Evaluation System (PLCRES) provides a continually updated series of reports on the costs and traffic safety impacts of the Department of Motor Vehicles four negligent operator treatments:  W/L (Warning Letter), GEM (Group Educational Meeting), I/H (Individual Hearing), and P/V (Probation Violator Hearing). The objective of PLCRES is to provide ongoing program effectiveness data on its negligent operator programs. Such information is essential for making informed budgetary, policy and operational decisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/349514</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>POST LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM: NEGLIGENT OPERATOR PROGRAM COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS. PERIODIC STATUS REPORT NO. 7. (SUMMARY)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/349533</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Post Licensing Control Reporting and Evaluation System (PLCRES) provides a continually updated series of reports on the costs and traffic safety impacts of the Department of Motor Vehicles negligent operator program.  The PLCRES system was implemented in response to legislative concern over the cost and benefits of the negligent operator program and the department's desire for rigorous program evaluation data.  Recent status reports have not shown favorable cost-benefit figures for some of the program components, and this evidence has triggered reappraisal of the program structure by DMV management.  As a result, a new post licensing control system has been designed in an effort to increase program effectiveness.  A new evaluation system will be developed to provide ongoing effectiveness data on the restructured negligent operator program.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/349533</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>POST LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM: NEGLIGENT OPERATOR PROGRAM COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS. PERIODIC STATUS REPORT NO. 2</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/349534</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Post Licensing Control Reporting and Evaluation System (PLCRES) provides a continually updated series of reports on the costs and traffic safety impacts of the Department of Motor Vehicles four negligent operator treatments:  W/L (Warning Letter), GEM (Group Educational Meeting), I/H (Individual Hearing), and P/V (Probation Violator Hearing). The objective of PLCRES is to provide ongoing program effectiveness data on its negligent operator programs.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/349534</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>OREGON'S HABITUAL TRAFFIC OFFENDER PROGRAM: AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSE REVOCATION</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/307792</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This report presents the results of a study of the effectiveness of license revocation for habitual offenders. Drivers whose licenses were revoked were compared with a similar group of drivers whose licenses were not revoked. All revoked drivers had significantly fewer nonmajor violations than did the control drivers.  Revoked drivers who received the revocation notice (47%) also had significantly fewer accidents and major violations. Moreover, revoked drivers demonstrated a significant change in the pattern of violation types after revocation.  It was concluded that:  (a) revocation seems to be an effective way to deter habitual traffic offenders, because habitual offenders whose licenses are revoked have fewer traffic involvements than would be expected if they were not revoked; (b) license revocation would be more effective if the rate of delivery of the revocation notice was higher; and (c) even though many habitual offenders drive illegally after revocation, there is evidence that improved driving behavior, as well as reduced exposure, contributes to the effectiveness of the program.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 1990 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/307792</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>EVALUATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEM. VOLUME 6: AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF A WARNING LETTER FOR FIRST TIME DUI (DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE) OFFENDERS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/274702</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The California driver improvement system has historically used a warning letter (W/L) as the first intervention for persons with unsafe driving records.  The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of warning letters and pamphlets on subsequent accident and conviction rates for first-DUI offenders.  The study assessed the effect of two different factors:  type of warning letter and frequency of contact.  Two warning letters were used; the first was a "standard" warning letter intended for use in future DMV negligent operator programs, and the second was an experimental "personalized" warning letter which described the potential consequences of driving while intoxicated and which outlined alternatives to unsafe drinking-and-driving practices.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/274702</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>NEGLIGENT-OPERATOR TREATMENT EVALUATION SYSTEM: PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS REPORT NUMBER 1</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/274550</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Negligent-Operator Treatment Evaluation System (NOTES) provides decision makers in California with annual cost-effectiveness analyses of the Department of Motor Vehicles' new Negligent-Operator (Neg-Op) program.  The evaluation system (NOTES) is based on a comparison of the driver records of persons with poor driving records (Neg-Ops) who are randomly assigned to a treatment or a control group.  There are three levels of Neg-Op treatments presently under evaluation by NOTES:  (1) the Warning Letter, (2) the Notice of Intent to Suspend, and (3) the Probation Hearing.  The present Neg-Op program reduced the number of cited drivers during the first six months after treatment.  All of the reductions found are very reliable statistically.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1987 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/274550</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CALIFORNIA'S POST-LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM--A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF RESULTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/204093</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper describes a system--the Post-Licensing Control Reporting and Evaluation System (PLCRES)--for producing ongoing effectiveness data on California's negligent operator program.  PLCRES was designed to fulfill several optimum program evaluation principles: (1) ongoing experimental replication, (2) random assignment to treatment and control populations, (3) timely computer-generated effectiveness measures, (4) high statistical power, and (5) cost-benefit modeling.  The system produces effectiveness data on the four components of California's sequential negligent operator control program: warning letter (W/L), group educational meeting (GEM), individual hearing (I/H), and probation violator hearing (P/V).  Results accumulated over the first 3 1/2 years of the system's operation indicate that all four program components reduce traffic conviction frequency.  With the exception of the warning letter, each component also significantly reduced traffic accidents.  All four were found to be cost beneficial based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's societal accident cost model.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/204093</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE VIRGINIA DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON NEGLIGENT DRIVING: 12-MONTH REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/204094</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study sought to evaluate the impact of the four most common treatment combinations offered by the Virginia driver improvement program: (1) a warning letter, (2) a one-time group interview, (3) the combination of a warning letter and the group interview, and (4) a personal interview followed by an 8-hour driver improvement clinic.  As persons became eligible for the various treatments as a result of accumulation demerit points, they were randomly assigned to treatment and no-treatment groups whose subsequent driving records were compared at the end of one year.  The groups receiving the group interview or personal interview had significantly fewer post-treatment convictions than did the corresponding no-treatment groups while the advisory letter experimental and control groups had equivalent subsequent driver histories.  Interestingly, while the group interview alone was highly successful in reducing convictions, it was unsuccessful when preceded by an advisory letter.  None of the treatments reduced subsequent accidents. On the basis of these findings, it was recommended that the advisory letter either be restructured or replaced by the group interview as the entry level treatment.  It was also recommended that some point value be assessed for involvement in an accident, regardless of who was at fault, to increase the incentive for drivers to avoid accidents.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/204094</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE VIRGINIA DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON NEGLIGENT DRIVING--24 MONTH REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/186266</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The results of the 24 month analysis were similar to those noted after 12 months.  The group interview as a first treatment contact and the personal interview were highly effective in reducing subsequent convictions.  The advisory letter alone and the letter paired with a group interview were ineffective.  Treatment had no effect on accident experience.  It was recommended that the Division of Motor Vehicles seek legislation to allow it to alter the driver improvement program as it deems appropriate, without having to continually change the driver improvement statute.  It was also recommended that the advisory letter be abandoned as a first contact in treatment, that treatment programs be tailored to address accident avoidance, that "points" be assessed for accident involvement as well as conviction experience, and that the number of suspension hearings being held be increased.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 1984 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/186266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>