Voluntary Implementation of the Guideline


In its final form, this Guideline will be available to assist states in the process of revising their crash reporting forms and crash data processing systems. Except for the data elements required by the Office of Motor Carriers, implementation of the data elements included in the Guideline will be voluntary and according to state-specific specifications without any mandates by either NHTSA or FHWA. Instead, FHWA and NHTSA will encourage and support:
Potential Barriers and Their Solutions at the State Level
At the July 1997 National Workshop on MUCC, participants identified several areas which they considered to be barriers to implementation of the Guideline. The discussion then identified possible solutions which could be implemented by the various local, state, and Federal agencies with an interest in seeing MUCC adopted. The following items summarize that discussion: Many MUCC data elements and attribute values match data already being collected by police in most states. Electronic data collection technology has the potential of saving time while making the data more timely at local, regional, and state levels for management, feedback, and analyses. Implementing reporting thresholds to exclude the uninjured and/or minor crashes greatly limits the usefulness of the data that are collected. Collaboration with American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Association of State and Community Engineers (ASCE) and other organizations is important to broaden MUCC beyond the safety focus so that duplicate data collection is eliminated at the same time that users needs are met. Many states are using adjustments for the year 2000 as justification for revising their computerized data systems. For some, existing legacy systems make the process expensive and complicated but new state-of-the-art technology may overcome the limitations of these systems. Vendors are expected to play a large role in the standardization effort by incorporating MUCC into the software the states plan to buy. Successful implementations of MUCC can be identified, publicized and made available in a NHTSA/FHWA technology clearinghouse as models for states to evaluate and consider implementing. (In fact a Technology Clearinghouse has been established and can be accessed through the internet at www.iacptechnology.org) States and local agencies need incentives to implement MUCC. Although Congress might eventually increase funding for traffic records in the near future, collaboration is needed in the traffic records community to market the value of MUCC to members of Congress and at the state and local level. Lack of adequate funding sources increases the competition for those that do exist. States need to collaborate with one another and adopt a win-win approach with their major users to collaboratively obtain the necessary funds and staff resources. To encourage multi-agency cooperation, state user groups should be convened (as recommended in Goal II of the NSC's National Agenda) as an inexpensive mechanism for sharing expertise and receiving technical assistance in traffic records and data linkage from NHTSA. Traffic records assessments should be expanded to include a focus on MUCC. Political conflicts can be minimized by developing routine, user friendly, and useful feedback to the data collectors. Regular in-service training about how to interpret feedback information will help the data collectors understand the value of MUCC. Implementation of MUCC can be facilitated by incorporating it into the existing routine training provided to police and highway safety analysts. Developing a process to update ANSI Standards D16.1 and D20.1 on a regular basis will help to implement and maintain standardized minimum uniform crash criteria. Access to crash data files based on MUCC should be restricted for highway safety and injury control purposes. Protocols and model legislation for confidential access should be standardized nationally to prevent confusion. Appropriate Transportation Research Board committees should be used to investigate and communicate the liability issues to those involved. However, access to sensitive information should be improved for those who need to know. Some MUCC data should be aggregated for public use through the Internet and routine feed-back. Data users should be encouraged to make presentations and sponsor information booths at conferences so that the usefulness of MUCC data becomes well known.

Analysis of Current Use of MUCC Recommended Variables:
Even though obstacles exist, the good news is that of the 108 data elements included in the MUCC in this draft Guideline, about 58 data elements are included in the crash data files of the seventeen states in NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis's State Data System. In this system crash data files from seventeen states are obtained each year and converted to Statistical Analysis System (SAS) format for use by NHTSA data analysts. An analysis of these seventeen state data files found that: On average, the seventeen states collect a total of 35 crash level variables. On average, the seventeen states collect a total of 40 motor vehicle level elements. On average, the seventeen states collect a total of 25 person level elements.
mailto Please send any comments to: muccmail@nhtsa.dot.gov
Return to Main MUCC page