Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers
and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses: Appendix 2
Profiles of State and Local Agency Implementation Efforts: Strategy 2.1 B1
Emphasis Area
2.1—Keeping Unlicensed/Suspended/Revoked Drivers Off the Road
Objective
2.1 B—Publicly Identify Offender Vehicles
Strategy Name and Number
"Stripe" License Plate of Offender Vehicle (Strategy 2.1 B1)
Agency and Jurisdiction
State of Oregon
Problem(s) Identified
Unlicensed/Suspended/Revoked (U/S/R) drivers are greatly over represented in fatal crashes. Ready identification of vehicles that may be driven by improperly licensed drivers could facilitate enforcement of U/S/R driving.
Goals and Objectives Established
Increased identification of U/S/R drivers who continue to drive.
Description of Strategy Implemented
To discourage U/S/R driving, the vehicle registration of a vehicle operated by an apprehended U/S/R driver may be cancelled and the annual renewal sticker covered with a striped "zebra" sticker. A legal owner who is not the offender may clear the registration within 60 days; otherwise, the registration is permanently cancelled. Display of "zebra striping" is considered probable cause for an officer to stop the vehicle and check license status of the driver.
Summary of Implementation Effort (Lessons Learned)
This strategy required enabling legislation. It was implemented by both Washington (July 1988) and Oregon (January 1990), but Oregon applied the law whether the vehicle was owned by the offender or someone else. Oregon also recorded vehicle status on the offender's driving record, thus enabling rapid identification of such drivers, as well as facilitating evaluation of the strategy. Oregon also had higher law enforcement. The strategy proved effective in Oregon, showing marked reductions in violations, DUIs, and DWSs for stickered drivers. It was also important that the strategy be implemented administratively rather than through the courts. The strategy was not successful in Washington, where it was not heavily enforced and did not apply to non-offending owners of vehicles.
Summary of the Results 1
Analyses of data for the first 35 months of the Oregon sticker program examined:
- trends in vehicle cancellations
- observations and opinions of law enforcement officers,
- a report on re-licensing and re-arrest
There was a long-term steady decline in the number of cancellations processed each month, with about 44 percent of them involving an owner other than the offending driver. In general, law enforcement officers supported the law and viewed it as useful and effective. However, they did not agree that it met some of the objectives it was designed to achieve, e.g., getting unsafe vehicles off the road, providing swift and sure punishment, or getting uninsured drivers off the road. There was no evidence that the program increased re-licensing rates, but drivers who were cited for DWS under the financial responsibility law, and subject to vehicle loss, had fewer crashes, fewer convictions for driving uninsured, and fewer other types of conviction than did drivers who were not subject to cancellation.
There was both general deterrence, reducing U/S/R driving in general, and specific deterrence, showing reductions in subsequent moving violations (but not DUI violations) and crashes for "stickered" drivers. It was concluded that the program prevented 454 crashes per year, involving 850 vehicles, 133 injuries, and 4 or 5 fatalities, with a savings of over $15 million.
The law was enacted with a sunset clause, requiring action on the part of the legislature to extend it. Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the law was subsequently repealed in both Oregon and Washington.
Contact Person and Information
Because the program is no longer in effect, there is no contact person who can provide information about this strategy.
|