Return to the VTRC Home Page
Click here to print the printer friendly version of this page.
 
Page Title: VTRC Report Detail

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Any inclusion of manufacturer names, trade names, or trademarks is for identification purposes only and is not to be considered an endorsement.

Title:

A Survey of Driver Improvement Programs in the Fifty States: Final Report
Authors:
Holt, Nathan.
Vermillion, Emily.
Cheryl W. Lynn
Year: 1991
VTRC No.: 91-R4
Abstract: In the fall of 1989, the content and statutory/regulatory provisions for other states' driver improvement programs were examined. This was done by both surveying the driver improvement managers in the various states and by conducting an analysis of their statutes and, where possible, their administrative rules and regulations. It is clear from these analyses that Virginia has one of the most complicated driver improvement systems in the country. The first analysis of information gained through these surveys involved the innovative practices in place in other states. These innovations fall into five categories: (1) point system innovations (in terms of both positive and negative point assignments), (2) innovations in scheduling, (3) new types and uses of treatment, (4) licensing innovations, and (5) statutory and policy innovations. Once these innovations were catalogued, attention was turned to the mechanisms by which the Virginia program could be changed. Statutory and regulatory data indicate that a majority of states permit their administrative agencies more discretion in administering driver improvement programs than is the case in Virginia. Most of these jurisdictions permit the administrative agency to promulgate point values by regulation. Alternatively, where points are not used, administrative agencies are allowed to determine the type and frequency of traffic violations that result in various driver improvement actions. Also, other states tend to allow their agencies more discretion in the number, type, and sequencing of treatments, often establishing the program in statute and describing it in regulations. Recommendations were made concerning possible statutory language to give the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles more flexibility in administering the program.