xt71vh5cfz7c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71vh5cfz7c/data/mets.xml President's Highway Safety Conference (1949: Washington, D.C.) Works Progress Administration Transportation Publications President's Highway Safety Conference (1949: Washington, D.C.) 1949 iv, 7 p. 23 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call Number: FW 2.18:Or 3/949/prelim books  English Washington: U.S. G.P.O.  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Works Progress Administration Transportation Publications Accidents -- Prevention Traffic accidents Preliminary Revised Report of Committee on Organized Public Support: the President's Highway Safety Conference, Held in Washington, D.C., June 1, 2, and 3, 1949 text Preliminary Revised Report of Committee on Organized Public Support: the President's Highway Safety Conference, Held in Washington, D.C., June 1, 2, and 3, 1949 1949 1949 2021 true xt71vh5cfz7c section xt71vh5cfz7c I IfillIllnnnfifllflafilflflflflfliflfifliflfflflfljMilli!HM
{M PRELIMWI’NAEY REVISED

. ORGANIZED
PUBLIC SUPPORT

The President’s HIGHWAY
SAFETY CONFERENCE

Held in
WASHINGTON, D. C.

JUNE 1, 2, and 3,1WN 6 1949

at W

OTHER CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORTS

‘1
{3'
ACCIDENT RECORDS - EDUCATION . ENFORCEMENT
PUBLIC INFORMATION - - - LAWS AND ORDINANCES
EN GGGGGGGGGG - A IIIIIIIIIIIII

and the ACTION PROGRAM

Presented by the COMMITTEE ON CON EEEEEEE REPORTS

|Do NOT DISCARETT
PRESERVA ON “1
l l

 

 Conference Organization

General Chairman:
MAJ. GEN. PHILIP B. FLEMING
Administrator, Federal Works Agency
Washington, D. C.
Vice Chairmen:
‘ WILLIAM PRESTON LANE, JR.
391 T’ééiffiid': #1 "zfi’ufigfi‘or of Maryland
Chairman, The Governors’ Conference
GEORGE W. WELSH
Mayor, Grand Rapids, Mich.
*fiIPrfiiggntiyntrfi States Conference of Mayors
Executive Director:
RUDOLPH F. KING
Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Boston, Mass.

II

 

 COORDINATING COMMITTEE

Chairman:
THOMAS H. MACDONALD
Commissioner, Public Roads Administration
Washington, D. C.
MAJ. GEN. EDWARD H. BROOKS, Director, Personnel and Administration,
General Staff, U. S. Army.
C. W. BROWN, President, American Association of State Highway Officials.
J. A. A. BURNQUIST, President, National Association of Attorneys General.
J USTUS F. CRAEMER, President, National Association of Railroad and Utilities
Commissioners.
M. C. CONNORS, President, American Association of Motor Vehicle Admin-
istrators.
NED H. DEARBORN, President, National Safety Council.
CLYDE A. ERWIN, President, National Council of Chief State School Officers.
WALLACE J. FALVEY, Chairman, Advisory Group, Accident Prevention Depart-
ment, Association of Casualty and Surety Companies.
COL. HOMER GARRISON, JR., President, International Association of Chiefs of
Police.
JOSEPH F. HAMMOND, President, National Association of County Officials.
DR. R. H. HUTCHESON, President, Association of State and Territorial Health
Officers.
HAROLD P. JACKSON, Chairman, National Committee for Traffic Safety.
PYKE JOHNSON, President, Automotive Safety Foundation.
DELESSEPS S. MORRISON, President, American Municipal Association (Mayor
of New Orleans).
CHARLES A. PETERS, Chairman, Federal Interdepartmental Safety Council.
ROBERT J. SCHMUNK, President, American Automobile Association.
EARL O. SHREVE, President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE REPORTS

Consists of members of Coordinating Committee, Chairmen of Conference
Committees, Regional Officers, and Representatives of each State.

III

 

  

CONTENTS
Page
Discussion ______________________________________________ 1
The current situation ________________________________ 1
Responsibility _______________________________________ 1
New inspirations—new assignments ____________________ 3
Recommendations _______________________________________ 3

IV

 Report of Committee on

Organized Public Support

 

DISCUSSION

The Current Situation

The need for traffic—accident reduction continues unabated. An
annual toll of 32,000 deaths, 1,100,000 injuries, and $2,650,000,000 in
accident costs is still a fantastic and unnecessary price to pay for
modern highway transportation.

In 1946 experts and laymen met at the call of the President of the
United States to formulate an action program for highway safety.
That program produced a unified effort to achieve safe streets and
highways which is greater than any other in our history. The results
are not fanciful guesswork—despite an increasing volume of high-
way traflic, we have experienced the most pronounced drop in the
traffic—fatality rate since records have been maintained. The rate for
1948 is the lowest ever recorded.

Today the enthusiasm born of the 1946 conference has begun to
wane. In many States and communities the traffic—safety program is
still notoriously weak. Do-nothing safety programs cannot sustain
the interest and backing of the public. Result? The number of
traflic deaths is climbing again 1

There can be no doubt as to our course in the months ahead. We
must profit from the experience of the past 3 years. The weak spots
need to be strengthened. Now is the time to make the most of solid
gains, without regret for the short-lived enthusiasms that had no posi—
tive results, and to advance more vigorously than ever before.

Responsibility

Organized public support has very specific responsibilities if it is
to provide the active backing essential to every highway—safety pro—
gram. Aggressive promotion of the recommendations of the 1949
President’s Highway Safety Conference is the first assignment. The
technical proposals contained in the action program are not vague
expressions of hope. They are tested methods of attaining safe streets
and highways. Public support must translate them into dramatic
realization in every State and community.

835573—49 1

 

  

In enlisting the cooperation of the public, organizations are generat-
ing a body of public opinion which goes beyond mere acceptance of the
need for highway safety. Public opinion must demand that every
official step be taken to assure adequate traffic control. Of even greater
importance is the demand that pedestrian, driver, and all other high-
way users comply with the spirit as well as the letter of trafiic laws.
If all plans, programs, and promotions failed, the individual could
still assure safe highways. His is the basic responsibility for his own
safety and that of others.

Until 1946 we had achieved relatively little coordination in traffic-
safety activity at national or State levels. This condition has been
improved—national coordination is a growing reality. In half the
States, however, we have yet to reach that full and complete inter-
change of ideas, plans, and programs among officials and between
officials and public which is the basic step toward safe highways. As
compared with the need for coordination in the community, these prob-
lems are relatively small. In the community—the “grass roots” where
traffic safety succeeds or fails—wis the core of responsibility for organ-
ized public support.

Those individuals who have been the “shock troops” of traffic safety
for many years are firm in the opinion that the best community results
can be obtained if the State program is strong. Yet it must be admit-
ted that many State rules do not fit the needs in local situations. The
traffic—safety problems of the rural areas are not those of the city.
Unfortunately, many municipalities are quick to grasp the technical
requirements of highway safety, and entirely overlook the absolute
necessity for public understanding and public support.

If we could cure the safety ills of traflic by the concerted action of
professional and official leaders our task would be easy. As long as
the economic and social impact of our highway transportation system
touches every citizen of the United States, then just so long must every
citizen or organized group of citizens have a share in the responsibil-
ity for safety in that transportation system. Many organizations
and many individuals are doing many things for highway safety, but
these are not enough.

A second duty for organized public support is to interest new leader—
ship in traflic-safety promotion. That such leadership be competent
is essential to progress. We know from experience that no program
for the public welfare can succeed without those human “spark plugs”
who give it life and vitality. Leadership must have specific tools with
which to work. As individuals we expect suitable equipment with
which to perform our daily work. Officials and support organizations
can offer nothing less than adequacy if we hope to win the power of
public opinion.

§_/_q.__a

 §_/_q.__a

New Inspirations—New Assignments

Organized public support is selling traffic safety as a commodity to
the American people. As in any sound promotional campaign, our
sales force needs the best, most attractively wrapped package. Indus—
try and business compete for the dollars of the potential purchaser.
We compete for his time! Every public service makes a demand on
that same time. Unless our product is sufficiently compelling it will
not receive the direct attention and the direct action which it requires
and deserves. The concept of traffic safety is neither dogmatic nor
dictatorial—it is a better way of life. He who observes the rules of
safe walking and safe driving displays to his fellow men the admirable
traits of moral courage, good judgment, and personal determination.

This fact we must face squarely: The salesmen must be “sold” first.
The individual members of a public—support organization have an
obligation to proclaim, promote, and live by the traffic—safety program
of that organization. Failing this, their potency as salesmen is lost.

We mustalso acknowledge that there are more than 3,500 communi-
ties of over 2,500 population in the United States, and that only a
small percentage are organized for safety. The big assignment for
organized public support therefore, is to organize the unorganized.
We do not propose this move for the sake of creating more organiza-
tions or more confusion. We believe that no community has a right
to say it has done all within its power to promote highway safety until
it has an organization geared for a bold, frontal attack. This is the
path of efficiency and effectiveness.

Organized public support will accept these assignments willingly,
working for the day when State, county, city, and small community go
forward together in a broad traffic-safety activity—each autonomous,
but with the program of each a coordinated, cooperative venture.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Organized Public Support recommends:

I. That the three committees of independent and equal status which
were formed or expanded at the recommendation of the President’s
Highway Safety Conference of 1946 should continue to coordinate the
traffic-safety program on a Nation—wide basis.

A. The Federal Committee on Highway Safety to—

1. Coordinate the highway-safety activities of all Federal depart-
ments and agencies.

2. Encourage cooperation in highway-safety activities of the Fed-
eral Government with the agencies of the several State and local gov-
ernment‘s through the State and Local Officials’ National Highway
Safety Committee.

 

  

3. Encourage cooperation in the highway-safety activities of the
Federal Government with national nonofficial organizations through
the National Committee for Traffic Safety.

B. The State and Local Officials’ National Highway Safety Com—
mittee 130——

1. Appraise existing conditions Within the States, utilizing the
technical recommendations of the President’s Highway Safety Con-
ference as a measuring stick to determine exactly What is needed to de—
velop effective, official highway-safety programs.

2. Fully coordinate their highway-safety activities and jurisdic-
tions.

3. Acquaint the public with the results of their analysis and com-
parison, and the outcome of their coordination, to the end that organ-
izations and individual citizens shall know exactly what items con-
stitute the official highway-safety programs.

4:. Work closely with the Federal Committee on Highway Safety in
a supporting, advisory, and consulting capacity.

C. The National Committee for Traffic Safety to—

1. Represent national civic, service, business, fraternal, profes-
sional, labor, farm, and similar men’s, women’s, and youth organiza-
tions interested in traffic safety.

2. Serve as a clearing house and coordinating agency for all such
national organizations.

8. Advise, stimulate, and otherwise assist in the development of
the traffic-safety programs of its participating organizations, rather
than to function as an operating organization conducting a separate
activity program. This assistance should not imply direction of the
traffic-safety program of individual organizations.

4. Work closely with both the Federal Committee on Highway
Safety and the State and Local Oflicials’ National Highway Safety
Committee in a supporting, advisory, and consulting capacity.

5. Stimulate State and local affiliates of organizations represented in
the committee to provide leadership for the creation and operation of
State—wide and community-wide public-support groups.

II. That the Chief Executive or administrative officer of each State,
county, and municipality should establish a Coordinating Committee
of Officials for the direction of the official highway-safety program.
This committee should include the heads of all departments charged
with or related to highway safety. Such a Coordinating Committee
should:

a. Appraise existing conditions within a State, county, or munici-
pality, utilizing the technical recommendations of the President’s
Highway Safety Conference and other pertinent information and

 facts as a measuring stick to determine exactly what is needed to de-
velop an effective official highway—safety program.

b. Fully coordinate their highway-safety activities and jurisdic—
tions.

0. Acquaint the public with the results of their analysis and com-
parison, and the outcome of their coordination, to the end that organ—
izations and individual citizens shall know exactly what items consti-
tute the oflicial highway—safety program. Public officials who want
public acceptance and understanding have no more important re-
sponsibility than to state, clearly and concisely, the points at which
additional public—support emphasis is needed in the traffic-safety
program.

III. That the Chief Executive or administrative officer of each
State, county, and municipality should establish a Highway Safety
Conference as a continuing pattern of organization, to meet annually.
Such a conference should be the means of presenting to the public the
findings and actions of the Coordinating Committee of Oflicials. The
personnel of this conference should include government officials and
also the public as represented by organizations and individuals. Each
Highway Safety Conference should, among other things, discuss and
take action on the following items:

a. Adaptation of the technical action program approved by the
President’s Highway Safety Conference to the needs of the particular
State, county, or municipality, but with the clear understanding that
adaptation does not mean lowering any minimum standard set by the
program.

b. A working relationship to be established between the Coordinat—
ing Committee of Officials and the supporting safety organization as
defined in section 4: of these recommendations.

c. Periodic review of the official highway-safety program by the
Coordinating Committee and the supporting safety organization to
determine where the program stands and what still needs to be done.
Progress can best be accomplished by holding one or more small action—
project meetings where oflicials, public-support and public-informa-
tion organizations can develop concrete, practical, cooperative pro-
grams.

d. A method of financing the support organization, whether by
private funds, public funds, or both.

IV. The Chief Executive of each State, county, and municipality
should actively support the establishment of a public-support, traffic—
safety organization where none exists. In some cases leadership for
the creation of the organization might well originate with the Chief
Executive. In other cases the impetus may come from private—support
organizations or even from individuals, for the public-support pro-
gram cannot and must not wait for stimulation by officials. A public-

5

 

  

support, traffic-safety organization must be entirely free from partisan
politics, and should offer full and complete opportunity for public
expression and participation through a membership of representatives
of all State-Wide, county-wide, and local organizations and industries
able and Willing to contribute to the solution of the traffic—safety
problem. Other members should include representatives of local
safety committees, and outstanding individuals selected because of
their particular interest. In order that it may be an effective instru-
ment of support for the official highway-safety program, this organi-
zation should operate:

a. As a supporting, advisory, and consulting group for the official
highway- safety program.

b. With a full- time paid Executive Director, and such employed
staff as is consistent with the size of the organization and its program.

V. Mechanics of full cooperation and coordination of activities
must be established between the official highway-safety program and
the program of public support. The public official cannot exercise his
responsibilities satisfactorily Without public backing. Coordination
of administrative planning at the official level is necessary in order that
available tax moneys be used in activities most productive of results,
and be efficiently expended. Coordination is also necessary in order
that requests for additional funds may be supported by facts cover-
ing the entire highway—transportation picture. A successful highway-
safety program can be achieved only as a part of the Whole picture.

While these recommendations call for separate committees of offi-
cials and public-support groups, experience has shown that a high
degree of official coordination has also been reached by other pro-
cedures. In some cities, for example, citizen members are included
on the committee responsible for official coordination. This pattern
has been particularly successful in communities up to 100,000 popula-
tion. In such cases an additional public-support group may be found
necessary to obtain broad representation which is impractical in a
committee concerned only with official coordination.

Nothing in this report is intended, nor should be construed, to
suggest a change in organizational plans which are delivering compre-
hensive effective traffic-safety programs.

VI. That national, State, and local organizations endorse and sup-
port, within the limits of the objectives set forth in their charters or
constitutions, the recommendations of the President’s Highway
Safety Conference and the official highway- —safety p1 ograms of State,
county, and local governments

VII. That national, State, and local organizations utilize every pos-
sible means to inform their membership about the technical action
program for highway safety approved by the President’s Highway
Safety Conference, and about the problems of fitting this program

6

 to the needs of the States, counties, and municipalities. In the dis-
charge of this responsibility, it is urged that all State and local units
of national organizations allot time on their programs for the presen-
tation of local needs in highway safety, thus to secure a greater degree
of understanding and individual acceptance of responsibility.

VIII. That all national organizations immediately seek full and
continuing support of their State and local units for—

a. Cooperation and active participation in the State and local]
highway-safety conferences recommended in this report.

b. Cooperation and active participation in the State and local
traffic-safety organizations recommended in this report.

IX. That all national organizations, and through them their State
and local units, endorse and secure continuing active support for the
programs making up the annual inventory and progress report to the
President’s Highway Safety Conference, namely: The Annual In-
ventory of Traffic Safety 'Activities; The National Pedestrian Protec-
tion Contest; the National Driver Education Awards Program, and
such other broad and important supplemental highway-safety pro-
grams as “Operation Safety”.

X. That in addition to support of the foregoing programs, local
public-support groups might well foster the American spirit of com-
petition through informal, intercity, traflic-safety contests. Crivic
pride can seldom decline a challenge from one or more communities
of like size.

Yet another logical step is a measure of competition among State
and local units of public—support organizations. This means of pro-
motion would be most effective if appropriate annual recognition could
be given to outstanding programs.

Committee on Organized Public Support

Chairman
W. EARL HALL
Managing Editor, Globe-Gazette
Mason City, Iowa
Vice Chairman
HAROLD P. JACKSON
Chairman, National Committee for Traffic Safety
Newark, N. J.
Secretary
PAUL H. BLAISDELL
Executive Director, National Committee for Traffic Safety
Chicago, Ill.

The final Conference-approved edition of this report will contain a com-
plete list of the members of the Committee on Organized Public Support.

7

D. 3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I!!!