Return to NHTSA homepage

Back   Table of Contents   Forward

MMUCC
MODEL MINIMUM UNIFORM CRASH CRITERIA GUIDELINE
Improving Crash Data for Safer Highways

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of MMUCC is to provide a minimum, standardized data set for describing crashes of motor vehicles that will generate the information necessary to improve highway safety within each state and nationally.

Format of the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003)

The MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) consists of five major sections. The first section is an introduction to the importance of crash data and the factors that are related to the development, implementation and update of MMUCC during the past five years. The second section summarizes the changes to the MMUCC Guideline, 1st Edition (1998). The third section presents the MMUCC data elements. The fourth section provides a glossary that defines the acronyms and MMUCC terminology used in the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003). The fifth, and final section, presents appendices that include reference information useful for MMUCC training and implementation efforts.

Importance of Crash Data

A motor vehicle crash report includes information that describes characteristics of the events, vehicles, and persons (drivers, injured and uninjured occupants, injured pedestrians and bicyclists, etc.) involved in the crash. Law enforcement investigates the crash at the scene and documents the information on the crash report. By using evidence found at the scene, and by interviewing participants and witnesses, the investigating officer may answer such questions as:

• “In what directions were the involved vehicles and pedestrians moving prior to impact?”

• “What occurred at the time of impact?”

• “What factors may have contributed to the crash?”

Data recorded on crash reports are computerized and merged into a central, electronic crash data file at the state level. These statewide motor vehicle crash databases provide the basic information necessary for developing effective highway and traffic safety programs. Data from state crash data systems are used by local, state and federal agencies to:

• Identify and prioritize highway and traffic safety problem areas;

• Initiate and evaluate the effectiveness of laws and policies intended to reduce deaths, injuries, injury severity and costs; and,

• Assess the relationship between vehicle and highway characteristics, crash propensity, and injury severity to support either the development of countermeasures or their evaluation.

At the federal level, individual crash reports also provide the basis for national crash information systems, either as the sampling frame or as a source of data. Data from these national systems are utilized in highway safety decision making by agencies at all levels of government.

By promoting MMUCC, the highway safety community is making an explicit statement that comparable data from all states are crucial to our ability to identify problems and make improvements. The MMUCC data elements, along with the state-specific data elements and the officer’s narratives and diagrams, provide critical highway safety information. Information technology is capable of capturing these data electronically, regardless of whether the data are in narrative, graphic or coded formats.

Return to Top

Justification for MMUCC

MMUCC was originally developed in response to requests by states interested in improving and standardizing their state crash data. Although the majority of states collect a uniform core of highway safety data elements and definitions, the lack of uniform attributes and complete reporting limit interstate comparisons and skew analytical results.

Changes During the Past Five Years

Efforts to standardize crash data have increased since MMUCC was originally recommended as a voluntary guideline in 1998. More states have included MMUCC in their crash data review process. This has generated feedback with which to evaluate and update MMUCC according to the needs of the states and the federal government. States are continually being encouraged to give priority to MMUCC, but also to add other data elements when needed for state-specific purposes.

Several federal agencies as well as other highway safety organizations have been using MMUCC as a model as they compare their databases for compatibility and work towards standardization.

The MMUCC review and update effort has provided an opportunity to obtain better data on emerging highway safety issues such as distracted driving, child restraint usage, etc. As a result, the highway safety community has improved its data collection, quality, comparability, and standardization.

Updates of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard D16.1-1996, Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, Sixth Edition, and the ANSI Standard D20.1, Data Element Dictionary for Traffic Records Systems, used to develop and update MMUCC, will be coordinated during their normal review processes to be consistent with the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) wherever appropriate.

Congress has supported the improvement of crash data with the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. TEA21 includes a recommendation for the development of model data elements.

Return to Top

MMUCC Update Process

The review and update of the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) has been a public/private collaborative effort of the highway and traffic safety communities. The process has been sponsored by NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, and GHSA and was designed to provide for the greatest possible input so that MMUCC is perceived not as a product of any one organization but as something for which all stakeholders can claim ownership. The following steps have been accomplished:

• MMUCC Guideline, 1st Edition (1998) was distributed and implemented. As agreed upon during the development phase, no changes were made for five years.

• In 1999, NHTSA interviewed the seven states that had participated in a crash report revision process and adopted most of the recommended MMUCC data elements. For most of these states, revising the forms and data systems was long overdue because of obsolescence. New technologies made the revisions feasible and Y2K compliance provided a sense of urgency.

• During 2001–2002, NHTSA funded the development of an electronic version of MMUCC. That software was made available, at no cost, to facilitate implementation of the MMUCC recommendations. (A sample of the electronic version is included in Appendix C.) The 2003 MMUCC data elements and attributes will be incorporated into an updated version of the electronic MMUCC and will be available by the summer of 2003, at no cost, through the Iowa National Model as a module of the TraCS software.

• During 2001–2002, the MMUCC data elements were reviewed by NHTSA’s Data Compatibility Work Group consisting of representatives of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and General Estimates System (NASS-GES). This group used MMUCC as a model to evaluate the compatibility of their respective data systems. During the discussions, recommendations were noted for consideration at the next update of MMUCC.

• During April 2002, sixteen states, identified as having revised their crash report forms within the past five years, were surveyed in detail. One state was excluded, having completed the review process prior to the availability of MMUCC. Ninety-three percent (14 of 15) of the remaining states used MMUCC during their review processes. On average, 84 percent of the MMUCC data elements were incorporated. Contributing Circumstances — Environment, Underride/Override, Direction of Force, Vehicle Role and Commercial Vehicle Trailer Information were the data elements most frequently not adopted. Some states noted difficulty implementing those data elements that required linkage to other data files. Some states recommended that MMUCC include data elements for booster seats, cell phones, vehicle removal, and time of EMS notification.

• NHTSA prepared a draft revision of MMUCC that included the recommendations by the NHTSA Data Compatibility Work Group and the results of the original sixteen state surveys. This version was presented to the MMUCC expert panel at its meeting held in Arlington, Virginia in May 2002. The MMUCC expert panel reviewed all of the recommendations. MMUCC was revised and expanded per the panel’s discussions.

• During June 2002, the draft MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) was made available for public comment on the MMUCC Web site.

• Comments entered at the MMUCC Web site during the late spring and summer of 2002 were added to the draft MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) and presented for public comment at a MMUCC one-day workshop held in conjunction with the 28th International Traffic Records Forum during August 2002 in Orlando, Florida.

• During August 2002, NHTSA’s survey was expanded to include 16 more states (for a total of 32 states) and a new set of questions about the characteristics of MMUCC. Of the 32 states, more than two-thirds responded that they have or are planning to implement electronic crash reporting. Only nine states responded that they had no plans to update their crash form anytime soon. Two-thirds of the states also indicated that they have limited or no resources to link driver, vehicle and roadway data files. On average, the states computerized 82 percent of the data elements they collected. The percentage of data elements collected for PDO crashes varied from zero to 65 percent. Many states responded that data are more accurate for fatal crashes, less accurate for non-fatal injury crashes, and even less accurate for PDO crashes.

• Comments from the workshop and NHTSA’s survey were incorporated into a new version of the draft MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003), which was reviewed by the MMUCC Expert Panel at its second meeting in Arlington, Virginia in October 2002. The workshop recommendations were discussed and a final version of the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) was recommended for implementation during the next five years.

• The MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) is being distributed jointly by NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, and GHSA.

Return to Top

Selection Criteria for MMUCC Data Elements

The following criteria were used to select the MMUCC data elements and to evaluate all recommendations for changes or additions:

AN ELEMENT MUST BE APPROPRIATE. It must be needed for highway or traffic safety purposes. Elements that are administrative in nature or have little or no application for highway or traffic safety analysis are excluded.

AN ELEMENT MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE. It must include all aspects of the definition.

EACH ELEMENT MUST INCLUDE:

• A definition;
• A set of attribute values; and,
• A rationale (importance to highway safety).

EXISTING STANDARDS DOCUMENTATION WILL BE FOLLOWED. The primary reference used to develop MMUCC consisted of the ANSI D16.1Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 6th Edition. Other references used included ANSI D20.1, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) and the Crashworthiness Data system (NASS-CDS), and the data elements mandated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for commercial motor vehicles.

MMUCC WILL PRESENT ONLY THE DATA ELEMENTS. MMUCC does not attempt to organize the proposed data elements and their attribute values into a reporting format. It also does not present coding values for the element values. States have the option of designing the format and content of their crash report, and the most appropriate data collection system and data coding conventions to meet their needs.

THE DATA SET COLLECTED AT THE SCENE WILL BE MINIMAL. Additional data needed for analytical purposes are derived from existing computerized data elements or obtained after linkage to other data files whenever possible. States have the option to expand the data set to meet state-specific needs.

DATA ELEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED TO FACILITATE LINKAGE TO OTHER DATA SOURCES. Identifiers describing the location, date, time, persons involved, etc. are essential. When standardized, these data elements are useful for linking to other state data.

Return to Top

MMUCC and the Importance of Reporting Thresholds

Background

The MMUCC Guideline, 1st Edition (1998) recommended that, as a minimum, states should report all crashes in which anyone was injured or at least one car was towed from the scene. As the result of the MMUCC recommendation and pressures to reduce state budgets, some states have considered eliminating some of the non-tow-away property damage only (PDO) cases they currently collect.

Studies Reporting the Impact of a Tow-Away Reporting Threshold

Using their Highway Safety Information System (HSIS), FHWA conducted two studies to evaluate the potential impact of changing to a “tow-away or injury” reporting threshold. The first study examined changes in crash frequency, types of crashes and locations. The results indicate that such a change would eliminate approximately 48 percent of the crashes now in current PDO-based files; would exclude more crashes on urban streets than on rural roads; would result in underestimation of rear-end, sideswipe, parking, and animal crashes; and would seriously affect the reporting of run-off-road, angle, and turning crashes. The second study evaluated the specific effects on a state roadway agency’s ability to identify high-crash locations and to conduct the crash-pattern analysis necessary to identify countermeasures. The results indicate that the listing of high-crash locations would be significantly changed. Whether this was a benefit or a disbenefit would require further study. However, it was found that under a tow-away threshold, safety engineers identified fewer “total” patterns and “serious” patterns in their crash-pattern analyses, especially for turning, rear-end, and sideswipe crashes.

The National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) at NHTSA reviewed the reporting thresholds for the seventeen states participating in NHTSA’s State Data System. NCSA evaluated what proportion of crashes would be lost and what changes in the basic composition of the crash data would occur with a “tow-away or injury” threshold. The results indicated that this threshold would significantly decrease the total number of reportable crashes. Approximately 42 percent of all crashes and approximately 70 percent of the property damage only crashes would be lost. NCSA also evaluated the impact of a “tow-away or injury” threshold for urban/rural crashes, single/multiple vehicle crashes, first harmful event, manner of collision and vehicle types. The results indicate that low severity PDO crashes would be lost, changing the composition of the remaining PDO crashes as follows:

• The proportion of urban crashes decreases.

• The proportion of single vehicle crashes increases, with an increase in fixed object, rollover, and other non-collision crashes.

• The proportion of multiple vehicle crashes decreases, both for motor vehicles in transport and parked motor vehicle crashes.

• The proportions of angle and head-on collisions increase, while rear-end and sideswipe collisions decrease.

• The proportions of passenger cars and light trucks in crashes increase slightly, large trucks and motorcycles decrease slightly, and buses and other vehicles exhibit a moderate decrease.

Impact of MMUCC on Collectors and Users of Crash Data

The responsibility for the collection of crash data falls on law enforcement that is responsible for investigating and recording the crash events at the scene. Budget considerations that affect staffing affect willingness to expand the scope of crash data collection. However, because of the increasing importance of crash data for highway safety, some jurisdictions have resolved this problem by adding civilian personnel as investigators to relieve police of the burden of investigating and documenting all of the motor vehicle crashes.

The responsibility for analyzing the crash data falls on the major users of crash data who may or may not be the data collectors. The analyst wants information about most of the crashes and all persons involved (injured or uninjured) to accurately monitor the status of highway safety.

Importance of Complete and Accurate Crash Data

Highway safety cannot improve without complete and accurate crash data.

Comprehensive information is necessary to understand what makes a difference and what has a direct impact on reducing deaths, injuries, injury severity and costs.

• Complete crash data make it possible to justify highway safety decisions that reduce the community’s or state’s fiscal liability caused by adverse court decisions from roadway defects, vehicle designs, etc.

• Targeting highway safety countermeasures to reduce health care costs caused by motor vehicle crashes will save the state money in terms of reduced expenses for Workers’ Compensation and Medicaid and increased revenue from fewer days lost to injury.

• A state may receive less federal funding than is targeted when incomplete and unreliable data force federal funding decisions to be based on estimates rather than the state’s actual data.

• Different state reporting thresholds make it difficult to accurately determine whether differences between states are caused by the data or the countermeasures.

• The elimination of non-tow-away PDO cases affects the state’s ability to justify data-driven decisions for highway safety. When only injury crashes are included, the lack of information about the uninjured makes it impossible to measure if a safety countermeasure (safety belts, helmets, etc.) causes a downward shift in injury severity. When less serious or no injury cases are excluded, many of the highway safety success stories are eliminated.

Types of Reporting Thresholds

All states report crashes that result in injury. But not all states collect the same information about the uninjured passengers or the reported minor PDO crashes. States have adopted various types of reporting thresholds that balance data collection demands with their available staff time and funds. Thresholds may focus on the type of roadway (public/private), the level of property damage or vehicle damage, the occurrence of an injury, and/or the absence of an injury. The implementation of these types of reporting thresholds is not uniform among the states. Each type is described below:

1. Type of Road: Most states limit reporting to crashes that occur on public roads. Thus, crashes and/or injuries occurring in private driveways or parking lots are not included in the crash files, though their injuries may be severe enough to require admission as a hospital inpatient.
2. Property or Vehicle Damage: Most states limit reporting to crashes that involve $500–$1,500 or more of property damage and exclude fender benders, perceived as insignificant. Larger states are more likely to choose the higher property damage threshold or even to go beyond property damage to include only those crashes in which at least one vehicle had to be towed.
3. Occurrence of Injury: Almost all states report crashes that involve an injured person. Injuries are categorized using a functional measure of severity (KABCO, etc.) that is based on the level of injury severity visible at the scene. Most states collect information that identifies the injured person by age, sex, injury severity, seating position in vehicle, vehicle number, and whether the person was using safety equipment (belts, helmets, etc.).
4. Absence of an Injury: In an effort to save time and money, some states do not collect data about the uninjured passengers involved in motor vehicle crashes. Other states may collect safety equipment use for this group but exclude the identifiers (age, sex, injury severity, seating position in vehicle, vehicle number, etc.).

Reporting Threshold Recommended to Implement MMUCC

The MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) recommends the following threshold as necessary to generate the cases needed to improve highway safety.

• All crashes statewide involving death, personal injury, or property damage of $1,000 or more should be reported and computerized statewide.

• Crash data should be reported for all persons involved (including the injured and non-injured) to support highway safety’s mission of reducing death, injury, injury severity and health care costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes statewide.

• Each state should adopt a reporting threshold that is uniform and consistently implemented statewide.

Return to Top

MMUCC and the Importance of Data Linkage

This MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) recommends linkage to other sources of information when available to reduce the data collection burden at the scene. Electronic transfer of data to automatically complete the crash report at the scene improves data quality and saves time.

This MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) also recommends linkage as a strategy to gain access to information not available at the scene of the crash. Crash data alone do not indicate the magnitude of the problem of motor vehicle crashes or the effectiveness of highway safety countermeasures. Nor do crash data provide sufficient details about the roadway, the vehicle, the experience of the driver, or the medical and financial consequences for those who are injured.

Other state data files do collect crash-related information. Their linkage to state crash data provides the opportunity to collect more comprehensive information about the crash. Roadway inventory, driver licensing, vehicle registration, citation/conviction, EMS, emergency department, hospital, death certificate, census and other state data provide more information about the roadway, the drivers and vehicles involved, and the type and severity of the injuries that occur. Crash, injury and some judicial records are collected at the time of the crash at the scene, en route, at the emergency department, in the hospital, and after hospital discharge. Driver licensing, vehicle registration, and roadway inventory files are collected routinely as part of an administrative process rather than at the time of the crash. When these files are linked (see Appendix D for an example of a highway safety linked data system), it is possible to consider the type of roadway and vehicles involved as the persons injured in the crash are tracked from the scene through the health care system to determine who is at risk, at what cost, and what factors make a difference to injury outcome.

Benefits of Linkage

Data linkage expands the usefulness of each data file being linked without the delay and expense of new data collection. Linkage makes it possible to evaluate the relationship between specific roadway, crash, vehicle, and human factors at the time of a motor vehicle crash. It also permits these factors to be linked to health outcome data to determine their association with specific medical and financial consequences. Understanding what increases injury severity and health care costs facilitates choosing safety priorities that have the most impact on reducing death and disability. This information is particularly useful for decision making by safety program managers, engineers and legislators at the state and federal levels. At the same time, the linkage process itself improves the quality of state data and promotes collaboration between the traffic safety, highway safety and injury control communities.

MMUCC “Linked Data Elements”

States that are unable to link data should collect, as a minimum, those “linked data elements” that are feasible to collect on the crash report. At the same time, states should work to develop data linkage capabilities so that, over time, they are able to obtain, via linkage, all of the information to be generated by the MMUCC “linked data elements.”

Return to Top

Benefits of MMUCC to the Highway Safety Community

Improves the Quality of Highway Safety-Related Data

• Facilitates the use of standardized data elements for crash data entry software that will increase the efficiency of data collection and improve data quality.

• Facilitates linkage to geographic information systems, other highway traffic safety-related data, and medical outcome data, including the costs and payers that can be associated with specific crash, vehicle, road, and person characteristics.

• Provides a process for making changes in transportation data that will facilitate more efficient business process systems, including reducing unnecessary expense caused by duplicate data collection at the local and state levels.

• Supports routine monitoring of emerging technologies, such as electronic communication devices, and vehicle or highway modifications.

Facilitates Data-Driven Highway Safety Decisions

• Provides consistent and accurate data to support state and local highway safety programs.

• Improves collaboration across health and transportation sectors resulting in more complete, comprehensive crash outcome data for public health and injury control purposes.

• Supports a collaborative approach so that states and federal agencies learn from each other by sharing their successes, identifying their common problems, and working together on joint program priorities.

• Justifies targeting funding resources to match successful performance measures and effective programs.

• Supports interstate comparisons and analyses.

Return to Top

Strategies That Facilitate the Voluntary Implementation of MMUCC

• Use MMUCC to justify data collection alternatives to reduce the data collection at the scene.
  Many MMUCC data elements and attribute values match data already being collected by most states. Using the computer to derive or link new data elements allows the needs of all users to be met while reducing the burden of collecting these data elements at the scene.

• Use MMUCC to take advantage of new technology that will reduce MMUCC implementation costs.
  New state-of-the-art technology resolves the limitations of existing legacy systems that make the conversion process expensive and complicated. This technology also improves the efficiency and timeliness of data collection and processing, so reporting thresholds that include the uninjured and minor crashes can be maintained to provide the data needed to improve highway safety. Vendors are expected to play a large role in the standardization effort by incorporating MMUCC into the software the states plan to utilize. Successful implementations of MMUCC can be identified, publicized and made available in a NHTSA/FHWA/FMCSA/GHSA technology clearinghouse as models for states to evaluate and consider implementing. (One technology clearinghouse has been established at www.iacptechnology.org.)

• Use MMUCC to attract funding sources to help defray implementation costs.
  States and local agencies can benefit from funding incentives to implement MMUCC. At the state level, a collaborative focus on MMUCC by highway safety stakeholders is a successful strategy for obtaining the necessary funds and staff resources to achieve standardized crash data. Convening state user groups (as recommended in Goal II of the National Agenda of the National Safety Council’s Traffic Records Committee) is an inexpensive mechanism for sharing expertise and receiving technical assistance for traffic records and data linkage. Incorporating MMUCC into NHTSA’s traffic record assessments provides a potential mechanism to justify including standardization efforts in the state’s highway safety plan.

• Use MMUCC as the basis for new data collection training programs.
  Routine, user friendly, training and feedback to the data collectors facilitate the implementation of MMUCC. Regular in-service training about how to interpret feedback information will help the data collectors understand the value of MMUCC. Incorporating MMUCC into existing routine training provided to police and highway safety analysts helps to shorten the learning curve.

• Use MMUCC to support a state highway safety information system.
  A state highway safety information system that is comprehensive, relies on standardized data, stores and distributes timely, complete and accurate data, and provides access to users at all levels needs MMUCC to be successful. See Appendix E for a checklist of the functions of a state highway safety information system.

• Use MMUCC to strengthen collaboration between the highway safety, public health and injury control communities.
  Access to crash data files based on MMUCC is important to support public health efforts to reduce deaths, injuries, injury severity and health care costs. Protocols and model legislation provide guidelines on how to protect privacy while making the data available for epidemiological purposes. Access to sensitive information should be improved for those who need to know. However, MMUCC data can be aggregated to provide routine feedback via management reports and for public use via the Internet.

• Use MMUCC to encourage national associations to collaborate to reduce duplicate data collection and standardize traffic records.
  Collaboration by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), American Association of State Highway and 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 MMUCC beyond the safety focus so that data demands that result in duplicate data collection are decreased at the same time that users’ needs are met. Support also should be provided for the processes that update ANSI Standards D16.1 and D20.1 on a regular basis so that standardized minimum uniform crash criteria are maintained.

• Use MMUCC as a dynamic data set that will be reviewed for relevance every five years.
  New technology and emerging highway safety issues provide an incentive for continual review of MMUCC and its effectiveness to generate the information that is necessary to improve highway safety. The MMUCC Web site at http://www.mmucc.us provides a mechanism to document feedback during the next five years. Users can comment on their experiences implementing a specific data element or attribute for that data element. The user can also enter general comments on the usefulness of MMUCC, issues related to reporting thresholds, data collection, linkage and other concerns. Data users also should be encouraged to make presentations and sponsor information booths at conferences to provide feedback about the usefulness of the information generated by MMUCC. All feedback will be incorporated into the next evaluation and revision of MMUCC scheduled for the year 2008.

Return to Top

Priority Tasks for the Voluntary Implementation of MMUCC

MMUCC assists states in the process of revising their crash reporting forms and crash data processing systems. Except for the data elements required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, implementation of the MMUCC data elements is voluntary. NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, and GHSA encourage the following to facilitate the implementation of MMUCC:

• Coordination and Collaboration
  • MMUCC workshop sponsored by state Traffic Record Coordinating Committees (TRCC)
  • Highway Safety Information System Leadership Course developed by Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and sponsored by NHTSA
  • TRCC that is effective to ensure sufficient resources to implement a state highway safety information system

• Promotion
  • MMUCC as a guideline for efficient change
  • Proposed TEA21 data incentive grants to incorporate MMUCC within highway safety data plans
  • Role of other federal agencies to prevent duplication of funding for similar efforts related to MMUCC

• Training and Technology-Driven Applications
  • Proposed Web-based MMUCC training materials
  • Proposed Q&A capability at the MMUCC Web site
  • Proposed Video segments for the Law Enforcement Training Network (LETN)
  • Proprietary software that incorporates the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003) to facilitate the implementation of MMUCC
  • Software for mobile data computers that will generate a printed copy of a crash report
  • Model analyses and reports
  • Implementation kit including MMUCC marketing brochures, newsletters, and overheads for presentations at national and regional meetings
  • Updated MMUCC worksheets for comparing MMUCC data elements, definitions, and attributes to existing state crash data elements, definitions and attributes

• Monitoring
  • Regular surveys to measure the status of the implementation of the MMUCC Guideline, 2nd Edition (2003)
  • Model states and best practices
  • Regular traffic records assessments to identify what resources are needed

Return to Top