skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 74470 Find in a Library
Title: Effects of 'No Action' Negligent Operator Hearings as an Alternative to Hearings Resulting in Probation
Author(s): M E Garretson; R C Peck
Corporate Author: California Dept of Motor Vehicles
Research and Development Section
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 32
Sponsoring Agency: California Dept of Motor Vehicles
Sacramento, CA 95809
California Dept of Motor Vehicles
Sacramento, CA 95814
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22151
Publication Number: CAL-DMV-RSS-79-69
Sale Source: National Technical Information Service
US Dept of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22151
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Statistics
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The study evaluated the effectiveness of negligent operator (automobile driver) hearings in which probation was replaced with the imposition of 'no action' in the State of California.
Abstract: The study sample consisted of 6,489 drivers who attended negligent operator hearings. Of these drivers, 1,247, or 19 percent, were considered high risk; these drivers were screened from the no-action hearing program. The remaining 5,242 drivers were randomly assigned to either the group that received license status action as recommended (the standard treatment), or the group that had no action taken on their licenses. The later group thus received the experimental treatment. Study results indicated that no statistically significant driver record differences existed between the randomly assigned groups either 12 months prior to treatment or 12 months subsequent to treatment. However, the possibility that removal of departmental actions from the individual hearing setting may have had a detrimental effect could not be entirely dismissed. The societal savings associated with the observed nonsignificant decrease in fatal and injury accidents for those drivers not receiving actions may result in a positive net financial impact for an implemented no-action program. The high-risk group was examined in an attempt to determine if the high-risk screening criteria used in the study were valid. An analysis of the characteristics of the low and high-risk groups suggested that the high-risk group did not, in fact, have a higher accident expectancy rate than the nonhigh-risk group. Final program implementation recommendations are awaiting the outcome of a related study on probation by mail, which will evaluate the traffic safety implications of not holding a hearing but taking an action. Tables, figures, 17 references, exhibits, and appendixes of relates technical data are included. (Author abstract modified).
Index Term(s): California; Driving Under the Influence (DUI); Hearings; Highway safety; Negligence; Reckless driving; Studies; Traffic offenses
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.