LEL Ed Gebing: he handles the northern part of the state as part of an outreach program for local law enforcement agencies.

First the good news: In 2006, seat belt use in California climbed to 93.4 percent, up from 92.5 percent in 2005, according to the state’s Office of Traffic Safety, and considerably higher than the national rate of 81 percent. Only three states—Washington with 96.3 percent, Oregon with 94.1 percent, and Michigan with 94 percent—do a better job of getting their citizens to buckle up.

Now the bad: After years of steadily declining as a factor in motor vehicle crashes, the number of drunk driving-related crashes began rising in frequency a few years ago. In California in 2005, 1,574 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes, up from 1,462 fatalities in 2004—an increase of almost eight percent. DUI remains the major cause of fatalities on the state’s roads; in 2005, 182,414 people were arrested for driving under the influence.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) officials are hoping that when 2006 figures are finally tabulated those numbers will fall. A secret weapon in these efforts are two retired police officers who understand what local enforcement agencies--whose beats range in size from Los Angeles to tiny communities like Clovis--need to promote safety in their communities. They are coordinating their efforts in partnership with the Traffic Safety Center (TSC), as the TSC steps up its involvement with law enforcement agencies on a number of fronts.

"This is adding another piece to the traffic safety network," noted TSC Assistant Director Jill Cooper. "TSC works with researchers, practitioners and, now, with efforts like this, law enforcement personnel. It enriches the TSC's source of expertise and helps us tailor interventions more effectively."

The Go-Betweens

Ed Gebing, a former police officer involved primarily in traffic enforcement from Fairfield, and Bill Ehart, a former traffic sergeant in Santa Ana, began working last year as Law Enforcement Liaisons (LELs), helping law enforcement agencies throughout the state apply for grants promoting traffic safety.

The two have divided the state in half: Gebing works with agencies in the northern half of the state and Ehart handles those in the south. Both had experience writing grants for their police departments. They look at communities that haven’t applied for grants and offer to provide help. They also help keep the grantees on track as they use the grant money in order to satisfy the requirements set by the state and federal governments. 

In 2006, OTS awarded $103 million to 290 agencies—the largest amount of money to the greatest number of agencies ever. Much of that money comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Grant money is available for improving the traffic record system, improving emergency medical services, identifying crash locations, improving motorcycle safety and child safety, as well as seatbelt and sobriety checkpoints.

Marketing Grants

Agencies may not be aware of money that is available through OTS or how to get it. At the beginning of the grant season they market the grants to the local agencies. In some cases, agencies don't apply for grants because they don't have anyone on staff who knows how to apply. In other situations, the LELs may notice that a particular community has had a spike in illegal street-racing. In that case, they may call the agency and let them know there’s money available to help solve that problem.

They also help monitor the grants. "I review their entire fiscal and program files so I know what they’re supposed to be doing," explained Gebing.

"In some cases a new traffic sergeant comes into a department, and his experience has been busting perps. Now he needs to fill out forms for various traffic safety grants," explained OTS spokesman Chris Cochran. Gebing and Ehart understand the complexities of grant writing. Just as important, they speak the language of their fellow officers, he adds.

They also help OTS understand what’s needed by various agencies. "We’re as much help to the people at OTS as we are to the agencies, because many at OTS don’t have law enforcement experience," said Gebing. "I get a lot of questions from the grant coordinators there who want to know, ‘Is this a reasonable thing or not? They’re doing it this way, what do you think?’"

Similarly, if a law enforcement agency calls up with questions about how to do something related to a grant, the LELs can usually tell them because they have gone to enough grant-writing seminars or had enough direct experience with various types of grants. "If I can’t do it, I know who to refer them to," Gebing added.

Drunk Driving Then and Now

The mere presence of the two former officers signals how much law enforcement has changed in the last three decades. When Gebing began his career in Fairfield, law enforcement meant enforcement, not prevention, not education. But attitudes and technology changed.

"Everybody drank back then, and you had to be really drunk to get caught," he recalls. It was a medium priority at best. "If you were getting hit with a lot with burglaries, then the drunk drivers could drive all they wanted unless they crashed," recalled Gebing.

Added Ehart. "In the old days, it was not uncommon to pull them over and call a cab to take them home, Or let them walk home. But attitudes have changed. MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and NHTSA have done a lot to change those attitudes."

There is more specialized training for officers, and the equipment used to enforce laws has also improved.

As a young trooper in the 1970s, Ehart became part of a four-member drunk- driving team funded by OTS (which was how he became aware of OTS), so he was aware of the state’s attempts to use federal funds to solve traffic safety problems through grants. He and his team members were equipped with the first mobile breathalyzer and used videotape to film their arrests as part of the OTS grant. But that was extremely rare.

In virtually every other department, that type of equipment did not exist. Determining the blood alcohol level in a suspected drunk driver meant dragging the driver into jail, having him blow into a machine the size of a large bookcase, and performing a series of complex mathematical equations to determine whether or not he was legally drunk, Gebing said.

Given how complicated and time-consuming the process was, Gebing thinks officers probably gave drivers who appeared to be on the edge the benefit of the doubt.

But no more. "Attitudes have changed drastically," added Ehart. "We all know drunk drivers are killing people and it's unacceptable."

 

 

 

Search ALL Issues of the TSC Newsletter