This info will be only of interest for those working with the ADOT Data Safety Mart database.
There are a couple of places on the ACR form for NCIC numbers. That stands for National Crime Information Center; and the actual number in question apparently is called an Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) and it’s keeper is the FBI. Below I will refer to this number only as the “NCIC number”.
I found it surprisingly difficult to find a list. The only place I found it was in a 12 year old(!) AZ Crash Manual (“Manual of Instructions for use with State of Arizona Traffic Accident Report Forms” published by ADOT dated December 2000), so the info regarding Agency name should be suspect.
It is plain to see that some of it is easily verifyable and correlates to any of the “big” cities/jurisdictions: Phoenix PD is 0723, DPS is 0799, Tucson PD is 1003, etc. Beyond a couple of dozen, though, things get pretty sketchy.
Of more interest is the meaning of the distinction between data fields ExtendedNcic, and OfficerNcic — the field on the ACR is marked simply NCIC No. (Block 1e), which i imagine maps to ExtendedNcic; however I can’t find a block on the ACR that might correspond to OfficerNcic. They are usually, but by no means always, the same. There’s another thing called Officer ID No., Block 1f, but that maps to OfficerID in table incident.
This info is also in my famous catch-all spreadsheet adsm.xls; and will undoubtedly either turn into enumerations, or probably its own table.
Arizona NCIC Numbers | |||||
National Crime Information Center number is a code that uniquely identifies each law enforcement agency. Numbers are assigned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (See pages 66 through 68 [of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual] for a complete list of Arizona NCIC Numbers.) | |||||
ExtendedNcic, OfficerNcic’s value/count data from ADOT safety data mart year 2010. Agency name list from pages 66 -68 of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual | |||||
ExtendedNcic | OfficerNcic | From 2000 AZ Crash Manual | |||
value | count | value | count | agency name | value |
100 | 474 | 100 | 40 | Apache County S.O. | 100 |
101 | 28 | 101 | 28 | Eagar | 101 |
103 | 18 | 103 | 18 | St. Johns | 103 |
105 | 12 | 105 | 10 | Springerville | 105 |
Whitemountain Apache Res. (Apache) | 162 | ||||
189 | 73 | Navajo Reservation (Apache) | 189 | ||
200 | 693 | 200 | 224 | Cochise County S.O. | 200 |
201 | 89 | 201 | 55 | Benson | 201 |
203 | 4 | 203 | 1 | Bisbee | 203 |
205 | 41 | 205 | 37 | Douglas | 205 |
207 | 7 | 207 | 8 | Huachuca City | 207 |
209 | 756 | 209 | 763 | Sierra Vista | 209 |
211 | 1 | Tombstone | 211 | ||
213 | 39 | 213 | 32 | Willcox | 213 |
300 | 1539 | 300 | 223 | Coconino County S.O. | 300 |
301 | 1909 | 301 | 1762 | Flagstaff | 301 |
302 | 1 | Hualapai Reservation (Coconino) | 302 | ||
303 | 6 | Fredonia | 303 | ||
307 | 97 | 307 | 43 | Williams | 307 |
308 | 21 | 308 | 21 | Page | 308 |
310 | 195 | 310 | 197 | Sedona | 310 |
Hopi Reservation (Coconino) | 365 | ||||
389 | 34 | Navajo Reservation (Coconino) | 389 | ||
Northern Arizona University | 397 | ||||
400 | 484 | 400 | 134 | Gila County S.O. | 400 |
401 | 172 | 401 | 178 | Globe | 401 |
403 | 2 | 403 | 1 | Hayden | 403 |
405 | 13 | 405 | 13 | Miami | 405 |
406 | 142 | 406 | 139 | Payson | 406 |
407 | 1 | 489 | 4 | Winkelman | 407 |
Whitemountain Apache Res. (Gila) | 465 | ||||
San Carlos Reservation (Gila) | 489 | ||||
500 | 124 | 500 | 38 | Graham County S.O. | 500 |
501 | 3 | Pima | 501 | ||
503 | 105 | 503 | 95 | Safford | 503 |
505 | 45 | 505 | 49 | Thatcher | 505 |
San Carlos Reservation (Graham) | 562 | ||||
600 | 60 | 600 | 13 | Greenlee County S.O. | 600 |
601 | 6 | 601 | 3 | Clifton | 601 |
603 | 4 | Duncan | 603 | ||
700 | 5242 | 700 | 3036 | Maricopa County S.O. | 700 |
701 | 1044 | 701 | 890 | Avondale | 701 |
703 | 405 | 703 | 256 | Buckeye | 703 |
704 | 56 | Cave Creek | 704 | ||
705 | 3516 | 705 | 3007 | Chandler | 705 |
707 | 321 | 707 | 311 | El Mirage | 707 |
709 | 20 | Gila Bend | 709 | ||
711 | 2378 | 711 | 2250 | Gilbert | 711 |
713 | 4822 | 713 | 4492 | Glendale | 713 |
715 | 939 | 715 | 635 | Goodyear | 715 |
Ft. McDowell Reservation | 716 | ||||
717 | 6130 | 717 | 4744 | Mesa | 717 |
719 | 193 | 719 | 131 | Paradise Valley | 719 |
721 | 2237 | 721 | 1855 | Peoria | 721 |
723 | 29065 | 723 | 21442 | Phoenix | 723 |
725 | 3529 | 725 | 3329 | Scottsdale | 725 |
727 | 1027 | 727 | 904 | Surprise | 727 |
729 | 6659 | 729 | 4084 | Tempe | 729 |
731 | 366 | 731 | 237 | Tolleson | 731 |
733 | 93 | 733 | 89 | Wickenburg | 733 |
735 | 13 | Youngtown | 735 | ||
739 | 300 | Guadalupe | 739 | ||
744 | 3 | ||||
753 | 41 | ||||
755 | 116 | ||||
756 | 97 | Fountain Hills | 756 | ||
760 | 15 | Carefree | 760 | ||
Gila Bend Reservation | 762 | ||||
Tohono O’Odham Res. (Maricopa) | 763 | ||||
Gila River reservation (Maricopa) | 764 | ||||
789 | 1 | Salt River Reservation | 789 | ||
Arizona State University | 797 | ||||
799 | 25587 | Dept. of Public Safety | 799 | ||
800 | 1140 | 800 | 326 | Mohave County S.O. | 800 |
801 | 537 | 801 | 478 | Kingman | 801 |
804 | 629 | 804 | 632 | Hualapai Reservation (Mohave) | 802 |
805 | 683 | 805 | 684 | Lake Havasu City | 804 |
806 | 18 | 806 | 18 | Bullhead City | 805 |
Colorado City | 806 | ||||
Kaibab-Paiute Reservation | 860 | ||||
862 | 3 | Ft.Mohave Reservation | 862 | ||
900 | 647 | 900 | 141 | Navajo County S.O. | 900 |
901 | 60 | 901 | 41 | Holbrook | 901 |
902 | 19 | Hopi Reservation (Navajo) | 902 | ||
903 | 164 | 903 | 167 | Show Low | 903 |
905 | 64 | 905 | 81 | Snowflake | 905 |
907 | 19 | Taylor | 907 | ||
909 | 134 | 909 | 117 | Winslow | 909 |
913 | 118 | 913 | 124 | Pinetop/Lakeside | 913 |
962 | 72 | Navajo Reservation (Navajo) | 962 | ||
989 | 2 | Whitemountain Apache Res. (Navajo) | 989 | ||
1000 | 4424 | 1000 | 3324 | Pima County S.O. | 1000 |
1001 | 70 | 1001 | 69 | South Tucson | 1001 |
1003 | 9718 | 1003 | 9058 | Tucson | 1003 |
1004 | 192 | 1004 | 157 | Sahuarita / Green Valley (both same code??) | 1004 |
1007 | 454 | 1007 | 462 | Oro Valley | 1007 |
1009 | 916 | 1009 | 679 | Marana | 1009 |
San Xavier Reservation | 1062 | ||||
1089 | 220 | Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pima) | 1089 | ||
1097 | 117 | University of Arizona | 1097 | ||
1100 | 1779 | 1100 | 703 | Pinal County S.O. | 1100 |
1101 | 853 | 1101 | 796 | Casa Grande | 1101 |
1103 | 172 | 1103 | 179 | Coolidge | 1103 |
1105 | 149 | 1105 | 97 | Eloy | 1105 |
1107 | 81 | 1107 | 111 | Florence | 1107 |
1109 | 5 | 1109 | 4 | Kearney | 1109 |
1111 | 4 | 1111 | 4 | Mammoth | 1111 |
1112 | 2 | 1112 | 1 | Superior | 1112 |
1113 | 417 | 1113 | 377 | Apache Junction | 1113 |
1117 | 215 | 1117 | 211 | ||
1164 | 7 | Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pinal) | 1164 | ||
Maricopa Reservation | 1165 | ||||
1189 | 345 | Gila River Reservation (Pinal) | 1189 | ||
Central Arizona College | 1197 | ||||
1200 | 294 | 1200 | 75 | Santa Cruz County S.O. | 1200 |
1201 | 342 | 1201 | 313 | Nogales | 1201 |
Patagonia | 1203 | ||||
1300 | 1378 | 1300 | 283 | Yavapai County S.O. | 1300 |
1301 | 1 | 1301 | 1 | Clarkdale | 1301 |
1303 | 244 | 1303 | 237 | Cottonwood | 1303 |
1305 | 6 | 1305 | 5 | Jerome | 1305 |
1307 | 760 | 1307 | 749 | Prescott | 1307 |
1311 | 539 | 1311 | 536 | Prescott Valley | 1311 |
1312 | 87 | 1312 | 87 | Chino Valley | 1312 |
1313 | 92 | 1313 | 72 | Camp Verde | 1313 |
1314 | 1 | ||||
1358 | 11 | ||||
Hualapai Reservation (Yavapai) | 1363 | ||||
1400 | 716 | 1400 | 484 | Yuma County S.O. | 1400 |
1403 | 26 | 1403 | 31 | Somerton | 1403 |
1405 | 1891 | 1405 | 1849 | Yuma | 1405 |
1407 | 7 | Wellton | 1407 | ||
1408 | 137 | 1408 | 139 | San Luis | 1408 |
1410 | 5 | ||||
1497 | 1 | Arizona Western College | 1497 | ||
1500 | 330 | 1500 | 32 | La Paz County S.O. | 1500 |
1501 | 33 | 1501 | 31 | Parker | 1501 |
1503 | 35 | 1503 | 18 | Quartzite | 1503 |
Colorado River Reservation | 1506 | ||||
Sums → | 106301 | 106301 | |||
Below are listed Federal Parks and Monuments, and US Military – it is not clear how, or even if, these codes (from 2000) map to the Adot data, which is all numeric; and perhaps doesn’t even cover “federal” investigations? | |||||
Canyon De Chelly National Monument | I007 | ||||
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument | I012 | ||||
Chiricauha National Monument | I013 | ||||
Glen Canyon National Monument | I003 | ||||
Montezuma Castle National Monument | I014 | ||||
Navajo National Monument | I009 | ||||
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument | I015 | ||||
Petrified Forest National Park | I004 | ||||
Saguaro National Monument | I005 | ||||
Sunset Crater National Monument | I010 | ||||
Tonto National Monument | I016 | ||||
Tumacacori National Monument | I017 | ||||
Tuzigoot National Monument | I018 | ||||
Walnut Canyon National Monument | I019 | ||||
Wupatki National Monument | I011 | ||||
Davis Monthan AFB | F001 | ||||
Ft. Huachuca Army Base | USA0 | ||||
Luke AFB | F003 | ||||
Yuma Proving Grounds Army Base SA02 | SA02 |
Most at Fault vs. NCIC
Most at Fault is defined in the Arizona Crash Form Manual
Traffic Unit #1 is the vehicle, pedestrian, pedalcycle that caused the collision or was most at fault.
Police determine or decide who is most at fault, by assigning #1 to that person/operator when filling out the Arizona Crash Report; note that there is no defined way to indicate that investigators find it impossible to determine fault; there must be a unit #1.
(The stats quoted can be found in this comment below)
It can be illuminating to study who, the bicyclist or the motorist, was most at fault (MaF) in a Bike-MV collision. All things being equal, we would expect a 50:50 split, because in the vast majority of collisions there is one bicycle operator, and one MV operator.
The MaF data is available in the yearly collision database from ADOT, a.k.a. the ASDM; the vehicle/person/bicyclist listed as Unit #1 is always the MaF, in the determination of the investigating officer.
Reassuringly, overall the MaF rates are indeed fairly close to 50:50 — for example, the seven year period 2009-2015 the split was 51:49, indicating bicyclists were every so slightly more likely to be found at fault that the driver they collided with. Deviations from this nominal rate might indicate something is amiss; perhaps bicyclists in one community are more likely to break the law, or perhaps police are misinterpreting laws in someone’s favor…
The NCICs associated with the city of Phoenix has a particularly high bicyclist MaF rate: e.g. 68% in 2010 — compare this to, e.g. Scottsdale where it was only 48%. I find it pretty unlikely that bicyclists in Phoenix behave significantly different than Scottsdale; though without looking at a lot of ACRs it’s not possible to tell. On the other hand, 2010 seems to have been anomalously high that year, 2011 and 2012 were 61 and 60%, respectively; so perhaps just a data glitch. On the other hand Tempe, at 68% in 2012, and seems persistantly somewhat high. Yuma, a small city, had a persistently very high bicyclist MaF rate, as high as 80%!, this may be changing after the local ordiance restricted & clarified sidewalk use rules in 2015.
Here are some queries; note that similar results are used using either OfficerNcic as ExtendedNcic. The first is very fancy, computing the percentages and everything!
SELECT sum(atfault)/count(1), Name, sum(atfault), count(1) FROM LOVNcic, (SELECT ExtendedNcic, u.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST' atfault FROM 2012_incident i, 2012_unit u WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u2 WHERE u2.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u2.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST') AND UnitNumber=1) x WHERE ID=ExtendedNcic GROUP BY ExtendedNcic HAVING count(1)>20 ORDER BY 1;
Here is how to select the total number of bike crashes by ncic, and then the number of those where bicyclist is MaF
SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST')) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC; SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST') AND u.UnitNumber=1 ) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC;
…
I found this document related to the National Parks Service:
“Servicewide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS) or Successor Systems
All motor vehicle collisions that occur within National Park Service jurisdiction will be reported monthly to the WASO Road Program Safety Manager…”
Bicyclist Most At Fault (MaF) rates; for larger jurisdictions (those investigating more than 20 bike-MV crashes a year). Note that the statewide overall average rate hangs around 52% (i.e. 0.52)…
First is the 2009-2013 Five year composite results:
Here is 2013-only results; note the results tend to be consistent over time: Scottsdale, Gilbert, Tucson tend to be significantly below the average; while Tempe, Phoenix, Yuma (ESPECIALLY Yuma) tend to be well-above average — why is that?
Here are the ill-formatted 2012 and earlier year-by-year results
Here is the statewide totals for bike-MV collisions, and Bicyclist most at fault:
here is the fancy query to compute rates by jurisdiction (that handle at least 20 bike-MV crashes) — for example for the year 2012:
Yuma has a smaller number of crashes (smaller population), but has a consistently (and abnormally) high fault rate of bicyclists:
Rank Year Fraction
1 2013 76%
1 2012 80%
1 2011 74%
5 2010 56%
1 2009 76%
(see this comment for a note about yuma and sidewalk cycling)