Fatigue on the Road: The Hidden Risk Factor in Officer

The Big Picture Between 2016 and 2025, 472 law enforcement officers died in roadway-related incidents, including 310 from motor vehicle crashes and 162 from struck-by incidents, according to data reported by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Even when collisions aren’t fatal, they can have lasting consequences for officers, their families, their agencies, and the communities they serve. Yet one major risk factor rarely gets mentioned in the subsequent professional discourse: officer fatigue. In policing, where extended shifts, overnight hours, and consecutive assignments are standard practice, fatigue is a persistent occupational hazard. It can impair reaction time, judgment, and situational awareness in measurable, documented ways. When agencies review officer-involved collisions, the analysis often focuses on speed, equipment, and roadway conditions, but the officer’s physiological state at the time frequently goes unexamined. That leaves a significant gap in the investigation. NPI’s National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety (NLERS) Program, developed in partnership with the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), aims to prevent officer injuries and fatalities from collisions and struck-by incidents. Officer fatigue is a core focus of the NLERS Program because the evidence is clear: fatigue is a risk management issue that command staff have the ability to improve and a responsibility to address. What We Know The Scale of the Problem Law enforcement officers (LEOs) are routinely fatigued, and the consequences show up on the road. Drowsy driving contributes to an estimated 22 to 27 percent of all traffic collisions in the United States, and excessively tired drivers are often involved in more serious crashes (Pack, et al., 1995; Klauer, et al., 2006). Among police officers specifically, in a 2011 study, 50 percent reported having fallen asleep while driving, and roughly 25 percent say it happens one to two times per month. That same study found that LEOs screened positive for sleep disorders at nearly twice the rate of the general public, increasing crash risk regardless of shift length or hours worked (Rajaratnam, et al., 2011). The numbers are startling: - An officer driving on fewer than four hours of sleep is 20 times more likely to crash (Stutts, et al., 2003). - An officer who has been awake more than 20 hours is 63 times more likely to crash (Stutts, et al., 2003). Shift work only compounds the issue. Driving home after a shift is one of the most dangerous moments in a shift worker’s day, and due to natural circadian rhythms, working night shifts makes the trip home even riskier (Patterson, et al., 2020). Washington State University’s (WSU) Sleep and Performance Research Center found that LEOs working four consecutive night shifts showed measurable degradation in reaction time, driving safety, memory, and decision-making compared to officers on day shifts (James, 2015; James & Vila, 2015). Extended shifts, or anything over 12 hours, raise the risk further, and fatigue accumulates with each successive shift worked (Rogers, 2008; Rogers, et al., 2004; Williamson & Lombardi, 2011; Folkard & Lombardi, 2006). Negative health impacts extend beyond the shift itself. Chronic sleep deprivation is linked to cardiovascular disease, Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, and mental illness, with night-shift workers carrying disproportionate risk across all of these categories (Zhang, & Papantoniou, 2019; Vetter, et al., 2016). This should matter to command staff [HC6.1]not only because it affects officer health, but because it affects officer performance on every shift, both behind the wheel and in the field. Impairment, Not Just Tiredness The key concern for command staff should be impairment. Being awake for 17 consecutive hours results in levels of impairment equal to a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05. At 24 hours, that impairment rises to 0.10, above the legal driving limit in every U.S. jurisdiction. LEOs working mandatory overtime after a full shift are, in no uncertain terms, operating impaired (Durmer & Dinges, 2005; Folkard & Tucker, 2003). Lapses in attention are the primary measure that connects fatigue to driving incidents (James, 2015; James & Vila, 2015). Fatigue slows reaction time, degrades decision-making, and decreases mood regulation and risk-aversion. Beyond the patrol vehicle, WSU researchers found a significant decline in fatigued LEOs’ performance in simulated use-of-force scenarios and community interactions (James, 2015; James & Vila, 2015). The Fatigue-Distraction Interaction The attentional demands of a modern-day patrol vehicle, including MDTs, radios, and phones, carry their own negative impacts on driving. The effects of fatigue and distraction compound on one another, resulting in increased levels of impairment. Most agencies have not addressed this in policy; policies concerning in-vehicle technologies are written for a well-rested day-shift LEO. These may need to be revisited and revised to account for highly fatigued LEOs as well. Gaps in the Research While the studies in this area are thorough, some gaps in research remain. Crash reports and incident documentation rarely include standardized fatigue measures, making it difficult to assess the real presence of fatigue as a contributing factor in collisions or to examine outcomes across agencies. Likewise, the combined effect of fatigue and in-vehicle technology on patrol crash risk hasn’t been thoroughly studied; current research either examines these variables separately or draws on non-LEO populations. The NLERS program was designed to attempt to close these gaps. What Agencies Can Do The existing body of research supports some clear safeguards that agencies can implement to help mitigate fatigue. 1. Shift Scheduling and Rotation Three evidence-informed improvements to consider are: - Limiting consecutive shifts longer than 12 hours - Ensuring adequate recovery time between shifts - Reducing overtime, particularly for night shift officers Fatigue accumulates across successive shifts, so scheduling that minimizes consecutive nights, not simply individual shift length, reduces the likelihood of cumulative impairment (Rogers, 2008; Rogers, et al., 2004; Williamson & Lombardi, 2011; Folkard & Lombardi, 2006). 2. Overtime Management Extended hours significantly increase the probability of collisions, injuries, and errors (Rogers, 2008; Rogers, et al., 2004; Williamson & Lombardi, 2011; Folkard & Lombardi, 2006). Overtime policies should account for cumulative hours across a set period of time. The risk of an officer-involved collision resulting from fatigue carries real operational and legal costs (Vila, 2000). 3. Fatigue Risk Management Protocols Other industries, like aviation, medicine, and trucking, have implemented formal fatigue management frameworks (NIOSH et al., 2015). While law enforcement has lagged behind, several promising models exist. The Delaware State Police (DSP) requires that troopers have eight consecutive hours off within every calculable 24-hour period, including secondary employment. When exigent circumstances prevent that, DSP modifies duty assignments, including driving restrictions, based on troopers’ fatigue level and provides a paid fatigue recovery period (FRP) as soon as possible to ensure troopers receive 8 consecutive hours off before their next mandatory assignment. 4. Restorative Rest Policies Implementing structured, restorative rest (i.e., on-duty napping) policies remains culturally contested in the policing field, but the evidence behind the emerging practice is promising. Research shows that a 30-minute nap significantly reduces fatigue, improves alertness, and enhances performance (Davy & Gobel, 2013; Geiger-Brown et al., 2016; Han, Trinkoff, & Geiger-Brown, 2021; Patterson, et al., 2020). Cultural resistance and logistical concerns are real barriers, but early-adopting agencies offer a growing body of practical guidance for implementation. Several agencies across the US now provide secured locations where officers can go to take brief 20–30-minute naps during their shift to restore alertness, subject to procedures specified within policy. 5. Post-Incident Fatigue Documentation Fatigue should be a standard line of inquiry as a potential contributing factor in every critical incident, from collisions to uses of force. Building it into after-action reviews creates data, and data creates awareness and accountability. 6. In-Vehicle Technology Use Policies Agencies should evaluate whether their policies governing MDT and other device usage while driving are tailored to account for highly fatigued LEOs and consider restricting non-essential in-vehicle technology use when possible. The Bottom Line Fatigue is a measurable contributing risk factor in officer-involved collisions, but it can be addressed through comprehensive agency policies. Given the costs of preventable fatalities, injuries, and litigation, the more appropriate question isn’t whether agencies should act, but whether they can afford not to. The NLERS program offers no-cost training and technical assistance agencies can put to use now. The resource toolkit includes a fatigue management policy example from the Delaware State Police, fatigued driving safety messaging posters, and a PSA video built specifically around the fatigue risk. For agencies ready to go further, NLERS provides no-cost in-person and virtual training for patrol officers, executives, and trainers, along with customized technical assistance to help agencies improve existing policies, training, and programs. References Davy, J., & Gobel, M. (2013). The benefits of napping for night shift workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 128-138. Durmer, J. S., & Dinges, D. F. (2005). Neurocognitive consequences of sleep deprivation. Seminars in Neurology, 25(1), 117-129. Folkard, S., & Lombardi, D. A. (2006). Modeling the impact of the components of long work hours on injuries and accidents. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49(11), 953-963. Folkard, S., & Tucker, P. (2003). Shift work, safety and productivity. Occupational Medicine, 53(2), 95-101. Geiger-Brown, J., et al. (2016). Napping on the night shift: A two-hospital implementation project. American Journal of Nursing, 116(5), 26-33. Han, K., Trinkoff, A. M., & Geiger-Brown, J. (2021). The effects of napping during night shift on sleepiness and performance in nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(2), 729-739. James, S. M. (2015). Night shift impairment in law enforcement: Reaction time, driving, memory, use of force, and community interaction. Washington State University Sleep and Performance Research Center. James, S. M., & Vila, B. (2015). Shift work and fatigue-related driving performance. Washington State University Sleep and Performance Research Center. James, S. M., et al. (2017). Shift work: A review of the health consequences. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 33, 4-14. Klauer, S. G., et al. (2006). The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk. NHTSA. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), et al. (2015). Fact Sheet: NIOSH Training for Nurses on Shift Work and Long Work Hours. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1990). Fatigue, Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Medical Factors in Fatal-to-the-Driver Heavy Truck Crashes. NTSB/SS-90/01. Pack, A. I., et al. (1995). Characteristics of crashes attributed to the driver having fallen asleep. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 27(6), 769-775. Patterson, P. D., et al. (2020). Fatigue and the operational environment of EMS and police. Prehospital Emergency Care, 24(5), 625-636. Patterson, P. D., et al. (2020). Should public safety shift workers be allowed to nap while on duty? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 63(10), 843-850. Rajaratnam, S. M. W., et al. (2011). Sleep disorders, health, and safety in police officers. JAMA, 306(23), 2567-2578. Rogers, A. E. (2008). The effects of fatigue and sleepiness on nurse performance and patient safety. In R. G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. AHRQ Publication No. 08-0043. Rogers, A. E., et al. (2004). The working hours of hospital staff nurses and patient safety. Health Affairs, 23(4), 202-212. Stutts, J. C., et al. (2003). Driver risk factors for sleep-related crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(3), 321-331. Tregear, S., et al. (2009). Obstructive sleep apnea and risk of motor vehicle crash: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 5(6), 573-581. Vetter, C., et al. (2016). Aligning work and circadian time in shift workers improves sleep and reduces circadian disruption. Current Biology, 25(7), 907-911. Vila, B. (2000). Tired Cops: The Importance of Managing Police Fatigue. Police Executive Research Forum. Williamson, A., & Lombardi, D. A. (2011). Predictors of fatigue among workers in the road transport industry. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 21-27. Zhang, X., & Papantoniou, K. (2019). Night shift work and cancer risk. Current Environmental Health Reports, 6(4), 267-274. Zimmerman, M. E. (2014). Sleep and cognitive functioning. Sleep Medicine Clinics, 9(4), 455-465. Never miss an issue of InFocus Share