Between 1974 and 1985 the two Helios spacecraft observed 351 transient interplanetary shocks. For 5-MeV protons the particle events associated with these shocks can be divided into three groups: (1) events without intensity increase above quiet time or increased background (47%), (2) solar and interplanetary particle (SIP) events consisting of particles accelerated on or close to the Sun (solar or near-Sun component) as well as at the interplanetary shock (24%), and (3) pure interplanetary particle (PIP) events (29%) which consist of particles accelerated at the shock in interplanetary space but do not show evidence for significant or even excess particle acceleration on the Sun. This classification shows that (1) only about half of the shocks accelerate MeV protons in interplanetary space and (2) MeV protons accelerated on the Sun are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the acceleration of MeV protons in interplanetary space. Shock parameters such as speed or shock strength alone do not give an indication for the class of the associated particle event, because in the parameter range which covers most of the shocks, all three classes are distributed rather evenly. However, the shocks strongest in these parameters tend to accelerate particles. The intensity at the time of shock-passage, which can be used as a crude measure for the local acceleration efficiency, is correlated with the local shock speed and the magnetic compression. The correlation coefficients are small but statistically significant, indicating that (1) the correlations are real and (2) the intensity is influenced by additional parameters, which are not necessarily shock inherent. As an example I will show that the local acceleration at the shock decreases roughly symmetrically with increasing distance from the nose of the shock with a median e-folding angle of 10¿. Occasionally, larger e-folding angles are observed close to the nose of the shock. The question of how the shock accelerates protons in the MeV range could not be answered here, but I will suggest future studies that could shed a new light on this problem. ¿ American Geophysical Union 1996