Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 48


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-7 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Implementing Safe Community Programs (T) Attribute Description Organizational and Institutional Attributes Organizational, The success of these programs will require the cooperation of several organizations Institutional and Policy and institutions, such as law enforcement, government, and local schools. A Issues coordinated council, or team, will be needed to oversee the coalition. Issues Affecting The time to implement a program depends upon such factors as availability of funds Implementation Time and materials for startup meetings, the number of agencies and organizations to be involved, and the size of the community. The program could take 6 months to 1 year to establish a working team and begin implementing aspects of the program. Costs Involved Costs vary depending on the community and the goals and objectives of the program, but each individual aspect of the program should be relatively low in cost. Training and Other The involvement of specialists in marketing, education, and leadership will be needed. Personnel Needs Legislative Needs None identified. Other Key Attributes Compatibility of This strategy is compatible with all other strategies in this guide. All strategies that Different Strategies rely on public awareness and public education will benefit greatly from this strategy, including all the strategies within Objective B. Safe Community Programs provide the means to take on public campaigns, such as those related to increased enforcement programs, discussed in Strategy C1. Other Key Attributes to None identified. a Particular Strategy Objective C--Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness of Speed Enforcement Efforts Speed enforcement plays a large role in deterring drivers from traveling at excessive speeds. There are numerous methods that some law enforcement agencies currently use or are in the process of implementing in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing speed limits. Due to limited resources, the use of available funding and enforcement officers needs to be as efficient and effective as possible in order to have the greatest effect on highway safety. Strategy C1--Use Targeted Conventional Speed Enforcement Programs at Locations Known to Have Speeding-Related Crashes (P) Speed enforcement programs are launched by local and/or regional enforcement agencies. Speed campaigns typically target speeders through public awareness programs, as well as increased enforcement, providing increased enforcement at locations where a review of V-29

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES current travel speeds, crash history, and officer and public input show the potential for improvement. When used in conjunction with public education/awareness campaigns to increase knowledge of enforcement efforts, speed enforcement programs have the most potential for deterring drivers from speeding. When starting a speed enforcement campaign the enforcement agency, or agencies, administering the campaign should first focus on specific roads to target, when they should be targeted, and why they chose those particular locations and times. Typically speed enforcement programs identify roads to target based on review of crash history, speeding citations, and public complaints. Several road segments can be identified and prioritized based on speeding trends and past crash reports. Performing enforcement during the times of day when speeding has been most prevalent in the past or when safety issues are most likely will help increase the effectiveness of the program. Consistent speed enforcement can be effective in deterring drivers from speeding. The more a driver is exposed to law enforcement presence, the less he/she is likely to speed. In the article, "The Effect of Police Presence on Urban Driving Speeds," Armour found that increased law enforcement presence does have an impact on travel speeds. The author's literature review concluded that there was good evidence that the presence of law enforcement will reduce vehicle speeds and that this reduction can be maintained for at least some time after the vehicles have passed the zone of law enforcement presence. The author also discussed the possibility of a "memory effect." A memory effect of enforcement is produced if drivers reduce their speed in areas where they have previously seen the presence of the law enforcement officials. It has been shown that a memory effect of enforcement can be produced in highway situations using high levels of enforcement, and in urban situations, this effect may last up to 2 days after the law enforcement presence has been removed (Armour, 1986). However, the study discussed in this article indicates that the deterrent effect of law enforcement presence is often location specific for most drivers on urban roads (less than 40 mph), in that they decrease travel speeds at locations where they know or think law enforcement might be present (based on previous experiences), but speed up after the enforcement zone. This can have a negative impact, as drivers may choose to travel different routes where law enforcement presence is less common. This emphasizes the importance of reevaluating the areas in need of law enforcement on a regular basis. As drivers choose different routes, based on law enforcement presence, speeding may become an issue at other locations. This should be monitored and adjustments in enforcement made as needed. This also indicates a need for a greater number of law enforcement, if an area-wide problem exists. Public involvement and awareness of special speed enforcement programs result in elevated effectiveness of the program by enhancing the deterrent effect of enforcement. Public awareness campaigns can result in an enhanced deterrent effect. Vigorous publicity that accompanies an enforcement program may provide as many measurable results as the enforcement itself. The public involvement campaigns that accompany these enforcement programs do not necessarily need to be spearheaded by the enforcement agency. In fact, law enforcement agencies do not typically have the resources to generate the level of public awareness needed to create the general deterrence effect needed for the success of the program. Many communities, however, have concerned citizens and civic leaders who have both the talent and resources that are required to develop and implement effective program support activities. There are a number of special enforcement programs that target an area-wide traffic safety problem. These programs target a number of different safety issues, including speeding. V-30

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES NHTSA has a set of guidelines for developing a municipal speed enforcement program, available online at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/program.htm. It provides guidance to both law enforcement and concerned citizens to assist with the development of traffic safety program support committees and the implementation of municipal speed enforcement and other special traffic safety programs. These implementation techniques were tested in both Modesto and San Bernardino, California. These communities, as a result of the programs they established, experienced declines in speeding-related crashes (For more information, see NHTSA, http:/ /www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/program.htm). Both communities participated in a 6-month NHTSA study. Each community conducted speed enforcement programs in six special enforcement zones, while a third community refrained from implementing any special enforcement effort to act as a comparison site. In addition to increased enforcement, San Bernardino and Modesto organized safety program support committees to elevate public awareness of the special enforcement program. These committees were comprised of local leaders, concerned citizens, a law enforcement manager, and chaired by emergency department physicians. The public campaigns were widespread and covered every area of the media. The public campaign included press conferences, posters, brochures, bus bench display advertising, media events, and television and radio public service announcements (NHTSA, 1995). Both communities experienced a decrease in speed-related crashes, with San Bernardino being the most successful with a decrease of 11.3 percent over the 6 month period, while Modesto had just a 1.1 percent decrease. However, the comparison site had an increase in crashes of 3.4 percent, increasing the statistical significance of both study sites' decrease in crashes. As an added benefit to the increased enforcement, both communities experienced a decline in other serious crimes. Larceny-theft crimes declined 1112 percent in both communities, while statewide it decreased about 1.7 percent. Traffic enforcement stops conducted during this study resulted in more than 2,000 arrests for offenses ranging from assault to misdemeanor and felony warrants (NHTSA, 1995). These results stress the importance of "looking beyond the ticket" and serve as an added benefit of increased speed and traffic law enforcement. Albuquerque, New Mexico, experienced similar results in the Safe Streets Program in 1997. The Smooth Operator Program, in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, has been combating aggressive driving since 1997. This program is both an education and enforcement program that has brought law enforcement agencies, trauma experts, government officials, and other professionals together to educate motorists about the risks involved with aggressive driving, and to stigmatize this behavior on the roads of Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC. Speeding is a major component of aggressive driving, especially excessive speeding. The enforcement component of the Smooth Operator Program takes place in four law enforcement waves, throughout the year. Each wave is 1 week long and vigorously targets speeding and aggressive drivers (Smooth Operator website). Similar programs are discussed further in the NCHRP Report 500, Volume 1: "A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Collisions." For more information on this specific program visit: http://www.smoothoperatorprogram.com/ about.html. In Virginia, the State Police, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Transportation have combined to develop a Highway Safety Corridor Program to address safety in high-crash locations on interstate and primary roads. Segments of interstate roadways have been identified as having higher than expected crash rates along with crash severity. The program development is an ongoing process as the agencies are currently in the process of establishing the Highway Safety Corridors based on crash data and public V-31

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES comment around the state. In 2004, a 15-mile stretch of Interstate 81 (I-81) near Roanoke was designated a Highway Safety corridor. A telephone survey in 2005 revealed that one-half of the residents were aware of the designation and 40 percent of those who were aware of the designation had said they improved their driving behavior as a result. Prior to the designation of the safety corridor, the number of crashes on I-81 had consistently increased each year from 2000 to 2003. The number of crashes has leveled off since the stretch was designated in early 2004 (see Virginia DOT, http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/ct- highway-safety-corridor.asp). Highway Safety Corridors are discussed further in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 20: "A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions." Another special law enforcement effort is saturation programs. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) often targets specific stretches of highways throughout the state to saturate with enforcement and engage in zero tolerance speed enforcement. On a given day, enforcement levels may be tripled to enforce this zero tolerance for speeding. Typically this special enforcement is conducted about 4 or 5 days each month, though it varies by area. Zero tolerance for speeding means the speed limit is strictly enforced. Anyone speeding, even just a few miles over the speed limit, can be pulled over and given a citation or warning. The primary goal of an enforcement saturation program is to increase the visibility of law enforcement, which is a deterrent for many would-be speeders. This generally decreases the average flow of traffic on busy roadways and therefore decreases the frequency and severity of crashes (Taylor, 2004, Hall, 2003). These types of education and enforcement programs are an effective tool in increasing public awareness of the risks of driving at unsafe speeds, as discussed further in Strategy B1 of this guide; also see Exhibit V-8 for more information. EXHIBIT V-8 Strategy Attributes for Using Conventional Speed Enforcement Programs at Locations Known to Have Speeding-Related Crashes (P) Attribute Description Technical Attributes Target This strategy aims at reducing excessive speeds through enforcement programs in targeted locations. Locations where speeding is known to occur or where there is a history of crashes, especially crashes involving speeding drivers, should be targeted. Expected Effectiveness Many studies indicate that increased law enforcement presence is a good way to deter drivers from speeding. A study in Australia found that law enforcement presence reduced the number of speeding vehicles on an urban road by approximately two-thirds (Armour, 1986). Likewise, a study in Korea found that the presence of automated speed enforcement devices reduced accidents by 29 percent and fatalities by up to 40 percent (Ha, Kang, and Park, 2003). Albuquerque, New Mexico, had great success with their Safe Streets Program in 1997. The program was composed of a number of different elements, including saturation patrols in local high-crime/high-crash areas, and freeway speed enforcement where two major highways intersect in the heart of Albuquerque, a total of 30 miles of urban interstate. All operations of the Safe Streets Program were highly visible and many publicity campaigns were created to let the public know of the increased enforcement and the dedication to increasing the safety on Albuquerque roads. During the program year, there was a 12 percent decrease in speeding-related V-32

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-8 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Using Conventional Speed Enforcement Programs at Locations Known to Have Speeding-Related Crashes (P) Attribute Description crashes, including a 34 percent decrease in fatal crashes and an 18 percent decline in injury crashes. In addition to the decline in vehicle crashes, the presence of highly visible law enforcement patrols aided in the decline of crime and many arrests also were made as a consequence of the special enforcement effort (Stuster, 2001). Communities may also experience an ancillary benefit in terms of reduction in crimes in the area with increased law enforcement presence. Keys to Success A successful speed enforcement program should involve local and regional enforcement agencies. Networking between enforcement agencies can greatly improve the success of any one speed enforcement program. More and better detailed data can be shared between the agencies. Having proper equipment is also an important key to the success of these programs. Having multiple agencies involved can help alleviate the costs of this equipment, by collectively purchasing and sharing the equipment. Crash history and speed studies should be reviewed and roads should be selected to target based on these studies. The TRB publication, Special Report 254, "Managing Speed, Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits," identifies situations where speed enforcement programs in the United States have been most successful. Enforcement programs are most successful when deployed at specific locations and times when speeding is most likely to occur (e.g., nighttime), programs and enforcement are made easily visible to the public, and the program is administered for at least 1 year (Milliken et al., 1998). A successful speed enforcement program would also gain media attention, which is important to inform and gain public attention. Potential Difficulties One potential difficulty is lack of funding or personnel for proper equipment and law enforcement patrolling. To overcome this, some agencies have joined with neighboring jurisdictions to share officers and patrol cars in order to provide an enforcement program with greater coverage. Another potential difficulty involves the use of radar detectors by drivers in personal vehicles. Radar detectors in personal vehicles are illegal in only the District of Columbia and Virginia. They warn drivers of radar that is determining their speed, such as from a law enforcement vehicle or from an automatic speed enforcement device. The use of radar drones may be a possible option in combating their use. Radar drones emit a signal that sets off radar detectors, to cause the driver to think that there is a law enforcement officer or an automatic speed enforcement device within range and the driver will generally slow down. If used over a period of time in a specific location, the effectiveness of a radar drone will wear off as drivers with radar detectors frequently passing through the area become used to it. When used on a regular, but random, basis, drivers may become less reliant on their radar detector and more likely to obey the speed limit, at least in the area where radar drones are prevalent. Another possible solution to this is to outlaw the use of radar detectors. Radar detector detectors enable law enforcement officials to determine which drivers are using radar detectors. In jurisdictions where the use of radar detectors is illegal, drivers caught using these devices may be fined. Existing roadside geometrics can present law enforcement officers making traffic stops with a difficulty. Without an area with appropriate space for vehicles to pull out of the travel way, both officers and the drivers being stopped could be stopping in an V-33

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-8 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Using Conventional Speed Enforcement Programs at Locations Known to Have Speeding-Related Crashes (P) Attribute Description unsafe location. This can be especially true in work zones, where shoulders are often used for temporary travel lanes, resulting in no room for enforcement activities. Space available for enforcement activities should be considered when planning targeted enforcement programs. Also, in future road design, engineers should consider areas specifically for law enforcement. Appropriate Measures Appropriate data includes average travel speeds and crash data collection before and Data and after speed enforcement programs. Special attention should be paid to the fastest drivers, not just the average or 85th percentile speeds. These data can be used to determine if the speed enforcement program successfully reduced travel speeds and crashes along specific corridors. Detailed data, such as severity of crashes, age, and gender of drivers should be identified in order to target future speed enforcement programs. Associated Needs One of the most important associated needs identified with this strategy would be gaining public attention. Informing the public in advance of the program will likely contribute in deterring drivers from speeding if they know that law enforcement will be increased. Gaining public attention can be administered through flyers, brochures, posters, billboards, and radio or television advertisements. Organizational and Institutional Attributes Organizational, Coordination between law enforcement agencies will be needed if agencies wish to Institutional and Policy join efforts to implement enforcement programs that share each other's resources. Issues Issues Affecting Implementation time for a basic targeted enforcement program will be relatively Implementation Time short. If an enforcement agency needs to purchase equipment, apply for grants to help cover overtime labor costs, or coordinate with other agencies to share staff and equipment, the implementation time will lengthen. Making the public aware of upcoming and on-going enforcement programs will involve some planning and coordination with media outlets, which could lengthen implementation time as well. Costs Involved Costs to implement this strategy will be low to moderate, depending on the extent of enforcement coverage. Costs for this strategy include additional law enforcement personnel (if current personnel are not adequate for such a program) and technology, such as automated speed enforcement devices or state-of-the-art handheld radars. These items are optional, but they could contribute to an improved speed enforcement program. Other costs include any informational brochures or related media for public information. Training and Other No extensive training would be required for this strategy. Current enforcement Personnel Needs agencies might require additional personnel to support larger campaigns. These personnel would require training on making speeding-related stops. It may also be helpful to have a refresher course or training for law enforcement officers currently on the job. This can help ensure that speeding citations are properly filled out, which helps with adjudication and planning of future enforcement efforts. Legislative Needs Legislation may be necessary before implementing a speed enforcement program. The legislation is necessary to meet constitutional standards, state legal standards, and local jurisdiction standards. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks status of legislation and speed laws (concerning radar) and provides examples of model legislation at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncsl/Index.cfm. V-34

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-8 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Using Conventional Speed Enforcement Programs at Locations Known to Have Speeding-Related Crashes (P) Attribute Description Other Key Attributes Compatibility of This strategy is compatible with all others discussed in this guide. Different Strategies Other Key Attributes to None Identified. a Particular Strategy Strategy C2--Implement Automated Speed Enforcement (T) General Description Law enforcement officers are not able to enforce speed limits on all roads at all times, and automated enforcement technologies offer the opportunity for increasing enforcement efforts and public perception that speeding citations are likely. The use of cameras to enforce red-light running is common practice in some jurisdictions, but their extension to applications involving speeding is more limited. Current technology can be used to deter drivers from speeding, and document them while traveling at speeds in violation of the posted speed limit. Such technology can be used without the presence of a law enforcement officer, if laws permit such use. This is ideal for high-speed roads where speeding is an issue that enforcement officials have difficulty controlling or on multi-lane roads with heavy traffic moving in both directions where it is often dangerous for officers to make traditional stops. Legislation enabling the citation of drivers recorded on camera is often needed for the technology to be employed. Studies in the United States indicate that speed cameras have been effective in reducing overall vehicle travel speeds and the proportion of drivers traveling in excess of posted speeds. However, it is common for the public to react negatively to the use of camera enforcement technology. Public involvement efforts are a significant portion of the implementation plans for automated enforcement programs. Automated speed enforcement (ASE) devices are also known as speed cameras or photo radars. These devices comprise a speed measurement unit and a camera that work together to locate and identify drivers traveling at speeds above the posted speed limit. Speed cameras are generally located on roads with speeding issues and a history of speeding-related crashes. They are also often used in school zones, work zones and areas with large pedestrian volumes. The speed measurement unit on the camera measures the travel speed of vehicles on the roadway. When it detects vehicles exceeding the speed limit by a predetermined amount, the camera takes a photograph of the vehicle and records relevant information such as the travel speed, date, and time that the speeding violation took place. The speeds at which photo speed measurement units are triggered are determined by local enforcement agencies. International Experiences with Automated Enforcement Several countries report positive experiences with automated enforcement from both the traffic safety improvement and public acceptance perspective. Various reports published by V-35

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES the Federal Highway Administration and Transportation Research Board, as well as reports by researchers in the countries using automated enforcement, document these experiences. Automated speed enforcement combines radars with cameras to photograph speeding vehicles and issue tickets. About 75 countries rely on cameras to enforce speed limits, which reduces high travel speed and crashes (IIHS, 1999). The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) states that in some countries automated enforcement generates the majority of the speeding citations. In the United Kingdom, one-half of all the speeding citations resulted from automated enforcement. British officials introduced an electronic system using loop detectors in all lanes to detect traffic volumes and speeds. Roadside processors analyze the data to detect where traffic is slowing and this information is used to post variable speed limits--ranging from 20 to 60 mph--on electronic signs. Speed limits are set to produce a uniform and safe traffic flow based on traffic and other conditions. When no variable limit is posted electronically, the speed limit reverts to the national maximum of 70 mph. Without proper enforcement, simply posting variable limits would not be effective in managing speeds. Enforcement is achieved by mounting cameras across the highway to detect and photograph speeding vehicles. First a radar measurement is taken, and speeding vehicles are photographed twice, each photo a half second apart. The distance traveled between the two photos is used to confirm the radar measurement. There were 28 percent fewer crashes involving occupant injuries during the first year of the program, and property-damage-only crashes went down 25 percent. Preliminary data for the second year indicate the improvements are being maintained (FHWA, 2005). A study tour for speed management and enforcement was conducted by the FHWA in 1995. The tour observed automated enforcement devices in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Australia. It was observed that photo radar devices were used to a certain extent in all of the countries visited. However, in each country the photo radar devices were used in conjunction with a law enforcement officer presence (FHWA, 1995). The reasoning for using ASE devices with law enforcement presence is to ensure that such devices are not used solely as revenue generators--a common allegation from people opposed to the use of ASE devices. The study found that implementation of photo radar was most successful in the Netherlands and Australia. The success, in both countries, is credited to the fact that legislation was enacted requiring citations be sent to the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver (FHWA, 1995). Currently, no equipment is commercially available that will consistently and reliably identify the driver of the vehicle. Consequently, the study team recorded that photo radar devices were not successful in Germany and Sweden; this is because laws in these countries require that tickets must be issued to the driver of the vehicle rather than the owner (FHWA, 1995). The speed management study team reported that photo radar devices were most successful when used with informational speed management programs/campaigns. Overall, the FHWA study tour found that speed cameras were less effective in Germany, due to the current laws requiring positive identification of the driver. However, German officials did perform a long-term study in the 1970s on the A3 autobahn that did not require the driver's identification and the results were significant. In general, the autobahn does not have a speed limit, except in urban areas. Prior to this study at Elzer Mountain, between Cologne and Frankfurt, there was no posted speed limit on this hilly stretch of the autobahn. In 1971, before the study was conducted, 80 to 95 percent of passenger vehicles exceeded the recommended roadway design speed, 15 percent of which exceeded 150 km/h (93 mph) in V-36

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES the left lane and 135 km/h (84 mph) in the middle lane, and 15 percent of trucks exceeded the design speed. In 1972, to reduce accidents and accident severity in this area, a 100 km/h (62 mph) speed limit was posted for passenger vehicles in the left and middle lanes and 40 km/h (25 mph) speed limit was posted for trucks in the right (truck) lane and a year later speed cameras were installed above each lane. The speed camera photographed all passenger vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h and all trucks exceeding the truck speed limit by 5 km/h. The owners of the vehicles that were photographed were sent citations by mail. In addition to the speed cameras, law enforcement patrolled the segment of road to cite drivers for speeding. Immediately following the posting of the 100 km/h speed limit, a 30 km/h (19 mph) reduction in the average speed was observed. Following the installation of the speed cameras, an additional 20 km/h (12 mph) reduction in average speed was observed. The combination of setting a speed limit and the use of speed cameras resulted in a 91 percent reduction in crashes on that stretch of the autobahn. Ten years later, the reduced crash rate and lower speeds were considered sustainable. Just 7 percent of passenger vehicles in the left lane, 3 percent of passenger vehicles in the middle lane, and 10 percent of vehicles in the truck lane (right lane) were detected by the speed camera at speeds greater than 110 km/h for passenger vehicles and 45 km/h for trucks (Lamm and Kloeckner, 1984). Another interesting automated enforcement method used in European countries is based on a concept of point-to-point automated speed enforcement. A product called the Speed Enforcement Camera System (SPECS) is a video system with automatic number plate reading digital technology consisting of two cameras. Each camera is set at a distance apart making it a speed-controlled zone. As a vehicle passes the two cameras its number plate is digitally recorded along with the time of entry and exit. The computer then calculates the speed based on the time and distance. This information is then transmitted to a central office or stored on discs in the cabinets at the roadside. If vehicles exceed the average speeds, a speeding violation is automatically generated. As the whole technology is digital it can run 24 hours a day with no film to change. Studies show that it has reduced fatalities in places where it was installed and also improved compliance with speed limits. See Appendix 1 for further discussion on international experiences with automated speed enforcement. Domestic Experiences with Automated Enforcement As of April 2006, automated speed enforcement technology is used in about 20 communities in the United States (IIHS-Automated Enforcement Laws). Many jurisdictions that use automated enforcement are in states that have laws authorizing its use; however, not all states where automated enforcement is in use have such laws. Most automated enforcement programs and laws are for red light running; however, the use of automated enforcement for speed is increasing. The state laws that do exist vary from state to state; some authorize enforcement statewide, whereas others permit use only in specified communities. As of April 2006, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Wisconsin are the only states that prohibit any use of camera devices for enforcement purposes. Elsewhere in the United States, 25 states had no legislation regarding the use of any form of automated enforcement device, and 22 states and the District of Columbia had some legislation allowing the use of automated enforcement devices, either statewide or in select communities (IIHS-Automated Enforcement Laws). V-37

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES There have been few studies in the United States that focus on the use of automated speed enforcement on high speed roads. A majority of the studies have been done in high-traffic, low-speed urban areas, like Washington, DC. They are also used in high pedestrian areas, where speeding is a serious issue, such as school and work zones. The studies that have been done in the United States indicate that speed cameras have been effective in reducing vehicle travel speeds. A study in 2002 found that speed cameras in the District of Columbia helped to reduce the number of vehicles traveling at 10 mph or more over the speed limit at enforced locations by 82 percent. This study also found that average travel speeds at enforced locations declined by 14 percent within 6 months of the speed cameras' implementation compared to nearby control locations (Retting and Farmer, 2003). This study is discussed further in Appendix 1. Likewise, a study in Garland, Utah, found that installing speed cameras, in conjunction with media coverage, helped reduce average travel speeds by 14 mph and reduce collisions in a school zone (IIHS-Automated Enforcement Laws). It may also be a cost effective solution since most enforcement agencies are constrained by staffing and funding limitations. The results of a 1993 study in Riverside, California were reported at the 1998 TRB Annual Meeting (Bloch, 1998). The study evaluated the effectiveness of both photo radar and speed display boards. It concluded that both photo-radar and speed display boards can be effective in reducing vehicle speeds. Photo-radar reduced mean speeds 5.8 miles per hour (mph) where baseline speeds averaged 3435 mph in 25-mph zones. It is common for the public to react negatively to such devices. Issues such as privacy rights are of concern to opponents of photo enforcement devices (Milliken et al., 1998). State and Supreme Court decisions have found that driving on public roads is not protected under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution (Milliken et al., 1998). As noted above, another issue among the public is owner versus driver of the vehicle in violation. Since the person driving the vehicle may not be the owner, most jurisdictions rely on the owner to divulge the name of the driver of the vehicle. However, in most jurisdictions, if the owner refuses then the citation is issued to the owner. One problem that may pose issues concerning photo radar devices is the increasing market of anti-photo radar devices. There are vehicle devices available to consumers which detect photo radar devices to provide advance warning for drivers. Likewise, there are products available which are much lower in cost than photo radar detectors, including license plate covers, or spray cans that contain materials which produce glare or result in distorted photos of a vehicle's license plate. These items result in photos where the license plate is not readable, making it impossible to impose a penalty. If automated speed enforcement devices are implemented by an agency, measures to deter use of such products should be taken; see Exhibit V-9 for further discussion of these and other related issues. The state of North Carolina has targeted these issues by approving a bill that prohibits drivers from driving with an obscured license plate (NCSL, 2004). Strategy C3--Increase Penalties for Repeat and Excessive Speeding Offenders (T) Drivers who repeatedly flout speeding laws are a significant contributor to overall safety risk. All drivers convicted of speed limit violations are subject to penalties as determined by state and local laws. State laws vary on policy concerning license suspension, increased fines, and possible jail time for repeat speeding offenders and excessive speeding offenders, but these are strategies that could possibly deter convicted speeders from speeding in the future. V-38

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-9 Strategy Attributes for Implementing Automated Speed Enforcement (T) Attribute Description Technical Attributes Target Low- and high-speed roads where observations of crash histories indicate speeding problems, or where other factors indicate special risks (e.g. school and work zones), are target areas for installation of automated speed enforcement devices. This strategy is appropriate for consideration in locations where resources for manual enforcement are limited, or where manual enforcement poses a safety or operational concern for officers and the traveling public. Expected Effectiveness Based on national studies where automated speed technology has been used, the devices have been effective in reducing travel speeds and improving safety. In most cases, the studies found that automated speed enforcement had a positive impact on reducing speeding. As mentioned previously, the IIHS reported that automated speed enforcement reduced average travel speeds by 14 percent at actively enforced sites in the District of Columbia. Automated speed enforcement devices can produce better long-term effects along a roadway than manual targeted enforcement. Studies have found that traditional enforcement has a short-lived deterrent effect on drivers, where stationary automated speed enforcement devices would be present all the time for a long-term effect (Milliken et al., 1998). A 2-year test of automated speed enforcement in residential and school zones in Beaverton and Portland, Oregon, illustrated that speed cameras resulted in a decrease in vehicles exceeding the speed limit in these areas. In Beaverton, 4 months after the cameras were installed, 39 percent fewer vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit by 5 mph, and the average speed decreased by 4.6 percent. In Portland, data collected during a 4-month period on streets that received intensive photo radar enforcement showed the percentage of vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph decreased by 27 percent, while the average speed dropped by 2 mph. This study is discussed further in Appendix 1. Studies reported from the FHWA Study Tour for Speed Management and Enforcement Technology in Europe indicate effectiveness for certain countries. These are summarized below: Netherlands: Studies found that 95 percent of law enforcement officer patrolling hours facilitated issuing tickets to approximately 30 percent of speeders; whereas, photo radar devices identified and issued tickets to approximately 70 percent of speeders with only 5 percent of the total law enforcement officer hours devoted to this task. Germany: Photo radar devices were placed on the autobahn with speed limit signs reading 100 km/h (62 mph). This had immediate impacts, as it reduced average speeds by 30 km/h (19 mph). Longer term effects resulted in average speed reductions of an additional 20 km/h (12 mph). Implementation of photo radar devices yielded a 91 percent reduction in accidents along the segment of autobahn where photo radar devices were installed. New South Wales, Australia: A public information campaign providing information on the implementation of photo radar devices was administered via radio, television, and informational pamphlets. Photo radar devices were then installed at numerous sites, typically sites with a poor crash history. The installation of ASE devices proved beneficial, as a 22 percent reduction in high severity collisions was observed. As well, a decrease in excessive speeding (10-20 km/h) was observed. V-39

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-9 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Implementing Automated Speed Enforcement (T) Attribute Description Victoria, Australia: Automated speed enforcement devices were implemented in 1989 in Victoria. Photo radar devices were placed in locations where there were complaints of excessive speeding and locations with a history of high-severity collisions. Photo radar devices were used in conjunction with law enforcement patrolling and public information campaigns. Studies on the ASE devices found that after 5 years vehicles exceeding the speed limit declined from 23 percent to 3 percent. Keys to Success To successfully implement the use of automated speed devices it is important first to identify locations where they would be of best use. Having local officials, such as law enforcement officers and city engineers, identify roadways with speeding problems and ascertain the involvement of speeding in crashes helps to determine if and where the devices would be of best use. The public should be informed of the installation of the devices, how they work, and when they are going to go into effect. Public information may begin before or after site selection. Photo radar devices are good solutions where traditional law enforcement cannot be deployed effectively, or in locations where traditional enforcement is unsafe (Milliken et al., 1998). Special Report 254: "Managing Speed, Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits" indicates that the success of automated speed enforcement depends on the way it is introduced to the public. Not only is it important to indicate appropriate locations for the devices, but it is just as important to deploy devices where the public perceives that speeding is a problem (Milliken et al., 1998). This will help gain public support on the issue. Educating the public about automated speed enforcement devices in advance of installation will help reduce confusion, questions, and concerns that they may have. Media advertising on the radio and television are good ways to inform and educate the public on speed cameras and deter negative feedback. In order to do this, officials such as law enforcement officers and judicial officials should be educated about automated speed enforcement devices concerning how they work and how they should be enforced. Informing appropriate officials will help them prepare for any feedback, questions, or comments from the general public. To avoid confusion concerning citations, legislation should be passed which indicates that vehicle owners be responsible for the speeding violations, rather than identifying the driver of the vehicle (FHWA, 1995). Potential Difficulties One of the difficulties in implementing automated speed enforcement is gaining public acceptance of use of the devices. The public will likely not accept the implementation of ASE devices if they feel that the devices are used solely to generate revenue. This can be countered through law enforcement patrolling at locations of ASE devices and identifying safety benefits to the public. People may feel that their right to privacy is being violated, which causes an issue for many opponents. Another issue concerns ticketing vehicle owners. The owner of the vehicle is ticketed, even if he/she is not the driver during the time of citation. A photo radar program in Victoria, Australia successfully targeted this problem by requiring vehicle owners to be liable for the penalty unless they can identify the person driving the vehicle (Milliken et al., 1998). There is a possibility that officials may not embrace the idea, and want to avoid automated speed technology based on negative feedback from the public. Cost for the devices may be an issue at first; however, potential for long-term savings should be evaluated and explained to both the public and decision-makers. Photo-radar detecting devices and products that distort images of license plates are also an issue since they are available. V-40

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-9 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Implementing Automated Speed Enforcement (T) Attribute Description Appropriate Measures Key process measures include the number of locations where automated speed and Data enforcement devices are implemented. Additional data to observe include changes in overall average speeds and crashes. Crash history and severity of speeding-related crashes should be observed before and after the installation of automated enforcement devices, to see if there were any resulting safety benefits. ADT data should also be measured before and after the installment of automated speed enforcement devices, to see if there are fewer vehicles along routes with these devices. If this is the case, this could likely result in decreased crashes, due to less vehicles and exposure to collision (depending on the amount of vehicles avoiding the road due to enforcement devices). This should be noted to address alternate routes where traffic is diverting. Associated Needs Associated needs include educational/informational awareness of officials and the general public on the implementation of automated speed devices. Studies from Europe observed that photo radar reduced travel speeds more significantly when used in conjunction with signs identifying the devices. To assure the public that ASE devices are used as safety measures, as opposed to revenue generators, such signing can be used, as well as law enforcement officers stationed near the devices. Organizational and Institutional Attributes Organizational, Traffic enforcement and judiciary agencies should review the location and proper Institutional and Policy installation of the device. Likewise, the performance of the device should be tested Issues before it is used for official enforcement. Policy concerning citations from automated enforcement devices should be communicated to officers and judicial system staff to help ensure appropriate application of the strategy. Issues Affecting If legislation needs to be enacted to enable an agency to use ASE, implementation Implementation Time time could take 1 year or more. Determining an effective policy for handling citations and developing a program to assure the public that the cameras are to be used to improve safety rather than generate revenue could take several months or more. If agencies are already using cameras for red-light enforcement, some of this work may already be done. Actual installation of the equipment is a short-term process. Costs Involved There are several different costs associated with automated speed enforcement devices. Costs include the acquisition, deployment, operation, and routine maintenance of automated speed enforcement devices (Milliken et al., 1998). Public information campaigns and outreach programs will add to the costs of implementing this strategy. These costs can be outweighed by the revenue gained from the cameras, as well as the potential for reduced collisions along a road, which could result in decreased crash severity. Examples of photo radar law enforcement costs and equipment are provided in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12: "A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections." The costs identified are shown below. Per Per Hour of Per Per Driver Type of Speed Control Deployment Deployment 12 Hour Day Exposed Photo radar (law $155.00 $8.42 $119.23 $0.39 enforcement costs only) Photo radar (law $220.36 $11.98 $169.51 $0.55 enforcement and equipment) Source: TranSafety, Inc., (1998). V-41

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-9 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Implementing Automated Speed Enforcement (T) Attribute Description Training and Other Training for law enforcement officers responsible for camera operation and issuing Personnel Needs citations would be needed to ensure that they know how the devices work. Information to include in training would be where to set the devices, such as what type of roads, where to locate them along the road, and how to set them to take photos at the speed desired. It is also important to provide training on how to retrieve the photos and identify the speeds of violators. Legislative Needs Legislation may be necessary before installing automated speed enforcement devices, as described in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 12: "A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized Intersections." Legislation is necessary to meet constitutional standards, state legal standards, state vehicle code standards, and local jurisdiction standards. Any states enabling legislation should address the broad constitutional state and federal issues. This should be done within a framework that includes elements such as definitions of acceptable automated speed enforcement devices, restrictions of use, detailed description of acceptable photographic evidence concerning the vehicle driver and vehicle owners, and penalty provisions. Local jurisdictions should provide detailed legislation concerning requirements on automated speed enforcement devices. These details should include information concerning operating criteria, agencies responsible for camera operation and maintenance, restrictions to ASE in that jurisdiction, and requirements for advance notification. As stated previously, legislation can be passed to improve enforcement of ASE devices. As studies in the Netherlands have found, in order to avoid confusion concerning citations, legislation should be passed which indicates that vehicle owners be responsible for the speeding violations, rather than identifying the driver of the vehicle (FHWA, 1995). A summary of state legislation on automated enforcement may be found at: http://www.iihs.org/laws/automated_enforcement.aspx. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks status of automated enforcement legislation and provides examples of model legislation at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncsl/Index.cfm. Other Key Attributes Compatibility of This strategy is compatible with all others discussed in this guide. Different Strategies Other Key Attributes to None identified. a Particular Strategy Many states have laws that support increased fines for repeat offenders of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For example, the state of Ohio increases penalties for repeat DUI offenders, with minimum fines, maximum license suspension time, and minimum jail time increasing with each successive conviction (Ohio Insurance Institute, 2001). Eleven states currently have increased fines for repeat speeding offenders. An increased fine is given to a driver who is cited for a speeding violation within a set timeframe (typically 1 year) of the previous citation. For instance, the state of California fines the first offense a maximum of $100, the second offense within 1 year of the first is fined up to $200, and any V-42

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES subsequent offense within 1 year of the first offense is fined up to $250 (NHTSA, 2001). Further, upon the second conviction of the offense of driving greater than 100 mph on a highway within 3 years of the prior offense the amount of the fine increases to $1,000 and 2 or more prior convictions within 5 years results in a fine of $1,500 (NCSL, 2006). Also, most states have a demerit point system, where each violation earns demerit points, based on the severity of the violation. These demerit points are given for all moving traffic violations. Once a driver reaches the point threshold their driver license is suspended or, if available, the driver is given the opportunity to attend traffic school. Thirty-six states offer traffic school or driver improvement courses to repeat traffic law offenders. The use of these courses varies among those states. Some use it as a penalty, requiring a habitual traffic law violator whose license has been suspended to take the course prior to reinstating his or her driving privilege. Other states offer it as an alternative to license suspension or to reduce demerit points. However, most states that offer these alternatives limit their use to once per year (NHTSA, 2001). For a driver whose speeding convictions would put him/her at the point threshold for traffic school more than once in a given time period, driver license suspension or revocation may be a more prudent action. There is potential for such courses to act as a deterrent to drivers who do not wish to subject themselves to such a course. Also, these courses have the ability to educate those drivers who speed repeatedly and excessively, and inform them of the real dangers of speeding. A common excessive speeding problem, especially among young adults in urban areas, is illegal street racing. Illegal street racing is a form of auto racing that takes place on the streets and freeways. Speeds in these street races can reach in excess of 200 mph. Law enforcement officers attempt to stop these races, but because of their frequency and the ability of racers to change locations easily, this is a difficult task. This is a specific speeding problem in many larger cities around the country. A program in San Diego has been developed to combat the issue of illegal street racing, by providing an alternative location. RaceLegal.com was formed in 1998 by a professor at the San Diego State University's Graduate School of Public Health. A coalition was initiated with a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. This grass roots coalition involved city/county government, law enforcement, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Superior Court, City Attorney, District Attorney, and county probation. In short this program provides safer and sanctioned track alternative races at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium. Drivers even have the opportunity to race against law enforcement officers in these sanctioned races. This provides a positive forum for interaction with law enforcement. The officers use this opportunity to foster relationships with young people, and encourage them to drive with safety in mind, including persuading drivers not to street race, always use seatbelts, and to lead a sober lifestyle. This program also uses public awareness methods to maintain a high level of community awareness of the incidence of local illegal street racing, as well as other traffic safety issues, such as safety belt usage and DWI. The RaceLegal.com program has had great success in reducing illegal street racing tragedies. According to the program's website, from 2002 to 2005 there has been a 94 percent improvement in crash fatalities due to illegal street racing. For more information on the RaceLegal.com program see Appendix 2. Increasing state fines/penalties for repeat offenders is a potential strategy that might deter drivers from committing repeat offenses. Likewise, state laws could impose license suspension and potential for jail time, depending on the extent of offenses committed. Increased fines and penalties potentially deter people from committing a first offense, and more importantly potentially deter people from speeding again. See Exhibit V-10 for more information. V-43

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-10 Strategy Attributes for Increased Penalties for Repeat and Excessive Speeding Offenders (T) Attribute Description Technical Attributes Target Those drivers showing a history of speeding violations and excessive speeding. Expected Effectiveness There is a lack of studies that indicate the effectiveness of increasing penalties for repeat and excessive offenders. Studies for repeat DUI offenders vary; however, several suggest that heightened fines/penalties have resulted in a lower frequency of repeat offenders. The general finding from programs directed toward multiple traffic law offenders is that the programs show some effectiveness in reducing violations; however, these programs do not have a significant impact on crashes. Keys to Success For this strategy to work, state laws would need to be implemented to support increasing fines for repeat offenders and excessive speeders. Keys to success here would include getting local officials and public figures active and in support of such laws and implementing them. It is important to inform the public that increasing fines is in response to speeding and the associated safety risks it poses. It should be noted that increased fines are not implemented to generate additional revenue. Highway safety professionals may need to provide outreach to judicial agencies regarding the importance of upholding the increased fines and other penalties for speeding convictions, in order for the more severe penalties to have a deterrent effect on drivers. Potential Difficulties Inconsistent enforcement or adjudicating is a potential difficulty. It is important to enforce the speed laws consistently to effectively deter future speeding violations. Drivers must understand that the threat of penalty is real and likely if they speed. This requires consistency on the part of law enforcement officers as well as the judges who prosecute speed law violators (Milliken et al., 1998). See Strategy C4 on how to strengthen adjudication of speeding citations to enhance the deterrent effect of fines. Appropriate Measures Appropriate data would include the number of repeat and excessive speed offenders and Data before and after the implementation of increasing fines. Also, details such as age, gender and travel speed should be noted to indicate any trends to address in the future. The effectiveness of this law cannot only be observed through the decreased amount of speeders, it is important to indicate past and current severity and frequency of speed-related crashes that involve excessive speeds or repeat offenders. Associated Needs Associated needs include educational/information awareness to officials and the general public on the implementation of increasing penalties for repeat and excessive speed offenders. As mentioned previously, it is important to inform the general public that such measures are taken to eliminate speeding related crashes, rather than to gain increased revenue from issuing higher cost speeding tickets. Organizational and Institutional Attributes Organizational, As mentioned above, outreach to court officials is an important part of ensuring the Institutional and success of this strategy. Highway agencies may want to develop a program for Policy Issues attending judicial meetings and conferences, or hold meetings with participation by enforcement and court officials. Issues Affecting Should legislation be needed to be able to impose increased penalties, implementation Implementation Time time could take 1 year or more. Once legislation is established, public outreach efforts may be needed, but implementation efforts would likely be completed in a relatively short timeframe. V-44

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-10 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Increased Penalties for Repeat and Excessive Speeding Offenders (T) Attribute Description Costs Involved Implementation costs should be low, but could vary depending on the amount of coordination with legislators and courts, as well as public outreach, needed. It is anticipated that the costs in the long run will be outweighed by the savings, due to the potential decrease in the number and severity of speeding-related crashes. Additional revenue may result from this strategy; however, it should be noted that this is not the purpose for increasing speeding fines. Training and Other No additional training or personnel would be needed for this strategy. Existing law Personnel Needs enforcement officials would be able to enforce the new law without additional training. Legislative Needs State and local laws concerning increasing penalties for repeat and excessive speed offenders may be needed. Other Key Attributes Compatibility of This strategy is compatible with all other enforcement strategies in this guide. Different Strategies Other Key Attributes to None identified. a Particular Strategy Strategy C4--Strengthen the Adjudication of Speeding Citations to Enhance the Deterrent Effect of Fines (T) Court systems play an important role in the enforcement process for traffic citations. When speeding citations are thrown out or penalties/fines are reduced, the court system is downplaying enforcement (Milliken et al., 1998). There must be an agreement between enforcement officials and judges on the circumstances for which speeding citations will be written and the penalties that will be imposed. Likewise, it is equally important for the judicial system to treat speeding violations consistently, which can be done by establishing and following sentencing guidelines (Milliken et al., 1998). There are many publications such as books, guides, and websites that investigate loopholes in state and municipal laws enforcing speeding violations. As a result, there are drivers guilty of speeding who find ways to dodge fines or penalties. Adjudication to address such issues can deter a driver from speeding if he/she is aware of the law, its consequences, and the ability of the judicial system to support law enforcement. There are many instances where court judges reduce fines/penalties or drop them completely if they feel that penalties are too harsh for conditions as stated in the citation (Milliken et al., 1998). This reduces the incentive for law enforcement officials to enforce the limits, and in turn reduces the deterrent effect of speeding penalties. It is important that law enforcement officials and court judges come to an agreement on enforcing speed limits uniformly and remove inconsistencies in penalizing violators (Milliken et al., 1998). Adjudication can be strengthened through judicial outreach programs. These can be elaborate nationwide programs, such as college training courses, or local/regional initiatives. There are a number of judicial outreach initiatives targeted towards judges who preside over, and V-45

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES prosecutors who prosecute DWI cases. Similar programs targeted towards judges who preside over speeding-related cases can be helpful in strengthening the adjudication of speeding citations. The purpose of these outreach programs is to educate prosecutors and judges about the importance of consistent penalties for speeding. This can be done by initially providing crash and other traffic data to exhibit the severity of the problem and thus the importance of consistently upholding fines and penalties to maintain the deterrent effect of said penalties. NHTSA, in collaboration with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, has identified similar strategies for "reducing obstacles to obtaining impaired driving convictions and applying sanctions in a consistent manner" which highlights the importance of consistent adjudication (NHTSA, 2003). In NHTSA's Report to Congress on the FY 2003 Expenditure of Funds for Judges and Prosecutors, they also highlighted key training programs that justices could take part in to prepare them for presiding over DWI and other traffic safety-related cases. Specifically the National Judicial College, a national judicial education and training institution, offers traffic safety courses developed with NHTSA funding (NHTSA, 2003). Judicial outreach programs and training courses are educational tools that can be used to strengthen the adjudication of speeding citations, which in turn is expected to enhance the deterrent effect of fines and penalties. See Exhibit V-11 for more information. EXHIBIT V-11 Strategy Attributes for Strengthening the Adjudication of Speeding Citations to Enhance the Deterrent Effect of Fines (T) Attribute Description Technical Attributes Target State and municipal judicial agencies should be targeted for improving adjudication of speeding citations. Agencies where there are inconsistencies in adjudication of speeding violations should be targeted. Expected Effectiveness The expected effectiveness cannot be quantified as there are currently no studies on improving adjudication for speeding violations and effectiveness. It is expected that once speeding penalties have been imposed consistently and frequently, public awareness of the threat of receiving sanctions for speeding will increase, enhancing the deterrent effect of speeding penalties. Keys to Success This strategy would include inter-agency cooperation between local law enforcement, highway agencies and judicial agencies. Likewise, informing the public of improvements in adjudication will help to improve the deterrent effect of the penalties. Judicial outreach is one important key to the success of this strategy. This outreach would entail showing justices/courts crash data and other traffic information to demonstrate the extent of the speeding problem and the role they play in mitigating this problem. They must be made aware of the need to consistently handle speed limit violations. This consistency is important not only for the deterrent effect, but also to prevent any public perception that traffic regulations for speeding are arbitrary or capricious (Milliken et al., 1998). Potential Difficulties Establishing a working relationship between judicial agencies and enforcement and highway agencies may be difficult if it is not understood at the outset by all participants that the goal is to improve highway safety and reduce fatalities, and that every organization has a part in this, rather than a situation in which courts feel the law enforcement and transportation departments are telling them how to do their job. V-46

OCR for page 47
SECTION V--DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES EXHIBIT V-11 (Continued) Strategy Attributes for Strengthening the Adjudication of Speeding Citations to Improve the Deterrent Effect of Fines (T) Attribute Description Appropriate Measures Appropriate data would include the number of persons caught violating posted speed and Data limits before and after the implementation of improved adjudication. The effectiveness of such improvement cannot be quantified. However, there is a possibility that effectiveness can be observed through the number of speeding citations issued and the number of drivers who are found guilty of violations, as opposed to the number of drivers who are found not guilty of violations in the judicial process. Associated Needs The needs associated with this strategy include cooperation between judicial and law enforcement agencies. Organizational and Institutional Attributes Organizational, Judicial agencies should review their speeding adjudication policies to ensure that Institutional and Policy speeding violators be properly fined based on their citation. Any judicial agency can Issues participate in implementing this strategy, which is applicable to all areas (e.g. rural, urban, and suburban), particularly targeting high-speed arterials. Issues Affecting Implementation time is low for improving adjudication. Review of current adjudication, Implementation Time identifying areas for improvement, and implementing adjudication improvements is required, but would be expected to be able to be completed within several months. Costs Involved Costs for improving adjudication should be low. The main cost is getting professionals from judicial and enforcement agencies to implement new strategies for improving speeding adjudication. Educational or training costs may be necessary for those justices who choose to take educational training courses. Training and Other Training for judges on sentencing guidelines for speeding penalties/fines is Personnel Needs recommended to ensure that violations be treated on a consistent level. Legislative Needs None identified. Other Key Attributes Compatibility of This strategy is compatible with all other enforcement strategies in this guide. Different Strategies Other Key Attributes to None identified. a Particular Strategy Strategy C5--Increase Fines in Special Areas (T) General Description Traffic violations in places like residential areas, work zones, and schools present a dangerous condition for both the roadway users traveling through these places and also to the workers, children and pedestrians within that area. Often violations, such as speeding or failure to obey flagger signals, are a factor in crashes in many of these places. One method for reducing violations of traffic laws is to enforce laws and make fines significant enough to be a deterrent, and to encourage the judiciary to apply them consistently. Improving V-47