Laserfiche WebLink
Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management - Turner-Fairbank.. Page 13 of' 25 <br /> <br />Shinar and Stiebel (1986) demonstrated the relationship between perceived risk of receiving a <br />citation and driving in excess of speed limits. The researchers found compliance with speed limits <br />to be greatest in the vicinity of police vehicles and diminish with increasing distance; the distance <br />halo effect was greater for mobile than stationary police vehicles. Benekohal et al. (1992) <br />evaluated the impact of mobile patrol vehicle speed enforcement on car and truck speeds <br />through a highway construction zone. They found that the presence of a marked patrol car <br />reduced average car and truck speeds while no reduction o00urred in an unpatr011ed control <br />condition. Additionally, the proportion of cars traveling faster than conditions permitted in the work <br />zone was reduced by 14 percent, and trucks traveling faster by 32 percent, when the patrol car <br />was present. A time halo effect on average truck speeds lasted for about I hour after patrols <br />ended. Average car speeds increased immediately after patrols ended. In contrast, Vaa (1997) <br />found that intensive enforcement (an average of 9 hours of police presence per day) resulted in <br />reductions in vehicle speed that lasted up to 8 weeks. <br /> <br />Stationary Patrol Vehicles <br />Hauer et al. (1982) conducted several experiments to measure the impact of stationary patrol <br />vehicle enforcement on traffic speeds before, at, and after the site of enforcement, and during <br />and after the enforcement period (the time halo). The researchers detected a pronounced <br />decrease in average traffic speed to the posted speed limit at the location of the patrol vehicle. By <br />identifying vehicles passing through the enforcement area, the researchers also were able to <br />determine that repeated exposure of the enforcement to drivers had no significant effect in speed <br />reduction after the first encounter with the stationary patrol vehicle. Speeds returned to their pre- <br />enforcement level within 3 days after a single dose of stationary enforcement whereas exposure <br />to a stationary patrol vehicle over a 5-day period had the greatest effect in suppressing speeds <br />after enforcement ended. <br /> <br />Armour (1986) examined the impact on traffic speeds of parking a marked patrol car along an <br />urban street. The presence of the patrol car was associated with (1) a 2/3 drop in the number of <br />vehicles violating the speed limit; (2) an increase in community awareness of police enforcement <br />in the surrounding area; and (3) a measurable decrease in speed at the site of enforcement. <br />Based on these findings, Armour recommends the use of the stationary patrol car enforcement <br />technique for localized speed problems. <br /> <br />Stuster (1995) evaluated the effects of municipal speed enforcement programs on several <br />dependent measures. Three communities were selected to participate in the study on the basis <br />of comparability and isolation from each other. Two of the communities' police departments <br />implemented special speed enforcement programs focused on six special enforcement zones <br />within each community. Four of the zones in each community were selected on the basis of <br />speed-involved crash statistics and two in each community on the basis of chronic citizen <br />complaints of speeding. Police departments in the two experimental communities devoted an <br />average of 8 hours of officer time each week td each of the zones. The department in the third <br />community refrained from implementing any special traffic enforcement effort for the 6-month <br />duration of the study. The study found significant declines in unobtrusive measures of vehicle <br />speed and speed-related crashes in the special enforcement zones of the experimental <br />communities. In addition, time series analyses found 112 fewer crashes than expected. <br /> <br />Aerial Enforcement <br />Research has demonstrated that aerial speed enforcement programs have a generally positive <br />effect in reducing highway speeds. In western Australia, researchers compared the impact of <br />changing the levels of aerial enforcement on several roadway sites maintaining aerial programs <br />(Saunders, 1979). The removal of aerial enforcement in one site increased the percentage of <br />cars violating the posted speed limit by 6.1 percent and the number of trucks by 6.2 percent. An <br />increase in aerial enforcement at another site reduced the percentage of trucks violating the <br />speed limit, but had no impact on the percentage of cars traveling above the limit. In a later <br />Australian study, eleven months of aerial speed enforcement in New South Wales was <br />investigated (Kearns and Webster, 1988). The aerial program resulted in a vehicle crash <br />reduction of 22 percent. <br /> <br />Blackburn, Moran and Glauz (1989) evaluated alternative methods of enforcing New York's then <br /> <br />http://www.nd.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/speed/speed.htm 07/19/2000 <br /> <br /> <br />