My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 07-24-2000
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2000
>
07/24/2000
>
5.2. SR 07-24-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:49 AM
Creation date
6/28/2004 1:21:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
7/24/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Management - Turner-Fairbank.. Page 14 of' 25 <br /> <br />55 mi/h (89 km/h) speed limit. Aerial enforcement was found to be significantly more effective <br />than radar in detecting and apprehending drivers who used radar detectors and CB radios to <br />avoid being caught exceeding the speed limit. <br /> <br />Radar and Laser Speed Monitoring Equipment <br />Teed and Lund (1991) studied the relative effectiveness of police radar and laser speed <br />monitoring equipment in a brief field trial; the researchers used the same four locations, <br />alternating use of radar and laser speed guns over a 2-week study period. They found that laser <br />guns were significantly more effective in identifying speeding motorists (41 citations per 1,000 <br />vehicles, compared to 33 per 1,000 for radar). Perhaps more important, it was found that <br />speeders identified under the laser enforcement condition were four times more likely to have a <br />radar detector in their vehicles than those ticketed under the radar condition. In fact, most of the <br />additional speeders caught by the laser guns were using radar detectors, and those vehicles <br />tended to be traveling at the most extreme speeds. <br /> <br />Automated Enforcement <br />Automated enforcement systems combine radar or laser speed-measuring technology and video <br />or photographic identification to automatically detect and record speed limit violations. Radar or <br />infrared laser instruments detect a speeding vehicle and trigger a pre-positioned camera to <br />photograph the vehicle's license plate and the driver. The time of the violation and recorded <br />speed of the vehicle are superimposed on the photograph. If the license plate number and driver <br />can be clearly identified in the photograph, a citation is issued and mailed to the registered <br />owner. <br /> <br />Maekinen and Oei (1994) reviewed the effects of automatic enforcement on speeding, red-light <br />violations, and crashes. They provide technical and tactical guidelines and stress that publicity <br />and warning signs contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the technology. <br /> <br />Rogerson et al. (1994) examined the effect of a speed camera program in Melbourne on the <br />speeds of motorists and on the incidence and severity of crashes. A statistically significant <br />reduction was found in casualty crashes within 1 km of a speed camera. The effect was confined <br />to "high alcohol hours" of the week on ar[erial roads; there was no evidence of a difference in <br />crash severity. It was reported that, following the introduction of the speed camera, the <br />percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 15 km/h decreased and remained <br />at a lower level in both 60 km/h and 75 km/h speed zones. No significant change in the mean <br />speed was detected, and the distribution of vehicle speeds recorded in 100 km/h speed zones <br />did not change. <br /> <br />Drone Radar <br />Freedman, Teed and Migletz (1993) evaluated the impact of unattended radar transmitters <br />deployed in a construction zone to spoof motorists with radar detectors. Drone radar was <br />associated with a slight reduction in average vehicle speed--an average reduction of one mile per <br />hour or less. However, the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than ten <br />miles per hour through the zones was reduced by 30 to 50 percent during active drone radar <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />A similar study by Streff, et al. (1995) examined the effectiveness of drone radar and police <br />presence on the reduction of speeds at a high speed freeway location and in a freeway <br />construction zone. They also found that speed reductions due to the drone radar deployment <br />were of little practical significance. They did find that drone radar with police patrols can be an <br />effective deterrent at locations where high speed trucks are a problem. <br /> <br />Speed Feedback Indicators <br />A speed feedback indicator displays the speeds of passing cars on a variable message display. <br />The speed indicator is often trailer mounted below a speed limit sign. Speeds may be measure <br />by an integrated radar or Iidar unit or by sensor in the pavement for permanent installations. <br />Speed indicators are intended to increase awareness of excessive speeds and to encourage <br />drivers to slow down. <br /> <br />http://www.ntl.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/speed/speed.htm 07/19/2000 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.