Speeding is a public health crisis that accounts for approximately one-third of roadway deaths each year in the United States. One countermeasure with clearly documented efficacy to reduce speed is automated speed enforcement (ASE). Public acceptance, however, has been marginal, with many drivers calling into question its need and legality. This project aimed to measure public rejection of ASE and to provide individualized information strategically to determine if opinions may be shifted more favorably as a result. Statistically significant movement on ASE opinion was achieved after respondents engaged with a tailored survey that addressed their particular concerns about ASE. Almost half (47%) of those who began with a neutral or negative opinion of ASE moved toward a more favorable opinion of it. Those who changed their opinion were more engaged (e.g., considered the opposite of their current stance more fully) and were persuaded by evidence of safety benefits that result from effective speed reduction with ASE deployment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShinK., WashingtonS. P., and van SchalkwykI.. Evaluation of the Scottsdale Loop 101 Automated Speed Enforcement Demonstration Program. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, pp. 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.12.011.
2.
MountainL. J., HirstW. M., and MaherM. J.. Are Speed Enforcement Cameras More Effective Than Other Speed Management Measures? The Impact of Speed Management Schemes on 30 mph Roads. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005, pp. 742–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.03.017.
3.
PilkingtonP., and KinraS.. Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in Preventing Road Traffic Collisions and Related Casualties: Systematic Review. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), Vol. 330, No. 7487, 2005, pp. 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE.
KnappK., YoungK., and UtechtB.. Feasibility of a Quantitative Rural Safety Policy Improvement Index (RSPII): Phase I. Report CTS 09-14. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Minneapolis, 2009. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1766. Accessed June 28, 2016.
6.
AdamsJ. S., and VanDrasekB. J.. Automated Enforcement of Red-Light Running and Speeding Laws in Minnesota: Bridging Technology and Public Policy. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Minneapolis, 2009. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1832. Accessed June 28, 2016.
DoumaF., MunnichL., GarryT., and LovelandJ.. Identifying Issues Related to Deployment of Automated Speed Enforcement. Report CTS 12-23. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Minneapolis, 2012. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2158. Accessed June 28, 2016.
12.
DoumaF., MunnichL., and GarryT.. Options for Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot Projects in Minnesota Work and School Zones. Report CTS 14-06. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Minneapolis, 2014. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2360. Accessed June 28, 2016.
13.
Sauber-SchatzE., EdererD. J., DellingerA. M., and BaldwinG. T.. Vital Signs: Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention—United States and 19 Comparison Countries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 65, No. 26, 2016, pp. 672–677. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6526e1.
14.
Traffic Safety Facts 2014: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT HS 812 261. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812261. Accessed July 11, 2016.
Special Report 254: Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.
AartsL., and van SchagenI.. Driving Speed and the Risk of Road Crashes: A Review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006, pp. 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.07.004.
21.
BlincoeL. J., MillerT. R., ZaloshnjaE., and LawrenceB. A.. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised). DOT HS 812 013. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.
HuW., and McCarttA. T.. Effects of Automated Speed Enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland, on Vehicle Speeds, Public Opinion, and Crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, Supp. 1, 2016. http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/documents/masterfiledocs.ashx?id=2097. Accessed June 29, 2016.
26.
HajbabaieA., MedinaJ. C., WangM.-H., BenekohalR. F., and ChitturiM.. Sustained and Halo Effects of Various Speed Reduction Treatments in Highway Work Zones. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2265, 2011, pp. 118–128. https://doi.org/10.3141/2265-13.
LordC. G., RossL., and LepperM. R.. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 11, 1979, pp. 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.
38.
LordC. G., LepperM. R., and PrestonE.. Considering the Opposite: A Corrective Strategy for Social Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 6, 1984, pp. 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1231.
39.
MunnichL. W.Jr, and LovelandJ. D.. Do Americans Oppose Controversial Evidence-Based Road Safety Policies?Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2213, 2011, pp. 9–12. https://doi.org/10.3141/2213-02.
