Ward, H

English

UCL Discovery

8Research to inform futurespeed policyHeather WardCentre for Transport StudiesUniversity College LondonGower StreetLondon WC1E 6BTContextThe First Three Year Review of the Government’s road safety strategy and targetsfor 2010 indicates that progress towards meeting the targets is good.Figure 1 shows progress for killed or seriously injured casualties against the KSInotional trajectory and the baseline average for 1994–1998. As can be seen, the KSIcasualties are on a downward trend where the average annual reduction in the numberof KSIs over the last five years has been 3.3 per cent. Despite this, the number ofcasualties is still slightly above the line which represents the notional trajectory. Ithas been estimated that the reduction in KSI casualties is currently 2.4 per cent lessthan that needed to coincide with the trajectory. This means that on the one handmore time will be needed for existing measures to bear fruit but also that more workand new initiatives will be needed by all partners in road safety for the target to becomfortably achieved by 2010.However, this aggregate assessment on progress needs to be considered against thedifferent trends in casualties of different severities and road user groups becauseprogress is not uniformly downward. Attention needs to be focussed on areas in whichprogress is slower than forecast by the statistical models used to set the targets.One such area is fatal casualties. The statistics indicate that there has been acontinuing decline (about 18 per cent below the baseline) in the number of peopleseriously injured. However, since 1998 the annual reduction in fatalities has stalledwith the trend levelling off at about four percent below baseline. This means that thehistoric picture of fatality trends following those of serious injuries is no longeroccurring because deaths are failing to fall (see paras. 30et. seq. Three Year Review).Part of this diversion in trends may be an artefact of reporting and recording ofserious casualties in STATS19 and research is in progress to address this issue.There are indications that pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are broadly in line withtheir KSI trends. The excess deaths are coming from car occupants and79Behavioural Research in Road Safety 200580Figure 1 Killed or seriously injured casualties: 1990–2002 (Source DfT 2004)70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,00001990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010KSI casualties1994–1998 baseline averageAverage annual rate ofreduction required from 1996motorcyclists with occupant fatalities at one per cent below baseline and motorcyclecasualties 30 per cent above baseline. However, early indications from work byBroughton (2004) show that motorcycle fatalities are following exposure whilst caroccupant fatalities are back to the baseline level and the fatality rate has fallen onlygradually, and may have levelled off. Indeed, for older cars the fatality rate is rising.There are disproportionately many deaths amongst young male drivers (peaking atage 20–24 years) with 41 per cent of all dead drivers being in the 16–29 age group.The predominant road type for driver fatalities is Aclass non built-up roads, wherehalf of them occur but the fastest increases have occurred on built-up roads andmotorways.Development of researchquestionsSpeed management is one of the ten central themes in the Government’s road safetystrategy and is at its most effective with input from education, training and publicity,engineering, and enforcement. Safety cameras have an important part to play inspeed management strategies and have been found to be effective at the locationsthey operate.The three year review, the three year evaluation report of operation of safetycameras (Gains et al., 2004), and that of trends in fatal accidents (Broughton, 2004)have brought together sufficient information on fatal and serious accidents toprovide the Department with a number of questions that would benefit from beinganswered by a structured programme of research into speed management.The Department commissioned a set of short thinkpieces from leading academics inthe road safety field and these were presented and discussed at a workshop held inLondon on 13 October 2004 comprising the group of academics, key stakeholders,and policy makers.Through the thinkpieces and workshop, the Department was seeking clarity on whatshould be the research questions and objectives for such a research programmetogether with a brief and broad specification for work which might be part of thisprogramme.Some of the questions it was hoped would be addressed by the thinkpieces and theworkshop were as follows:• Is the strategy of focusing on speed enforcement in urban areas the right one, or,because of the poor performance of rural roads, should effort be focused here? Ifso what form should it take?• How can inappropriate speed on rural roads be tackled?• Are there cost effective engineering solutions?• What strategies do drivers adopt around cameras?• What do we know of casualties and speeds away from safety camera sites?• Do drivers think it is safe to speed where there are no cameras?• Are downstream speeds at camera sites faster than speeds before camerainstallation at that site?• Is there evidence of migration of accidents from camera sites?• What are the most effective strategies for changing driver attitudes andmodifying behaviour and how can speed awareness courses contribute to this?• How can drivers be made aware of the relationship between speed and accident risk?• What are the relative roles of enforcement and education/publicity?A research programme to informspeed managementThe research identified as needed falls into five main categories:• Understanding the mechanisms of change in accident occurrence and speedbehaviour brought about by speed enforcement by cameras;• The role of the road environment;Research to inform future speed policy81• The role of the media and others in raising awareness of the relationshipbetween speed and accident risk, and how to influence this risk?• The role of education and enforcement; and• Research to support safety camera partnerships.In each of these areas the role of research into individual differences in driverbehaviour is recognised.To move forward, a multi-disciplinary research programme has been developedwhich is affordable and delivers answers within an appropriate timescale to some ofthe fundamental questions that are needed to inform effective and acceptable speedmanagement programmes.Prioritising the research needs is difficult but in terms of the Department’s immediateand medium term needs. Projects described under the following headings have beenidentified to provide information to fill currently identified gaps.Under the mechanisms of change inaccident occurrence and speedbehaviour brought about by speedenforcement by camerasPerhaps the most fundamental of the research needs is that which can clarify thequestions of• is there evidence of migration of accidents from camera sites,• what do we know of casualties and speeds away from camera sites, and• how can the contribution of regression to the mean (RTM) to observedreductions in casualties at camera sites be estimated.Interaction between speed choice andthe road environmentMore work is needed in understanding how drivers interact with the roadenvironment, including its surface, markings, and geometric characteristics, in termsof speed choice in both urban and rural areas.Research is needed which investigates the circumstances in which the speeds chosenby different kinds of driver and rider on different kinds of road contribute to accidentoccurrence in order to inform the development of ways of encouraging them tomoderate their speed whilst continuing to enjoy their use of their vehicles. This couldBehavioural Research in Road Safety 200582lead to identification of features of the road and roadside which could be modifiedaffordably to encourage choice of appropriate speeds and reduce the severity ofinjury in those speed-related accidents which nevertheless still happen.Relationship between penalties forspeed offences and driver behaviourAlthough there has been an increase in the number of speed offences, there is nodiscernable upward trend in disqualifications arising from totting up of points ondrivers licences. The implications are potentially important as it could be a markerfor a real change in drivers’speed behaviour.It would be useful to investigate the distribution of the penalty points resultingfrom camera operation among those licence-holders who have acquired them, andthe distributions of the time intervals between changes in numbers of points on thelicences of those who acquire points on more than one occasion, and of the timeelapsed since the last acquisition of points.Improved driver information on speedand accident riskThere appears to be a mismatch between the actual level of risk from inappropriateor excessive speed and driver perception of the risk. The public needs to be betterinformed about the role of speed in accidents as a prerequisite for the acceptance ofmessage that speed reduction is important everywhere and not just at camera sites.More effective strategies are needed which inform the public of the basis for speedmanagement and enforcement policy in order to modify driver behaviour in relationto speed choice and attitudes to speed limits and their enforcement.Research to support safety camerapartnershipsDissemination of research findings is an important part of the duties of allresearchers and sponsors of research. However, accessibility of findings to SafetyCamera Partnerships and to the public is a major issue. Partnerships need to have attheir fingertips the latest research in order to keep abreast of the developments inthis area to be able to fulfil their role of development and implementation of safetycamera deployment strategies.The public needs to be better informed about the role of speed in accidents as aprerequisite for the acceptance of the message that speed reduction is importanteverywhere and not just at camera sites.Issues for partnerships include: criteria for site selection and should these bedifferent for rural and urban sites as well as for mobile and fixed sites; should sitesResearch to inform future speed policy83be selected on total number of accidents, KSI accident or only on excess speed; whatis the principle behind the use of the camera, is it a hazardous location treatment oris it there to influence speed choice over a wider area; which is the best operationalstrategy in terms of number of days of operation at a time, randomly allocated or on a fixed schedule, overt or covert; how does one decide which cameras are stillworking to reduce casualties even though the accident numbers may be zero or oneper annum; how can partnerships be more integrated into speed managementstrategies?Most of the information exists but it needs bringing together in an appropriate form.ConclusionsThe research programme is important to developing further the knowledge base onspeed management. This is turn will help to develop better accident preventioncountermeasures including those which improve communication to the public ofimportant road safety messages.ReferencesBroughton J (2004) Car occupant and motorcyclist deaths, 1994–2002. Crowthorne:TRL Limited (to appear)Department for Transport (2004) Tomorrow’s roads – safer for everyone: The firstthree year review. LondonGains A, B Heydecker, J Shrewsbury and S Robertson (2004) The national safetycamera programme: Three-year evaluation report. London: PAConsulting Groupand UCLBehavioural Research in Road Safety 200584

Research to inform future speed policy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery