Best Control Strategies

Most Appropriate Speed-Control Strategies using Haddon’s Strategies

Suggestions to limit a car’s capability of exceeding reasonable speeds are dead in the water given the political climate in the United States. The best solution to reduce speed-related crashes is likely to remove the human driver altogether since most crashes are caused by human error (Haddon strategy 1; Waldrop, 2015); Given the trajectory of safety ratings on today’s self-driving cars, popular opinion suggests that driverless cars electronically linked to each other would likely enable the elimination of speeding and many other kinds of crashes (LaFrance, 2015). Because driverless cars are still in progress, we must turn to other effective means of controlling speeding. The use of self-driving cars, programmed not to speed and therefore literally incapable of doing so, is a long-term solution. Other solutions must be proposed and enacted in the short-term.

Automated speed enforcement (ASE) could be a widespread tool used to combat speeding (Wilson, Willis, Hendrikz, Le Brocque, & Bellamy, 2010). However, the use of ASE is very controversial. Legislative prohibitions exist in some states (Aarts & van Schagen, 2006; DaCoTA, 2012)[1] and federal law prohibits grant funding for state ASE programs (Wis. Stat. Ann.).[2] Research has shown that deploying automated speed enforcement (ASE) via ‘speed cameras’ effectively reduces average speed and crashes of most types (Haddon strategy 2; Shin, Washington, & van Schalkwyk, 2009). Furthermore, ASE use has resulted in reduced crash-related personal injuries (Mountain, Hirst, & Maher, 2005) and fatalities (Pilkington & Kinra, 2005). ASE has the greatest potential in reducing serious injury and fatal crashes in rural and other areas where crash rates are high (USDOT2012), average daily traffic is low, and high speeds are prevalent (Knapp, Young, & Utecht, 2009). As noted, despite consistent evidence, the use of ASE remains controversial (See Figure 5; Adams & VanDrasek, 2009; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2016b). However, a majority of the American public is already in favor of the use of ASE in high-risk areas such as school and work zones (Douma, Munnich, & Garry, 2014; Douma, Munnich, Loveland, & Garry, 2012) and highlighting the safety issues of speeding has been found to create more favorable views of ASE (Peterson, Douma, & Morris, in press; Peterson, Douma, & Morris, under review). Therefore, with appropriate framing of the safety intentions of ASE, it could be deployed to effectively manage speeding throughout the U.S. and therefore significantly reduce speeding-related injuries and fatalities.

Figure 5. States where red light and/or speed cameras are used

[1] Which says the state and local authorities may not use photo radar speed detection to determine compliance with any speed restriction imposed by s. 346.57, 346.58, 346.59, 346.595 or 349.11 or in conformity with a local ordinance.

[2] Which says it prohibits the use of federal highway safety program funds “to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic enforcement system.” Available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/402