Understanding the Decision to Speed
A national survey of driver attitudes found persistent speeders were least likely to agree that lower speeds reduce chances of a crash nor that lower speeds make it easier to avoid dangerous situations (Schroeder et al., 2013). Another survey found that those endorsing risky driving behaviors, such as cutting off another driver or tailgating, have negative attitudes toward not speeding, and report intentions to continue speeding (Richard, Divekar, & Brown, 2016). Thus, although there is some idea of the perceptions associated with speeding, there is not an understanding of where these perceptions come from or how they influence the decision to speed. It is important to gain an understanding of the origin of these perceptions in order to combat them. Qualitative methods could enhance these known quantitative factors by enabling in-depth exploration of the lived experience of speeders and non-speeders with specific attention paid to the cognitive mechanisms linking roadway perceptions/attitudes to driving behaviors (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Currently, very few qualitative studies have examined driver attitude toward and experiences with speeding (EKOS Research Associates Inc., 2007; Fleiter, Lennon, & Watson, 2007, 2010; Fuller et al., 2008; Rawson, 2015) and none have been performed in the United States.
Developing and Evaluating Effective Anti-Speeding Campaigns
Published findings on anti-speeding campaigns are scarce and do not have experimental designs allowing for robust evaluation. A 3-year mass media campaign in Scotland resulted in some statistically significant, anti-speeding beliefs and attitudes in a longitudinal cohort until the 4th year follow-up (post-intervention) depending on the ad being evaluated, but there were no changes in intention or reported behavior (Stead et al., 2005). A 2-year campaign in Victoria, Australia with both increased enforcement and mass media components was associated with statistically significant reductions in fatal crashes and trending lower rates of injury severity in a time series analysis (D'Elia et al., 2007). A 3-week anti-speeding campaign in Australia showed increases in perceptions of risk predicted future self-reported reduced speeding behaviors, however, these effects were not associated with exposure to the campaign (Brown, 2010). In all, these studies were conducted outside of the United States and so may not be generalizable to drivers here, had no control groups for comparison, and either had inconsistent or unidentifiable effects from exposure to the mass media campaigns. Research is needed that features American drivers and has different campaign exposure groups (using group randomized trial designs and measuring levels of campaign exposure through self-report).
Identify Hazards in the Current Driving Environment
Haddon’s injury control strategy lists beginning to counter the damage already done by the environmental hazard. In the case of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities due to speeding, it is suggested that we inventory the current roadway hazards and develop plans to fix them (i.e., turn exposed guardrail ends into anchored ones). Using geospatial tools such as ArcGIS linked to databases speeding violations and roadway crash reports (which include speed when available and level of injury) could pinpoint especially dangerous roadways. These areas could be targeted for road calming interventions (e.g., higher enforcement and traffic circles/roundabouts), which have been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of roadway crashes (Zein, Geddes, Hemsing, & Johnson, 1997).