The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE SPEEDING DRIVER: WHO, HOW AND WHY?

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

2.1 Police forces in the UK have been enforcing speed limits since 1903 (Corbett 1995). A 30mph limit was introduced under the Road Traffic Act 1934. Corbett explains that those involved in the original traffic speed regulations were likely to be among the first people to own cars. However, Corbett and Simon (1991) report that more than half of traffic police, magistrates and driving instructors view speeding as less serious a crime than theft or violence, with many of this group admitting to speeding themselves despite having a professional interest in constraining the speeding behaviour of others.

2.2 Speed has, however, real costs to society. In their study of the costs of crime, Brand and Price (2000) include the non-notifiable offence of driving above the speed limit. They explain that while this offence usually causes no direct harm to people or property it can sometimes have extremely serious consequences when this action leads to vehicle crashes or increased severity of injuries. The laws of physics inexorably require that the higher the velocity at impact the more energy must be absorbed by hard metal, soft flesh and brittle bone. From Department for Transport (DfT) figures, Brand and Price (2000) deduce that illegal speed causes 300 deaths and 25,000 injuries each year. For 1998 these fatalities and injuries, including lost output, medical and ambulance and human costs, were estimated to total 885 million. Scottish Executive (2001a) calculate estimated costs for road traffic accident injuries, incorporating the human cost to all involved and direct economic costs. Using this formula, a fatal traffic injury in Scotland in 2000 cost an estimated 1.3million, a serious injury 155,000 and a slight injury 15,000. In addition, Finch et al (1994) reported that every 1mph increase in mean traffic speed elevated accidents by about 5% on UK roads.

2.3 Scottish Executive (2001b) statistics show that 34% (116,750) of motor vehicle offences recorded in 2000 by the police in Scotland were speeding offences, the largest single category of motor vehicle offences in Scotland. Automatic detection of speeding offences leading to conditional offers of a fixed penalty is increasing. This may be partly due to the advances in the technology now available to the police to detect these offences, though the police are only able to detect a large number of speeding offences if there are many motorists driving above the posted speed limits.

2.4 Stradling and Meadows (2000) characterised motorist's driving styles and, in particular, the tendency to commit the kinds of driving behaviours labelled 'highway code' and 'aggressive' violations. Drivers who commit one type of violation are more likely to commit other types. By 'violation' they refer to self-reports of generally recognised 'unsafe acts'. This analysis showed speeding to be the most frequent aberrant driving behaviour. High violators tend to report stronger intentions to speed across different road types (Lawton et al 1997), and to over-estimate the number of other drivers who speed, or drive too close (Manstead et al 1992).

2.5 Bourne and Cooke (1993, page 180) summed up the challenge, "Convincing people of the dangers of speeding is not an easy task. Unlike drink driving, there has been no social stigma attached to being a speedster. The flashy executive or sporty youth with a racy car can be a fashionable role model. Moreover, no one believes that he or she is a bad driver."

WHO SPEEDS?

Sex

2.6 Many studies have concluded that male drivers are more likely to speed than female drivers. The Buchanan (1996) study for the then Scottish Office found male drivers twice as likely to commit a minor speeding offence and four times as likely to commit a serious speeding offence than female drivers. French, et al (1993) found young male drivers more associated with higher driving speeds. Exceeding speed limits and other traffic regulations was proposed, by Norris et al (2000), as a constituent of higher male accident risk. Shinar et al (2001) found male drivers reported themselves less likely to drive within speed limits. When responding to speeding issues, Brook (1987) reported men aged between 25 and 54 generally regarded speeding as less serious than did women. Waterton (1992) found men under the age of 45 years who drive over 10,000 miles per year reported high levels of traffic violations. Arnett (1996) found driving over 20 mph above the speed limit correlated positively with sensation seeking in men.

2.7 Analysis of the speeding behaviours and attitudes of female and male drivers led Meadows and Stradling (2000) to conclude that greater proportions of male drivers indicated preference for high speed, reported speeding behaviour and pro-speeding attitudes but that greater proportions of female drivers thought the possible adverse consequences of speeding more likely to occur.

2.8 However, not all studies reached the conclusion that speeding is predominantly a male pursuit. Wasielewski (1984) found no link between gender and vehicle speed. Boyce and Geller (2002) believe that over three different age groups both men and women drive with similar degrees of risk. They suggest that women are less likely to admit to risk taking while driving. Parker and Stradling (2001) found female drivers under the age of 20 reported similar speeding behaviour as male drivers in the same age group. Parker et al (1995) found that male drivers are more likely than female drivers to be involved in crashes linked to traffic violations including speeding. Interestingly, Lajunen et al (1998) found women drivers reported similar amounts of anger at similar intensities to that reported by men, leading them to assume that women drivers are managing to contain their feelings of aggression to a greater extent than men.

2.9 This suggests that the present study should pay particular attention to analysing female as well as male drivers' attitudes to, and reasons for, speeding.

Age

2.10 Speeding is more associated with younger drivers, (Parker et al, 1992; Stradling et al, 2000a; Ingram et al, 2001; Shinar et al, 2001). The age group 21 to 25 years was found by Buchanan (1996) to be the group most likely to speed on all types of road except motorways where most offenders were in the 26 to 29 years age group. Examination of speeding over age groups found the number of speeders lowering around the age of 40 years. Some studies also found a general sliding scale of lower reported speeds as age increases (Ingram et al, 2001; Stradling et al, 2000a; Shinar et al, 2001).

2.11 From a survey of drivers detected by speed cameras in Glasgow only 2% of the males in receipt of speeding tickets were in the 'boy racer' age group between 18 and 24 years of age, (Campbell and Stradling, 2002). Shaw and Sichel (1971) report this situation had already been identified by the 1960s where it was also found only 2% of speeding drivers in the US were under the age of 18. It was interpreted then that either young male drivers do not speed or, more likely, that they take care to speed when and where they are least likely to be detected.

Driving style

2.12 From a comprehensive study of English car drivers Stradling et al (2000a) examined the demographic and driving characteristics of speeding, violating and thrill-seeking drivers. This study found two population segments whose driving behaviour put themselves and other road users at risk. The first group was young and mostly, but not exclusively, male drivers. The second group were drivers from high income households, living out of town, driving larger engine cars for high annual mileage as part of their work. Therefore, Stradling et al (2000a) concluded that English drivers who speed, who violate other rules of the road, and who seek thrill when driving pose greater risks to themselves and to other road users. They argued that speeders should be constrained because in their study 35% of car drivers who had been penalised for speeding in the previous three years reported also having been accident involved in that period. This compared to 22% of those who had not been penalised, indicating that the kind of drivers recently caught for speeding were 59% more likely to have also been recently crash-involved. However, there was no data in that study to demonstrate that such drivers had their crashes while speeding, only that speeders were more likely to have crashes.

2.13 Cooper (1997) reported that US drivers with four or more excessive speed convictions had double the crash rate of other drivers, and that drivers with more than the average number of general traffic violations were more likely to be involved in crashes and in crashes caused by excessive speed. This compliments the findings of Preusser (1988) who reported that people driving at high speeds were found to have 'inferior driving records'. The Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR 2000) found that a speed which drivers claim is appropriate feels too fast for the same people when they are pedestrians, cyclists or residents.

2.14 Fildes et al, (1994) analysed Australian research conducted prior to the Victoria Speed Camera Programme. Those drivers more likely to exceed the speed limit include drivers under the age of 34, those driving without passengers in the vehicle, and business travellers. Further categories of those likely to exceed the speed limit include: drivers who reported that they were late for their destination; those driving vehicles that were four years or newer; drivers with a high weekly mileage in urban areas; and those who had been involved in at least one crash in the previous five years. The survey found neither the distance travelled before the interview nor that still to be travelled were significantly related to travel speed. Sex of the driver, ownership of the vehicle and tiredness did not significantly relate to travel speed. The survey distinguished between urban and rural roads. For urban roads, exceeding the speed limit was more likely for drivers who were under 34 years old, those reporting high safe driving speeds, drivers of cars less than five years old, and drivers on business with a high weekly mileage.

WHY DO DRIVERS SPEED?

2.15 Travel and transport decisions, including whether to speed, arise from the interaction of opportunity, obligation and inclination, (Stradling et al, 2000b; Stradling et al, 1999; Wardman et al, 2000). Opportunity arises from the capability of vehicles to drive comfortably at high speeds on clear, open, well-surfaced roads that seem to invite the speeder to press down on the accelerator. Obligations occur as drivers feel responsibilities to those they are carrying as passengers and to the transient others with whom they are currently sharing the road, and as people find their lives organised in such a way that they are led to drive fast to meet time schedules. Inclination derives from the pleasure many - though not all drivers - gain from driving at higher speeds.

Opportunity and obligation

2.16 A number of examples of drivers' feelings of opportunity and obligation towards speeding are included in Silcock at al's (2000) findings of explanations for fast driving. From their study on factors influencing driver speed, Silcock et al (2000, page 2) produced a list of the eight most prevalent reasons drivers in their study gave to justify speeding:

• Unintentional
• In a hurry (e.g. to collect a child at school)
• Being 'forced' to speed (by someone tailgating me)
• The limit is wrongly set for this location (based on experience of similar roads with higher limits)
• My modern car can stop more quickly than those on the roads at the time the limit was set, therefore my speeding is safe
• The same limit should not apply at all times (the empty road, late at night)
• The limit does not apply to me because I am an above-average driver
• My speeding is acceptable because it is not a lot over the limit and others abuse it more flagrantly.

2.17 Further factors relating to speeding identified by Silcock et al (2000) were self-image; vehicle power and comfort; cultural factors; passengers; enforcement; and road environment. Rietveld and Shefer (1998) also identified a variety of factors that determine optimum speed level. These included travel time costs, cost of arriving late, monetary costs of driving, costs of accidents, costs of fines or enforcement, utility of driving per se, and external costs such as noise and emissions. The study considered the private costs and external, or social, costs which drivers consider when choosing at what speed to drive. Drivers not considering external costs, instead only making speed decisions on their own private costs, can be deterred through fine penalties for exceeding maximum speed limits.

2.18 This suggests that the present study should examine drivers' reasons for speeding in greater depth to gain a better understanding of how and why different types of people speed for differing reasons.

2.19 Feelings of obligation for drivers have obvious associations with work. Stradling et al (2000c) assessed driver responses for links between driving and employment. They found that people whose employment required them to drive some of the time tended to drive faster, breach the rules of the road more often and score lower on a self-report safety scale. Overall 16% of this group of drivers had been prosecuted for a speeding offence within the previous three years, but 37% of people who drove a car every working day and drove over 14,000 miles per annum had been penalised for speeding offences.

Inclination

2.20 Furnham and Snaipe (1993) found a link between convictions in traffic violations, including speeding, and high personality scores of thrill-seeking and boredom susceptibility. Boyce and Geller (2002, page 62) found "type A personality was a significant predictor of speeding and close following".

2.21 In an initial study at Indiana State University, USA , Gabany et al (1997), devised a list of reasons people give to explain why drivers speed. This list was divided into categories: ego-gratification; thrill, excitement, risk-taking; time pressures, disdain of driving; inattention. Waterton (1992) found 29% of drivers thought accidents were caused by driving too fast. Respondents reasons for speeding included lack of perceived danger and that speeding was not 'dangerous driving'.

2.22 Silcock et al (2000) found the majority of drivers rated their own driving as average or above average. Similar findings led Walton and Bathurst (1998) to caution against measuring drivers' attitudes by asking for comparisons to 'the average driver'. Respondents will judge their opinion of "the average driver" in a way that lets them see their own ability as superior. The study found that while respondents estimated their own driving speeds accurately they overestimated the driving speed of 'the average driver'. Also, Lajunen et al (1997) caution that 'impression management' should be controlled for when drivers are questioned on 'normal' behaviour, as there will be a tendency for respondents to provide socially desirable responses.

IS SPEEDING A 'REAL' CRIME?

2.23 Speeding is not seen as a 'real crime' by most drivers, according to Corbett (2001) who believes this means that attempting to dissuade drivers from excessive speed will be a difficult process. The impression of control drivers have requires to be examined further to address the impressions of invulnerability that many speeding drivers show.

Attitudes to speeding

2.24 System Three (1997) suggested that the effectiveness of enforcement lies in the driver's perception of the offence as morally wrong or merely technically wrong; the likelihood of detection; and the severity of the punishment for the offence. This is consistent with the findings of Tyler (1990) who examined three factors that influence legal compliance in general: deterrence, peer opinion and personal morality. Tyler differentiated people who decide to keep within the law due to instrumental decisions and those who have a 'normative commitment' to keep to the law. People making instrumental decisions are guided by their chance of getting caught if they break that law. This is expensive to the authorities that must rely on sufficient enforcement to give a high likelihood of being caught. This method may still result in high numbers of people breaking that law. Law abiding due to normative perspective, decisions involving morality and peer opinion, entail people making the judgement that the law should not be broken either because the person holds the belief that the illegal action is morally wrong or because the person accepts the authority of those enforcing the law. Getting people to voluntarily keep within the law is extremely cost effective and results in fewer people breaking the law in question.

2.25 Research by System Three (1997) found penalties did encourage drivers to adhere to the 'unofficial' speed limit especially around speed camera sites. They found there was a general perception that the driver will not be prosecuted unless they drove at least 10mph over the posted speed limit. Habitual speeding drivers perceived being caught as a chance they had to take. DETR (2000) found breaking the speed limit is not perceived by many as a criminal act. These opinions on speeding were in contrast to those of drunk driving and dangerous driving, both of which the respondents viewed as serious crimes.

Other 'criminality' of offenders

2.26 It appears that people who are usually law abiding citizens often commit traffic offences. Corbett and Simon (1999) found that 88% of their sample of motorists said that at least 'sometimes' they broke the speed limit. Corbett and Simon contrasted this with Mayhew and Elliott's (1990) findings in the 1984 British Crime survey that less than 20% of the public admitted committing any of the suggested non-traffic offences. It may be that traffic offences are perceived to be different to non- traffic offences.

2.27 The analysis of serious traffic offences conducted by Rose (2000) did not directly include speeding. However, it did find that minor traffic offences were the most common type of additional offence in cases where the traffic incident recorded that the offender had committed more than one offence. Speeding appears to be so widespread across the driving population that it might incorporate distinct groups of speeders, each group with very different criminal agendas, ranging from otherwise totally law abiding to the career criminal.

2.28 When asked to rank eight crimes, respondents to a survey by Brook (1987) classed 'driving at 50 mph in a 30 mph limit' least serious in eighth place as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: rank order of seriousness of eight offences (from Brook, 1987)

2.29 Those respondents with driving licences and access to drive a car regarded speeding as less serious than did non-motorists. Parker et al (1992) found that speeding was tolerated as less undesirable than drinking and driving, close following and risky overtaking. In addition, the drivers in their survey indicated less intention to avoid speeding than the other three violations.

2.30 DETR (2000) report that breaking the speed limit is not perceived by many as a criminal act. These opinions on speeding were in contrast with those of drunk driving and of dangerous driving, both of which the respondents viewed as serious crimes. The punishments for these crimes were a strong deterrent to the respondents, who also saw these crimes as morally wrong.

2.31 Corbett et al (1998) found that while drivers accepted that a link did exist between speed and accidents in general, these drivers did not make the same connection between their own speed and their risk of accident. Corbett et al, as noted above, found that much of society does not see speeding as a criminal act, a view expressed even by those involved in speed regulation, including magistrates. A change in the way society views speeding is necessary to obtain a significant reduction in the number of drivers exceeding speed limits. Speeding is not seen as a 'real' crime by most drivers, according to Corbett (2001) who believes this means attempts to dissuade drivers from excessive speed will be a difficult process. The impression of control drivers have requires to be examined further to address the impressions of invulnerability that many speeding drivers have.

WHAT WILL STOP DRIVERS SPEEDING?

2.32 Webster and Wells (2000) recommend that a combination of publicity, training and engineering measures will all have to be utilised to achieve changes in speeding behaviour. Fergusson et al (1999) also believe that for a long-term change in attitudes to transport individuals must be encouraged to move through different stages of change in attitude and behaviour.

Enforcement

2.33 Giacopassi and Forde (2000) argue that although some see police traffic enforcement as less important than 'real' law enforcement, traffic enforcement is regarded by the public as an important issue. They believe that lack of traffic enforcement lowers quality of life and may lead to an increase in general crime as well as greater numbers of traffic accidents.

Police enforcement campaigns

2.34 Holland and Conner (1996) studied the effects of police intervention on exceeding the posted speed limit and on intentions to speed in one UK location. They found that an anti-speeding campaign of enhanced enforcement was effective in reducing the numbers breaking the speed limits, with a small effect still evident nine weeks after a three weeks police presence. This intervention involved a time-limited police presence on the roads, and thus differs from studies examining the effect of speed cameras that have a permanent presence at the roadside. Holland and Conner (1996) found that warning signs had a significant effect, even in the absence of any recent police enforcement. They suggested that drivers' intentions to speed in future are more likely to be altered by continuous enforcement devices such as fixed-site speed cameras.

Speed cameras

2.35 Speed cameras have now become the chosen method of addressing the problem of high numbers of drivers exceeding the speed limit. In 1999 it was estimated that 'about 75 countries around the world rely on cameras to enforce speed limits' (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1999), but DETR (2000) cautioned that speed cameras could not be viewed as the single answer to speeding problems. The use of speed cameras in the UK was first sanctioned by Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 that enabled the use of automatic detection devices in the enforcement of road traffic law. This regulation stated that photographs from an approved automated speed camera might be used as evidence without the corroboration of a police officer in prosecuting drivers for exceeding speed limits.

2.36 Speed cameras are intended to reduce casualties by reducing accidents by reducing speeds at specific high-risk locations. DETR (2000) reported that speed cameras are seen as an efficient use of police resources, recommending the hypothecation of speed camera revenue. This is seen as an answer to funding the expensive operation of the cameras. Corbett (1995) believes current levels of police enforcement using traditional methods "seem insufficient to deter the majority of drivers." Successful camera enforcement requires that the scheme include supporting measures such as appropriate signage and adequate publicity for the scheme according to Makinen and Oei (1992) who view automatic enforcement as the way forward in enforcing traffic laws. However they warn that it is important that this form of enforcement is conducted properly (only photograph the car not the driver) and also that vandalism can be a problem for fixed site cameras. In one study of Scottish drivers (Waterton 1992) 80% of respondents indicated they were in favour of the introduction of speed cameras. A follow up survey by Market Research Scotland Ltd (1994) found increasing approval of speed cameras with more drivers perceiving speeding as a serious offence.

2.37 The introduction of additional speed cameras in Glasgow was evaluated by Campbell and Stradling (2001). Prior to any form of camera installation, 64% of vehicles were exceeding the posted speed limit at the five 30 mph intended camera sites. This figure dropped to 37% with the introduction of camera housings. After a further three months, in October 2000, by which time white roadway gridlines had been added and the cameras had just begun operating (flashing), 23% of vehicles were exceeding the posted speed limit.

2.38 Hooke et al (1996) looked at the effectiveness of almost 500 speed camera sites in 10 UK police forces and found the installation of fixed-site speed cameras reduced accidents by 28% and lowered speeds by an average of 4.2 mph. Mackie (1998) found speed cameras effective around the camera site, producing reductions of around 5 mph in mean and 85 ^th percentile speeds.

2.39 Corbett and Simon (1999) collected self-report information from drivers in four police force areas in the England where speed cameras had been installed. They found that installing speed cameras produced a reduction in self-reported speeds for up to eight months, with the drivers' speed choice and concern at being detected strongest at the initial installation of the camera. Before camera installation 63% of drivers reported that they drove at above 31 mph. Two months after camera installation 35% of drivers said they did. After six months this figure reduced further to 30%. But eight months after camera installation they found 34% of drivers reporting driving above 31 mph, suggesting that the effect had levelled out. In a fifth area they found that 'Speed Camera' warning signs alone produced a significant reduction in speed for the six months of the survey. However, Mackie (1998) found speed camera signs alone ineffectual in lowering vehicle speeds.

2.40 Photo radar enforcement in British Columbia, Canada, was perceived by Chen et al (2002) to be successful in reducing speeds and increasing safety at the camera sites. Over seven months speeding vehicles at the photo radar sites reduced by 50%, mean speeds decreased by 2.4km/h and there was a 25% reduction in daytime speed related crashes. Bourne and Cooke (1993) reported that, in the State of Victoria, Australia, a mobile Speed Camera Program, running since 1989 in conjunction with tougher drink-driving enforcement and advertising campaigns, had lowered traffic crashes by 25% and decreased injuries by 45%. However three treatment variables are here confounded and it is not clear how much of the crash and injury reduction may be attributed to the camera campaign. In December 1989 23% of vehicles were recorded as being over the camera trigger speed. By June 1990, this figure was 11% and by August 1992 less than 5% of vehicles were travelling over the camera trigger speed. Bourne and Cooke (1993, page 191) claimed that the program had "led to a major change in driver speeding, and has established a base whereby speeding can become socially unacceptable given continued publicity and sustained enforcement".

2.41 Corbett and Simon (1999) examined drivers' perceptions, beliefs and attitudes to cameras. This report, commissioned by the DETR, aimed to discover what changes occur in drivers' perceptions, beliefs and attitudes as a result of interventions and over time with six factors that are likely to influence drivers' speed. These are estimates of the threshold speed; knowledge of the cameras' location; proportion of working cameras; risk of being caught; likelihood of police action if photographed; and likely penalty if caught by camera. While this report found promising results in the positive opinions of speed cameras held by the majority of their respondents, it warns of 'preaching to the converted', with those most in favour also being those drivers least likely to speed excessively. This is confirmed by Parker and Stradling (2001) who found speeding drivers thought themselves less likely to be caught and less likely to experience disapproval from others than drivers who did not speed.

Speed limits

2.42 In an examination of the effects of increased speed limits on motor vehicle occupants, Farmer et al (1999) discovered a 17% rise in the fatality rate of motor vehicle occupants. The fatality rate was calculated as the rate of people killed per mile driven to account for any increase in travel on these roads. Statistics for USA interstate roads that had an increased speed limit of 65mph or 70mph were compared with interstate roads that retained the US national maximum speed limit of 55mph. The study shows a relationship between increases in motor occupant fatalities with higher speed limits. Higher speed limits result in increased travel speed, which results in greater severity of vehicle crashes. However, not all research agrees with such a clear relationship between speed and crash severity. While speeding arrests, along with traffic enforcement, were found to have a greater effect on lowering traffic fatalities than drink driving enforcement, an examination of speed limits in California, USA by McCarthy (1999) was unable to sustain the theory that higher speed limits significantly increases the number of fatal accidents. This view is not held by Ossiander and Cummings (2002) who analysed crash and speed figures over two decades in Washington State, America and concluded that even when there is not an increase in crashes, higher speed limits can cause an increase in fatalities.

2.43 Aljanahi et al (1998) conducted a study of traffic speed and accident rate in Bahrain and the UK in Tyne and Wear. The study found that reducing the spread of vehicle speeds would be an effective way to lower the number of accidents. One proposed way of achieving this is to enforce lower speed limits on appropriate roads. Analysis of data gathered in Tyne and Wear found a greater relationship between variability of traffic speeds and accidents than average speed of traffic and accidents. However, the study acknowledges that higher vehicle speed increases the severity of accidents.

2.44 Rietveld and Shefer (1998) argue that on roads where there is a high spread of vehicle speeds action should be taken to encourage slow drivers to travel above a minimum speed. On roads with a wide range of driver speeds, enforcing the maximum speed limit is not enough to reduce accident numbers and minimum speed limits may be a solution. However, minimum speed limits are problematical. Drivers must understand they do not apply in adverse conditions, slow drivers can be nervous driving at a higher speed. Confusion can arise if the maximum speed limit is mandatory and the minimum only a recommendation. A suggested solution by Rietveld and Shefer (1998) is for a separate tolled 'fast lane' to be provided on suitable roads. This would divide those who wish to drive at higher speeds from the rest of the traffic.

Education

2.45 Webster and Wells (2000) argue that drivers must begin to recognise the risks involved in speeding; that their own speeding is a risk; and that they can act to stop their own speeding. Drivers must understand the consequences of penalties for speeding and the indirect effect of their speeding on other people. Webster and Wells (2000) suggest that peer group figures, rather than authority figures, should be used for publicity aimed at young speeders. Recommendations for training included encouraging drivers to refrain from speeding indirectly through hazard perception training. A number of police forces and safety camera partnerships in England and Wales are running a range of Driver Improvement Courses and Speed Awareness Courses as alternatives to prosecution for drivers facing fines penalty points for exceeding the speed limit by a small margin. Such courses are offered to drivers detected at excess, but not excessive, speeds.

2.46 Public awareness of initiatives to reduce traffic collisions is essential to the success of the campaign. Chen et al (2000) reported of the photo radar programme in Canada, previously mentioned, that approximately 95% of driving licence holders in the area were aware of the programme. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia conducted an intensive education campaign through television, radio and the press.

2.47 Haglund and Aberg (2000) found that the behaviour of other drivers is an important factor in determining the behaviour of the individual driver. This lead them to believe that providing information on the number of drivers keeping within the posted speed limit may be an effective method of speed reduction.

Engineering

2.48 Among their recommendations for preventing speeding Webster and Wells (2000) suggest physical measures, such as road humps and chicanes, and road narrowing. Mackie (1998) found traffic calming utilising engineering measures, especially speed humps, the most effective method of reducing vehicle speeds. Speed humps in 20 mph zones achieved 10 mph reductions to mean and 85 ^th percentile speeds.

2.49 Webster and Wells (2000) found electronic speed limiters are effective at slowing drivers but these do not take account of hazards such as adverse weather conditions. Stradling (2001) explained that a drawback of speed limiters is that in general those drivers who are in favour of forms of external speed control have less need for this technology than drivers opposed, who in turn tend to nominate high preferred driving speeds.

2.50 Webster and Wells (2000) believe roadside signs and vehicle-activated signs could play an important part in alerting drivers to their speed and remind drivers of possible hazards on the road. Flashing signs, usually vehicle activated fibre-optic models, reduced mean and 85 ^th percentile speeds by approximately 4 mph (Mackie 1998). Static speed signs resulted in low speed reductions leading Mackie to recommend that these signs be used in conjunction with enforcement and publicity campaigns if effective compliance is to be gained in 20 mph zones.

2.51 Hagemeister and Westhoff (1997) examined the consequences of a scheme that used positive reinforcement to persuade speeding drivers to lower their speeds. This German study used a 'thumbs up' symbol with the speed limit and 'danke' ('thank you' in German) on a sign activated by vehicles within the speed limit. Drivers exceeding the limit activated the sign to shows a symbol of a child with a ball, the speed limit and 'bitte' ('please' in German). A further sign was set to display the speed limit and 'bitte'. While these signs were in use, all resulted in lowering the mean speeds of passing vehicles, especially those greatly exceeding the speed limit. Three weeks after the signs had been deactivated there was still a reduction in vehicle speeds, however vehicle speeds increased gradually towards the speeds recorded prior to the experiment.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.52 Scottish Executive (2001a) statistics show that 34% of motor vehicle offences recorded in 2000 by the police in Scotland were speeding offences, the largest single category of motor vehicle offences in Scotland.

2.53 Many studies have concluded that male drivers are more likely to speed than female drivers. However, not all studies reached the conclusion that speeding is predominantly a male pursuit. It has been found that female drivers under the age of 20 reported speeding behaviour similar to that of male drivers in the same age group.

2.54 Speeding is more associated with younger drivers. Examination of speeding across age groups found the number of speeders lowering around the age of 40 years. Some studies also found a general sliding scale of lower reported speeds as age increases.

2.55 Silcock et al (2000) listed eight common reasons drivers gave to justify speeding:

• Unintentional
• In a hurry (e.g. to collect a child at school)
• Being 'forced' to speed (by someone tailgating me)
• The limit is wrongly set for this location (based on experience of similar roads with higher limits)
• My modern car can stop more quickly than those on the roads at the time the limit was set, therefore my speeding is safe
• The same limit should not apply at all times (the empty road, late at night)
• The limit does not apply to me because I am an above-average driver
• My speeding is acceptable because it is not a lot over the limit and others abuse it more flagrantly.

2.56 Further factors relating to speeding were identified as self-image; vehicle power and comfort; cultural factors; passengers; enforcement; and road environment. Also travel time costs, cost of arriving late, monetary costs of driving, costs of accidents, costs of fines or enforcement, utility of driving, and external costs such as noise and emissions have been found to influence speed choice. More recently it has been suggested that factors influencing speed choices may be differentiated into opportunities for speeding, perceived obligations to speed, and individual inclinations towards - or away from - speeding.

2.57 People who are otherwise law abiding citizens often commit traffic offences. In one study 88% of the sample of motorists said that at least 'sometimes' they broke the speed limit. This was contrasted with the 1984 British Crime survey finding that less than 20% of the public admitted committing any of the suggested non-traffic offences. It may be that traffic offences are perceived as different in kind to non-traffic offences.

2.58 Studies recommend that a combination of publicity, training and engineering measures will all have to be utilised to achieve changes in speeding behaviour. For a long-term change in attitudes to transport, individuals must be encouraged to move through different stages of change in attitude and behaviour. It was suggested that public awareness of initiatives to reduce traffic collisions is essential to the success of the campaign. Also, the behaviour of other drivers is an important factor in determining the behaviour of the individual driver.

2.59 Among recommendations for preventing speeding, suggested physical measures include road humps and chicanes and road narrowing.

2.60 Speed cameras are intended to reduce casualties by reducing accidents by reducing speeds at specific high-risk locations and are viewed as an efficient use of police resources.

2.61 Electronic speed limiters have been found to be effective at slowing drivers. A drawback is that in general those drivers who are in favour of forms of external speed control have less need for this technology than drivers opposed.

2.62 These findings from the recent research literature on speeding behaviour amongst UK and other drivers suggest a number of important foci for the present study, in order to determine the current profile of speeding drivers in Scotland.

• analysing female as well as male drivers' attitudes to and reasons for speeding
• comparing the attitudes to speed and speeding of drivers of different ages
• identifying the opportunity, obligation and inclination factors which influence speed choice
• assessing the influence of judgements of the seriousness of speeding on levels of commission
• assessing current knowledge of and attitudes to speed limits
• assessing current attitudes to engineering, publicity, enforcement and punitive measures to curtail speeding.

« Previous | Contents | Next »