• Home
• About Us
• POP Guides
• Translations
• Library
• Learning Center
• POP Conference

Read A POP Guide: Select A Guide... Acquaintance Rape of College Students Analyzing Repeat Victimization Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Ed. Assessing Responses to Problems Bank Robbery Bomb Threats in Schools Bullying in Schools Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites Burglary of Retail Establishments Burglary of Single-family Houses Check and Card Fraud Child Pornography on the Internet Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns Crimes Against Tourists Cruising Disorder at Budget Motels Disorder at Day Labor Sites Disorderly Youth in Public Places Domestic Violence Drive by Shootings Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes Drunk Driving Enhancing the Problem-solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units Exploitation of Trafficked Women False Burglar Alarms 2nd Edition Financial Crimes Against the Elderly Graffiti Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders Identity Theft Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places Implementing Responses to Problems Juvenile Runaways Loud Car Stereos Misuse and Abuse of 911 Panhandling Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety Problems Pedestrian Injuries People with Mental Illness Prescription Fraud Rave Parties Researching A Problem Robbery of Automated Teller Machines Robbery of Convenience Stores Robbery of Taxi Drivers School Vandalism & Break-ins Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems Shoplifting Speeding in Residential Areas Stalking Sting Operations Street Prostitution 2nd. Ed. Street Racing Student Party Riots The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns Thefts of and from Cars in Parking Facilities Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets & Driveways Traffic Congestion Around Schools Underage Drinking Understanding Risky Facilities Using CPTED in Problem Solving Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving Video Surveillance of Public Places Witness Intimidation

Search: Search Entire Site Search Problem Guides Search Response Guides Search Tool Guides Crime Prevention Studies Goldstein Reports Tilley Reports

POP Center » Problems » Speeding in Residential Areas » Page 3

Responses to the Problem of Speeding in Residential Areas

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. Regardless of which responses you prefer, it is strongly recommended that you consult with affected citizens and transportation authorities before implementing the responses. Much common wisdom about how to reduce speeds is wrong, but unless citizens are properly informed and consulted about what is and is not effective and acceptable, they will not likely support your actions.

Engineering Responses

1. Using traffic calming. Traffic calming describes a wide range of road and environment design changes that either make it more difficult for a vehicle to speed or make drivers believe they should slow down for safety. The measures are also intended to make roads easier and safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to use. Traffic calming measures are particularly effective at reducing speeds in residential areas.14 Some of the more common traffic calming measures are:
   
   • narrowing the road,
   • putting bends and curves in the road,
   • installing road humps,†

     † Road (or speed) humps are different from speed bumps. Speed humps are about 12 feet wide and 2 to 3 inches high, and can be crossed safely at 20 to 30 mph. Properly designed, they can accommodate large vehicles such as fire trucks. Speed bumps are shorter and narrower, and can be crossed safely only at lower speeds. They can damage large vehicles. They are more appropriately installed in parking lots than on roads.

   • adding chicanes (traffic deflections that narrow or redirect the road),
   • marking the road to create the illusion that it is narrowing,
   • adding pedestrian crosswalks that are raised or made from distinctive materials,
   • planting trees and other foliage along roadsides,
   • building traffic circles† and roundabouts,††

     † The city of Seattle has installed over 600 traffic circles, mainly in residential neighborhoods where they are popular among residents. The circles have helped reduce traffic crashes and resulting injuries dramatically (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1999). See www.usroads.com/journals (TranSafety) for detailed descriptions of traffic circles.
     
     Read a short article about traffic circles in Seattle.

     †† It is essential that vehicles traveling in the roundabouts have the right-of-way, rather than those entering the roundabouts, for them to be effective in reducing crashes (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1999).

   • building traffic islands (for pedestrians crossing a wide road),
   • installing gateways to residential neighborhoods,
   • permitting parking on both sides of residential streets,†††

     ††† The speed reductions achieved by permitting parking must be offset against the increased risk to pedestrians who dart into the road from between parked vehicles.

   • timing traffic signals for vehicles traveling the desired speed,
   • erecting mid-block barriers that create two cul-de-sacs, and
   • adding mid-block build-outs (sidewalk area extensions into the road).

   The U.S. Department of Transportation prepares traffic advisory leaflets that provide illustrations and technical details about many road design features.

   The Dutch pioneered the redesign of residential areas in ways that blend driving and nondriving activities. Roads are designed as extensions of the public space used for walking, riding and playing rather than as separate avenues for vehicle travel.15 In the United States, Seattle; Portland and Eugene, Ore.; and West Palm Beach and Sarasota, Fla., have used traffic calming measures extensively.

   Traffic calming measures can be expensive, however, so their cost-effectiveness must be determined over the long term. Traffic calming measures work best if they are understood and accepted by the public, take into account the special requirements of emergency response vehicles, and are reinforced with adequate levels of police enforcement.16 Properly designed, traffic calming measures can also reduce noise levels by reducing vehicle acceleration. Without traffic calming measures, it is difficult for police to reduce average vehicle speeds below 25 mph.17

2. Posting warning signs and signals. Painting speed limits or "SLOW" on the road surface, in combination with posting roadside signs, can help reduce speeds.18 Transverse pavement markings create the illusion of high speed, and when placed ahead of traffic hazards, have been shown to cause drivers to slow down.19 Strobe light signals, flashing signals and warning signs painted in eye-catching fluorescent colors can improve drivers' awareness of special hazards and reduced speed limits.20 Where there are many other signs and sights competing for drivers' attention, it is not easy to get drivers to notice speed warnings. Warning signs and signals are more effective if they convey the reason that drivers should slow down (e.g., curve ahead, school zone, road construction).21 Other signs, such as those that warn of children in the area, are not known to effectively reduce speeds.22

Education Responses

The goal of education responses is to make speeding socially unacceptable. But given the current acceptability of speeding, there is the potential for a negative backlash against anti speeding campaigns.23

3. Conducting anti-speeding public awareness campaigns. Anti-speeding public awareness campaign have been recommended, even though their effects may not be immediate and substantial; they help change the social acceptability of speeding and alter drivers' beliefs that they are better and safer than other drivers.24 Public awareness campaigns need not be overtly accusatory, but should convey facts about the dangers and consequences of speeding so as to debunk common myths about speed and driving. Because many drivers say they speed merely to keep up with traffic, encouraging voluntary compliance with speed limits can help slow down those drivers who consciously or subconsciously follow the lead of other drivers.
   
   A twist on the conventional public awareness campaign that discourages speeding is a campaign that encourages obeying the speed limit. In some campaigns of this sort, police have achieved positive results by stopping drivers and thanking them for obeying the speed limit; in others, signs have been posted indicating the percentage of drivers obeying the speed limit.25
   
   An interesting method for making the public aware of the hazards of speeding in school zones comes from Lithuania. There, drivers are required to keep their headlights on at all times during the first week school is in session as a reminder to one another to drive carefully where children are present.
   
   Some public awareness campaigns are professionally developed, using television, radio and billboards. These campaigns typically convey official, government-sanctioned messages about speeding risks. Anti-speeding campaigns developed at the grass-roots level are potentially even more effective than official campaigns. Using simple lawn signs, speed display boards, warning letters, or personal appeals to speeders who have been stopped, these campaigns can convey more heartfelt messages to speeders about the risks they create.
4. Informing complainants about actual speeds. Complainants do not always estimate vehicle speeds accurately. Vehicle speed almost always seems faster to a stationary pedestrian than to a moving motorist. Where you suspect that complainants' concerns may be exaggerated, you might have a police officer monitor speeds with complainants present. Some complainants may be surprised to learn that vehicles are in fact traveling the speed limit. This does not necessarily mean that speeds are appropriate for the conditions, but at a minimum it helps complainants better understand what responses might be most appropriate to remedy the problem.
5. Providing realistic driver training. Realistic driver training similar to what police officers receive can help drivers better appreciate the effects of speed on their ability to control a vehicle.26 Proper realistic training courses require skilled instructors, special safety equipment and protected driving areas.

Enforcement Responses

6. Enforcing speeding laws. Long-term changes in drivers' attitudes toward speeding depend on drivers' perceived risk of being stopped.27 However, a considerable investment of resources is required to significantly increase the risk of getting caught.28 The public generally supports speed enforcement, especially in residential areas and other areas where there are children.29 Speed enforcement works best if
   
   
   • drivers believe it will occur;
   • it has meaningful costs to offenders;
   • police apply it generally, rather than at specific times and locations; and
   • drivers are not tipped off by cues as to when it is or is not happening.30

   With respect to the last condition above, you must balance making the public aware of the enforcement campaign against allowing drivers to anticipate precisely where and when officers are conducting enforcement. For example, you might consider advertising on the radio that the police will be enforcing speeding laws on particular roads on particular days, but not give visual cues to drivers of the exact location of the speed detection devices and officers. This will enhance the deterrent effect for drivers listening to the radio, without reducing the deterrent effect for those who are not. The enforcement times and locations should be varied enough so that drivers do not become confident that they can avoid detection. Advance publicity of enforcement campaigns also increases public support for enforcement by establishing a sense of fairness to drivers. Explaining why police have targeted particular locations for enforcement (e.g., high rate of crashes or citizen complaints) also increases public support.† Enforcement should be conducted both at problem locations and at randomly selected locations to maximize deterrence.†† Stationary marked police vehicles are more effective than moving marked police vehicles in reducing speed.31

   † The Silverthorne, Colo., Police Department surveyed the community to determine the thresholds at which the public believed the police should issue speeding citations at specific locations. The police issued the survey results to drivers stopped for speeding, thereby enhancing police authority to enforce speeding laws and minimizing citizen complaints about speed enforcement.

   †† An Australian study concluded that posting police officers in marked police vehicles on randomly selected stretches of road at random times generally is a cost-effective way to maximize deterrence and reduce traffic crashes (Leggett 1997).

   Police enforcement is expensive to maintain consistently, and it quickly loses its effect where the enforcement effort is not visible to drivers.32 Intensive speed enforcement also loses its effectiveness because of the typical incentive system for traffic officers—they are rewarded for issuing citations rather than for maintaining reduced average speeds. Consequently, as soon as the enforcement effort has the positive effect of reducing speeds, there are fewer violations and traffic officers move on to other locations, after which speeds quickly resume their pre-enforcement levels.33

7. Enforcing speeding laws with speed cameras. Speed cameras, also referred to as photo radar, are cost-effective in reducing speeds, crashes, injuries, and fatalities, particularly when detected violations are prosecuted.34 Speed cameras, used in conjunction with other responses, were determined to have been effective in reducing the percentage of speeders, vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities in Victoria, Australia.35 There, speed cameras were mounted either in unmarked police vehicles or on tripods along the roadside, without advance warnings to drivers about the cameras' location. The police could move the cameras around so drivers could not predict where they were placed. Most were placed along roads with 60-kilometer-per-hour (37.2-mph) speed limits, and so the results from this test do not necessarily apply to residential roads. However, there is little reason to assume cameras will not work on such roads. Some drivers slow down when approaching speed cameras, but quickly speed up once they pass.36 This can be countered by hiding the cameras better and otherwise preventing drivers from knowing exactly where they are. In some jurisdictions, the relatively inexpensive protective boxes in which speed cameras are placed are mounted in many locations, leaving drivers uncertain as to which boxes actually contain cameras at any particular time.
   
   The public has generally accepted the use of speed cameras, especially in high-risk zones, although there are some strong objections to the invasion of privacy and preferences for personal interactions with enforcers.37 Speed cameras were first authorized by law in the United Kingdom in 1991; they are now used by all British police forces. Norway has used them effectively since 1988.38 Not all U.S. jurisdictions have specifically authorized speed cameras for prosecution, and some states and municipalities have specifically rejected proposals for their use. You should first gauge public support for speed cameras before formally attempting to use them. There are also a number of issues regarding the fees charged by companies that install and operate speed cameras, and how the revenue generated from fines is to be used.The first generation of speed cameras required that the film be taken manually from the cameras, to be processed. More advanced technology allows for more efficient remote image processing.39
8. Using speed display boards. Speed display boards measure oncoming vehicles' speeds and prominently display the speeds to drivers. Speed display boards have been shown to reduce speeds and crashes, and appear to be at least as effective as speed cameras in reducing speeds, and to do so more cost-effectively.40 Speed display boards are particularly effective with drivers who are not paying attention to their speed. They are more effective when supplemented with police enforcement—in this combination, the effect can last several weeks after they are removed. Unattended display boards, however, are vulnerable to vandalism.
9. Arresting the worst offenders. As one method for changing public attitudes toward speeding, some police agencies have amended their arrest policies and placed serious offenders (those driving much higher than the speed limit) in custody rather than merely releasing them with a citation. The intent is to convey a strong message that driving well over the speed limit is a seriously dangerous offense and not a harmless technical infraction.† This response may require special legislation and policies.

   † The Glendale, Ariz., Police Department (1998) used this response as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce speeding. The police department's custodial arrest policy was specifically authorized under state law.

10. Having citizen volunteers monitor speeding. Some police agencies have recruited and trained citizen volunteers to operate speed detection devices in residential areas.41 The volunteers record the vehicle speeds and license plate numbers and turn them over to the police. Police then send official warning letters to the registered vehicle owners. Other police agencies, such as the Madison, Wis., Police Department, have had citizens join police officers on traffic stops to explain the community's concerns about speeding to drivers.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

11. Reducing speed limits. Speed limits alone have little effect on actual vehicle speeds. Reducing posted speed limits will typically decrease actual average vehicle speeds by only one-fourth of the reduction.42 So, for example, reducing the posted speed limit from 30 to 25 mph will reduce actual average vehicle speeds by only a little more than 1 mph. When speed limits are set lower than what most drivers consider safe (typically, the 85th percentile), the net effect is to cause many drivers to ignore those speed limits, as well as other posted speed limits;43 if police enforcement of the reduced limits fails to establish a credible deterrent, drivers may increasingly lose respect for all speed limits. In some jurisdictions, a posted speed limit lower than the 85th percentile speed may constitute a legal defense to enforcement. Careful speed studies should be conducted before speed limits are changed. Similar roads should have similar speed limits so drivers do not come to believe that speed limits are set arbitrarily. 44, †

    † The Wisconsin Transportation Information Center (1999 [Full Text]) published a guide for setting speed limits on local roads. Although it specifically refers to Wisconsin, much of the information applies to any jurisdiction.

    Traffic and road engineers may inadvertently increase vehicle speeds when they build extra safety margins into the road design and speed limit.45 For example, if they want vehicles to travel 25 mph along a particular road, they might set the speed limit at 25 mph, but design the road using accepted guidelines for 30-mph travel, thinking this will provide an extra safety margin. However, the accepted guidelines already have a safety margin factored into them, so the result is a double safety margin that actually makes the road seem safe for travel at 35 to 40 mph. Because most drivers travel at what they perceive are safe speeds rather than the posted speed limit, they will end up driving 10 to 15 mph faster than the engineers originally intended. This unintended effect reflects an underlying tension in road safety—a desire on the one hand to build roads that encourage drivers to drive at slower, safer speeds, and a desire on the other hand to make roads safe enough for drivers who choose to drive faster. Road and traffic engineers have often tried to resolve this tension by making roads wider, straighter and more obstruction-free. More recent trends have been in the opposite direction, to get drivers to slow down.
12. Increasing fines and penalties. Higher fines and penalties, beyond the threshold that offenders consider meaningful, do not continue to reduce speeds.46
13. Erecting stop signs. Many aggrieved citizens believe that erecting stop signs along residential roads will force drivers to slow down. They pressure elected officials and traffic engineers to erect new stop signs. However, the most common effect on actual driving behavior is that drivers speed up mid-block to make up for lost time, thereby keeping average speeds high, increasing acceleration noise and decreasing fuel efficiency.47
14. Installing speed bumps or rumble strips. Speed bumps, as opposed to speed humps, do not effectively reduce speeds, and can be hazardous.48 Rumble strips—intermittent series of bumps across the road—do not reduce speeds directly; they merely serve to warn drivers of a hazard ahead.49
15. Reengineering vehicles. New vehicle technology holds some potential to control speeding, but most features are not yet standard or widely accepted by the public.50 Speed limiters prevent a vehicle from going faster than a set speed. Speed limiters can be programmed to receive electronic signals from transmitters along the road and adjust maximum speeds automatically. So-called smart cards can electronically record a vehicle's speed and report it automatically to enforcement authorities. Electronic speed indicators, reading electronic roadside signals, can warn drivers they are speeding, or speed indicators in the vehicle can electronically trigger roadside warning signals.