On the 19th of March 2009 Western Australia became the first Australian State to commit politically to a Safe System approach to road safety. Safe Speeds represent one of the four cornerstones of Towards Zero — the other cornerstones being Safe Roads and Roadsides, Safe Vehicles and Safe Road Use. Given that safer road infrastructure will have only a partial role in reducing deaths and serious injuries in Western Australia, the achievement of Towards Zero goals will inevitably require reduced speed limits across at least some segments of the road network. The aims of the present project were to analyse data from two key Western Australian surveys to: • identify the extent of public support for safer speeds; • identify those factors associated with support for safer speeds; • provide considerations to promote greater public acceptance of safer speeds. The MUARC survey was conducted in 2009 in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to investigate community attitudes towards speed limits and speeding in general, and to identify some of the factors influencing these attitudes. Relevant issues assessed in the survey included: the community’s attitudes towards current and lowered speed limits and towards speeding in general; the norms and beliefs behind these attitudes; their level of understanding about the relation between speed limits and crash involvement; and their appreciation of the environment, amenity and travel time consequences. Synovate’s Community Attitude Tracking Questionnaire and the associated ‘Rotation’ survey is a continuous survey for Western Australia’s Office of Road Safety. For each data collection, the survey items consist of a core set of safety questions which have remained constant over recent years and a set of items which change periodically to reflect changes in Office of Road Safety priorities. The data used in this report were collected over the period July 2009 to June 2010. Data from the two surveys were analysed to present a composite picture of Western Australian public attitudes to and knowledge of aspects pertaining to speed limits on the main urban and rural road types. The analyses have focussed on identifying those factors (background demographic and attitudinal factors and extent of knowledge and subsequent impact on attitudes) which have an association with opposition to or support of lower speed limits across different road types. The analyses have been restricted to those factors tapped in either or both surveys considered to be of value to possible public education programs aimed at gaining greater acceptance of safer speeds. Analyses have necessarily been based upon the variable parameters and response options used in each survey which have often varied in detail. Key findings include: 1) Data from both surveys showed that for most respondents, it was invalid to assume an overall attitude towards safer (reduced) speed limits, as attitudes varied according to the types of road being considered. For both surveys, the majority of respondents had a consistent attitude towards the current urban speed limits for local streets and main roads: that is, their support or opposition to the current limits was the same for both road types. However the attitude towards current urban limits was not a strong predictor of attitude towards rural speed limits. In the MUARC survey many opponents of reduced urban speed limits supported reduced speed limits on rural roads, especially gravel roads. In the Synovate survey, while opponents of reduced urban speed limits also generally opposed reduced speed limits on rural roads, many supporters of reduced urban speed limits opposed reduced rural limits. 2) Both surveys showed that with one exception, regardless of the type of road being considered, supporters of safer speeds in Western Australia were outnumbered by opponents — usually, substantially outnumbered. The one exception related to the strong level of support for reduced limits on gravel roads, as measured in the MUARC survey. 3) The two surveys also provided conflicting results. The MUARC survey suggested that there was very strong opposition to reducing current urban speed limits, whereas there were lower levels of opposition to reducing rural speed limits — especially speed limits on gravel roads. In contrast, the Synovate survey suggested that there was less opposition to reduced urban speed limits relative to reducing rural speed limits. 4) Although attitudes towards reduced speed limits varied according to the type of street or road being considered, the different sets of opponents showed consistent background factors. Considering both surveys and all road types, opponents were more likely to have been: male; young; living in an area likely to be affected by any reduction in speeds; and driving as part of their job. However even for statistically significant associations, each association only partly separated opponents and supporters. 5) As a broad finding, the background factors associated with opposition to reduced speed limits were in accordance with expectations. The one unexpected result from both surveys related to the strong association between place of residence and opposition to reduced speed limits on roads in the same geographical category: that is, urban residents were more likely to oppose urban reductions and rural residents were more likely to oppose rural reductions. This association apparently contradicts a finding from elsewhere that many respondents wanted speed reductions in their own neighbourhood for reasons of safety and amenity but wished to maintain the capacity to travel through other neighbourhoods at higher speeds. 6) Although attitudes towards reduced speeds varied according to the type of street or road being considered, the different sets of opponents showed consistent attitudes for the two factors assessed. Relative to supporters and considering both surveys, opponents of reduced limits were more likely to have viewed: enforcement of speed limits mainly as a means to make money; and driving up to 10 km/h over the speed limit as acceptable. These associations notwithstanding, more than one-half of all MUARC respondents believed that enforcement of speed limits served mainly as a means to make money. In contrast, for all road types and for both surveys, at least three-quarters of all respondents found low-level speeding to be unacceptable. 7) Both surveys tested respondents’ knowledge of various consequences of reduced speed limits. In the MUARC survey, for all road types and for all knowledge items, respondents who opposed reduced speeds were more likely to disbelieve the various consequences of reduced speeds — and conversely, supporters were more prepared to accept them. For all three speed-injury associations tested in the Synovate survey, the same pattern was evident. 8) MUARC respondents who were opposed to reduced speed limits on any of the road types and who did not accept any of the knowledge items, were also asked that if a given statement were indeed true, whether they would then support the reduced speed limits. Around one-quarter of opponents were prepared at least to re-consider their position in response to improved knowledge. At the same time, for three-quarters of all opponents of reduced speed limits, improved knowledge of the benefits of speed reductions would not result in an altered attitude. Assuming a conventional mass-media public education campaign aimed at overcoming opposition to reduced speeds, the following considerations are made based on findings from the MUARC and Synovate surveys. Consideration 1: There needs to be a differentiation between attitudes to urban and to rural speed limits — and particularly if immediate success is required, to different types of rural roads. Consideration 2: While there are significant associations between opposition to reduced speeds and various background factors (especially age and gender), campaigns need to be more far-reaching if they are to touch most opponents of reduced speeds. Consideration 3: Campaigns which work on changing underlying negative attitudes towards speed, need to recognise that some attitudes are widely held (eg the perceived purpose of enforcement) whereas other attitudes are less frequently encountered (eg unacceptability of low-level speeding). Consideration 4: Campaigns which seek to change opposition to reduced speed limits by promoting improved safety, need to recognise that that while the lower speeds/less severe injuries association is widely accepted, the lower speeds/fewer crashes association is not. Qualitative research using structured focus groups may be a useful avenue for developing promising strategies to improve knowledge of speed-related safety consequences. Consideration 5: Campaigns which seek to change opposition to reduced speed limits by developing improved knowledge of the consequences of reduced speeds, need first to test whether improved knowledge will result in the desired, more positive attitudes. Consideration 6: Campaigns based on specified speed reductions are likely to find more support than campaigns based on unspecified reductions. Consideration 7: Given the high existing support for speed reductions on rural gravel roads, it seems appropriate to design an action plan to bring about the appropriate changes in the near future. A key component of this action plan might be a demonstration project in one or more rural municipalities, to evaluate community acceptance of and compliance with the changed speeds, as well as safety and mobility consequences. (Author/publisher)
Abstract