Speed enforcement on 60 and 80 km/h roads : exploratory research on developments and possibilities for the future. Every year, 41% of fatal road crashes in the Netherlands occur on 60 and 80 km/h roads. Speed plays an important role in crashes and that certainly applies to these roads: generally 60 km/h and 80 km/h roads do not have the safest and most credible layout. The police crash registration (BRON) indicates that 41% of fatal road crashes in the Netherlands occur on 60 and 80 km/h roads. In addition to a credible road layout, speed enforcement is a proven means to reduce speeds. Speed enforcement seems to have been under pressure in recent years, after an initial increase from the beginning of this century. Furthermore, innovations that may contribute to more effective enforcement seem to be reserved for the main road network, whereas they may also offer opportunities for 60 and 80 km/h roads. To further investigate these opportunities, SWOV first explored the developments in speed enforcement in general and particularly those on 60 and 80 km/h roads. Next, we explored the possibilities for innovative enforcement methods for these roads. To this end the following research questions were used: * What have been the actual developments in enforcement efforts on 60 and 80 km/h roads and which factors have been of influence ? * What promising new technologies and methods for speed enforcement on 60 and 80 km/h roads can be identified ? * What opportunities and barriers are there to put these into practice ? * What research questions regarding innovative enforcement on 60 and 80 km/h roads has this study brought forward ? The analysis of data on enforcement efforts shows that in the period 2001-2009 these have doubled on both 60 km/h roads and 80 km/h roads. An important development has been the establishment of regional traffic enforcement teams, as well as the possibility to deal with less serious offences administratively. After 2009, enforcement data accurately documenting efforts at 60 and 80 km/h roads is no longer available. This is due to the fact that information about the speed limit is no longer registered in the information system on enforcement efforts. However, various policy developments, such as abolition of the quota for fines, the shift from traffic enforcement to enforcement in traffic and the reorganization of the police, indicate that traffic enforcement is under pressure. On the basis of a theoretical model on traffic enforcement we have – using literature, interviews and questionnaire study – made an inventory of ideas and possibilities for innovative (both existing and new) technologies and methods for effective speed enforcement on 60 and 80 km/h roads. We call these 'innovations'. These may include policing methods (strict definition of enforcement), but also elements that, according to the theoretical model, play a role in the entire enforcement chain, from influencing attitude to enforcement and punishment. In some cases, there is a role for the police and the judiciary, but we have also looked at the efforts of other parties. In part, the inventory shows innovations that are already in preparation. Examples include section control on the underlying road network, unmanned mobile speed cameras and higher fines for excessive offenders. Other innovative methods, such as the establishment of special investigators with traffic enforcement privilege (BOAs), de-anonymizing the offenders by sending personal letters after violations, increasing the risk of being caught for multiple-offenders by using ANPR (automatic numberplate recognition) and progressive speed fines, face barriers that are mainly of a legal nature. An example is the difference between fining a person and fining on vehicle registration number. Also, the current legislation does not allow the storage and use of information about traffic violations. All the same, these innovations deserve attention. As yet, the opportunities for stricter, i.e. lower enforcement thresholds and information concerning serious speeding offences in the immediate surroundings do not yet outweigh the barriers. Concerning speed enforcement by the police the following innovations seem the most promising to explore further: * Using dashcam images of citizens in the detection of speed offenders. This is now done sporadically, but particularly the United Kingdom has good experiences with this. * Detection by police cars with built-in radar systems. This is already done in France. However, it needs to be investigated whether this method is sufficiently cost effective. * Before-and-after warnings on the road at speed checks to increase the subjective risk of being caught. This requires good cooperation between enforcement authorities and road authorities. Communication about risks in traffic and about desirable social standards can also make a positive contribution to a well-functioning enforcement chain. In parts of the country techniques are already being used that are worth exploring. Finally, it is also interesting to look at the role of driving schools, parents and other interested parties to look at. Innovations for the improvement of traffic enforcement bring specific challenges. We can formulate the following knowledge questions: * For which type of roads and which speed problems does innovation have the greatest added value, and to what extent will this lead to improvement of traffic behaviour ? * What is the initial public support for the various innovations, how will this develop after introduction to the innovation and how can this be favourably influenced ? * How can the innovation be realised technically ? * What is the balance between costs and benefits if the innovation were to be introduced everywhere in the Netherlands ? Further research and some well-chosen tests may answer these questions. This also involves ensuring the right conditions for successful introduction of innovations. Finally, SWOV recommends to also put efforts into monitoring and scientific assessment of effects in the field of speed and crashes. Enforcement in traffic means that the enforcement does not only focus on traffic offences, but also on (criminal) violations outside the traffic domain (such as theft, drugs, weapons and tax violations) that can be detected in traffic.
Abstract