Speeding is a public-health crisis, implicated in roughly a third of roadway deaths each year in the United States. One countermeasure with clearly documented efficacy to reduce speed and the severity of crashes is automated speed enforcement (ASE). Despite the demonstrated safety benefits of ASE, it is only being deployed in approximately 142 communities across the United States, and some states ban the practice altogether. Politically, ASE is a controversial issue, with many drivers questioning the legality of ASE and the need to improve speed enforcement. In Minnesota, ASE is not being utilized and would require legislative action to be implemented. The purpose of this study, which focuses on Minnesota’s potential ASE use, was threefold: to investigate attitudes toward ASE among stakeholders in Minnesota who would be involved in deployment of ASE; to quantitatively compare the rates of motor fatalities in states using ASE to Minnesota rates in work zones; and better understand the causes for the continued conflict regarding ASE deployment among the general Minnesota population and identify potential avenues for reconciling this conflict. To investigate stakeholder attitudes toward ASE, we conducted 18 in-person interviews of professionals in four fields relevant to ASE deployment. We asked each interviewee a range of questions designed to elucidate their ideas and attitudes surrounding ASE. The stakeholder interviews revealed some level of support for ASE within each stakeholder category, especially when ASE was supported by strong data showing its positive benefits, and implemented in way that prevents abuse. Ten categories where respondents took issue with deployment of ASE were also identified through the interviews, and we plotted these categories on a position-basis matrix. The matrix is a four-quadrant graph, with various arguments placed on a two-dimensional scale. The horizontal axis measures the interviewee’s position regarding automated speed enforcement, from opposition (left) to support (right). The vertical axis measures the basis for that position and ranges from debatable (bottom) to not debatable (top), with “debatable” referring to areas in which interviewees were open to movement when information contrary to their initial opinion, and “not debatable” referring to areas in which interviewees held unshakable beliefs unlikely to change even in the face of contrary information. We used roadway fatality data from the Fatal Accident Reports System (FARS) to perform the quantitative comparison in this study. We focused on the years 2004-2013 and compared the rates and numbers of work zone fatalities in Minnesota and the nine states (plus the District of Columbia) that deploy ASE in work zones. The quantitative aspect of this study did not reveal a quantifiable difference in work zone fatality statistics in Minnesota compared with the jurisdictions that deploy ASE in work zones. To better understand causes for continued conflict surrounding ASE among the general Minnesota population, we distributed a survey with questions informed by the areas of concern identified in the interviews of Minnesota stakeholders. The surveys of general members of the Minnesota population found that 100 of the 203 respondents had favorable opinions of ASE upon entering the survey, and that there is broad public support for limited forms of ASE deployment, such as in school or work zones. The survey also revealed that a significant portion of people who are against or unsure about ASE can be persuaded to think better of it by addressing their key concerns and misconceptions. For instance, providing information about the safety impacts of speed can move someone with a negative opinion of ASE in a positive direction. Even for those respondents who did not change their opinions of ASE when provided with information favorable to ASE implementation, most were not further polarized into rejection of ASE, indicating a good dialog was achieved and further entrenchment into negative views was not a result of the engagement with most of the participants. Overall, this study finds that negative perceptions of ASE are often related to misunderstandings about ASE and the public safety threat posed by speeding. Framing the use of ASE as a clear and effective safety tool to address a serious public health problem will increase public support for its deployment. Because large majorities in several surveys approve of its use in high-risk areas like school and work zones and where people often speed excessively, limited ASE deployment may be a useful foothold to gaining more support for expanded implementation of ASE. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting