Advanced

Recommendations for Speed Management Strategies and Policies.

Kallberg, Veli-Pekka; Allsop, Richard; Ward, Heather; van der Horst, Richard and Varhelyi, Andras LU (1998)
Abstract
The aim of the project MASTER (MAnaging Speeds of Traffic on European Roads) was to produce information that can be cited in the preparation of national and EU decisions concerning speed management and speed control equipment standards. For this purpose, the project looked for answers to three key questions:

1)What are acceptable ranges of speeds?

2)What are the key factors influencing drivers’ choice of speed?

3)What are the best speed management tools and strategies?

The results of the project are documented in 26 reports: 12 deliverables and 14 working papers. The objective of the this report is to present recommendations for speed management strategies and policies.

Recommendations for... (More)
The aim of the project MASTER (MAnaging Speeds of Traffic on European Roads) was to produce information that can be cited in the preparation of national and EU decisions concerning speed management and speed control equipment standards. For this purpose, the project looked for answers to three key questions:

1)What are acceptable ranges of speeds?

2)What are the key factors influencing drivers’ choice of speed?

3)What are the best speed management tools and strategies?

The results of the project are documented in 26 reports: 12 deliverables and 14 working papers. The objective of the this report is to present recommendations for speed management strategies and policies.

Recommendations for Speed Management Measures, Tools and Policy

1.Speed limits on roads of similar classification in different European countries should be harmonised so that road users’ expectations are consistent with respect to correct choice of speed irrespective of previous driving experiences in their home country. These speed limits should reflect the socially desirable speeds determined for example with the help of the MASTER framework.

2.European guidelines are needed for application of speed management measures and tools on residential and main roads in urban areas and on rural mixed-traffic roads. This would promote consistent and cost-effective speed management both on urban roads, where a wider range of potential alternatives is available and on rural roads where the possibilities for using low-cost physical measures are more limited.

3.Preparations for the introduction of compulsory adaptive speed limiters should be started. Adaptive speed limiters automatically prevent speeding by adjusting speeds according to the prevailing speed limit. The first step could be large scale field experiments in urban areas in different countries. Urban roads are the best choice for the first application because on such roads their public acceptability is highest and potential negative effects e.g. in the form of behavioural adaptation are smallest.

4.Redesign of European roads according to the principles of self-explaining roads should include hierarchical categorisation into a limited number of categories so that each level has a distinct set of characteristics that is clearly different from that of other levels. A reduced and simplified road hierarchy would promote the correct choice of speed for each road type and have other positive effects on road safety by assisting correct anticipation of behaviour of other road users.

5.Automated speed enforcement should be developed further and taken into wider use. In some countries legislative changes are needed so that the owner of the vehicle can be held responsible for speeding offences. In addition, a common standard could be developed for identification of vehicles by an electronic device. Speeding vehicles are currently identified from photographs which often requires laborious manual work. Electronic identification devices could be used also for collection of parking fees and road tolls. Furthermore, equipment that is currently used only for traffic monitoring could be used for enforcement purposes (e.g. induction loops and data transfer equipment).

6.The difference between the effects of speed on social costs and on private costs should be reduced, for example by internalising external costs (e.g. accident costs and environmental costs). This would encourage drivers to choose speeds that are preferable not only from their private standpoint but also from society’s point of view.

7.Information and publicity campaigns regarding the impacts of speed are needed, with the purpose of giving neutral and objective information about all impacts of speed, with due attention to the difference between private and social costs. Such information could increase the public acceptance of speed restrictions that are justified from society’s viewpoint, but decision-makers will still need to recognise that popularity is not necessarily a good criterion for speed management policies.

8.The highest possible speed of vehicles should be limited to the highest speed limit on motorways and speed limits on motorways should be harmonised across Europe. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Book/Report
publication status
published
subject
pages
81 pages
publisher
[Publisher information missing]
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
f8e6ee2d-402b-43bd-b8e7-a6edd4703b43 (old id 4463879)
date added to LUP
2014-06-16 11:18:10
date last changed
2016-04-16 11:17:38
@misc{f8e6ee2d-402b-43bd-b8e7-a6edd4703b43,
  abstract     = {The aim of the project MASTER (MAnaging Speeds of Traffic on European Roads) was to produce information that can be cited in the preparation of national and EU decisions concerning speed management and speed control equipment standards. For this purpose, the project looked for answers to three key questions:<br/><br>
1)What are acceptable ranges of speeds?<br/><br>
2)What are the key factors influencing drivers’ choice of speed?<br/><br>
3)What are the best speed management tools and strategies?<br/><br>
The results of the project are documented in 26 reports: 12 deliverables and 14 working papers. The objective of the this report is to present recommendations for speed management strategies and policies. <br/><br>
Recommendations for Speed Management Measures, Tools and Policy<br/><br>
1.Speed limits on roads of similar classification in different European countries should be harmonised so that road users’ expectations are consistent with respect to correct choice of speed irrespective of previous driving experiences in their home country. These speed limits should reflect the socially desirable speeds determined for example with the help of the MASTER framework.<br/><br>
2.European guidelines are needed for application of speed management measures and tools on residential and main roads in urban areas and on rural mixed-traffic roads. This would promote consistent and cost-effective speed management both on urban roads, where a wider range of potential alternatives is available and on rural roads where the possibilities for using low-cost physical measures are more limited.<br/><br>
3.Preparations for the introduction of compulsory adaptive speed limiters should be started. Adaptive speed limiters automatically prevent speeding by adjusting speeds according to the prevailing speed limit. The first step could be large scale field experiments in urban areas in different countries. Urban roads are the best choice for the first application because on such roads their public acceptability is highest and potential negative effects e.g. in the form of behavioural adaptation are smallest.<br/><br>
4.Redesign of European roads according to the principles of self-explaining roads should include hierarchical categorisation into a limited number of categories so that each level has a distinct set of characteristics that is clearly different from that of other levels. A reduced and simplified road hierarchy would promote the correct choice of speed for each road type and have other positive effects on road safety by assisting correct anticipation of behaviour of other road users. <br/><br>
5.Automated speed enforcement should be developed further and taken into wider use. In some countries legislative changes are needed so that the owner of the vehicle can be held responsible for speeding offences. In addition, a common standard could be developed for identification of vehicles by an electronic device. Speeding vehicles are currently identified from photographs which often requires laborious manual work. Electronic identification devices could be used also for collection of parking fees and road tolls. Furthermore, equipment that is currently used only for traffic monitoring could be used for enforcement purposes (e.g. induction loops and data transfer equipment). <br/><br>
6.The difference between the effects of speed on social costs and on private costs should be reduced, for example by internalising external costs (e.g. accident costs and environmental costs). This would encourage drivers to choose speeds that are preferable not only from their private standpoint but also from society’s point of view. <br/><br>
7.Information and publicity campaigns regarding the impacts of speed are needed, with the purpose of giving neutral and objective information about all impacts of speed, with due attention to the difference between private and social costs. Such information could increase the public acceptance of speed restrictions that are justified from society’s viewpoint, but decision-makers will still need to recognise that popularity is not necessarily a good criterion for speed management policies.<br/><br>
8.The highest possible speed of vehicles should be limited to the highest speed limit on motorways and speed limits on motorways should be harmonised across Europe.},
  author       = {Kallberg, Veli-Pekka and Allsop, Richard and Ward, Heather and van der Horst, Richard and Varhelyi, Andras},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {81},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x9501c20)},
  title        = {Recommendations for Speed Management Strategies and Policies.},
  year         = {1998},
}