Human-centered solutions to advanced roadway safety Toward Greater Understanding of the Relationship between Public Perceptions of Speed, Speed Laws, and Safety Recipient Organization Regents of the University ofRecipient Minnesota Organization Frank Douma 200Regents Oak Streetof the UniversitySE; Suite 450 Recipient OrganizationMinneapolis,of Minnesota MN 55455-2070 Frank Alarcon Regents of the200 University Oak Street SE; Suite 450 of Minnesota RecipientMinneapolis, Identifying MN 55455-2070 Number Humphrey School of Public Affairs 200 Oak StreetCON# SE; Suite042705 450 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455-2070 DUNSRecipient and Identifying EIN Numbers Number Final Report Recipient IdentifyingDUNS:CON# 04270555-591-7996 Number CON# 042705EIN: 41-6007513 DUNS and EIN Numbers DUNS and EINFederalDUNS: Numbers 55-591-7996 Grant Number DUNS: 55-591-7996DTRT13-G-UTC35EIN: 41-6007513 EIN: 41-6007513 Federal Grant Number Federal GrantDTRT13-G-UTC35 Number DTRT13-G-UTC35 CTS 18-02 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. CTS 18-02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Toward Greater Understanding of the Relationship between February 2018 Public Perceptions of Speed, Speed Laws, and Safety 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Orga nization Report No. Frank Douma and Frank Alarcon 9. Performing Orga nization Na me a nd Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Humphrey School of Public Affairs 2017062 University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 301 19th Ave. S DTRT13-G-UTC35 Minneapolis, MN 55455 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Roadway Safety Institute Final Report Center for Transportation Studies 14. Sponsoring Agency Code University of Minnesota 200 Transportation and Safety Building 511 Washington Ave. SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 15. Supplementary Notes http://www.roadwaysafety.umn.edu/publications/ 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) Speed continues to be a leading factor contributing to traffic fatalities in the U.S., implicated in over 9,500 deaths in 2015. Despite this, in recent years, some states have moved toward more lenient speed enforcement regimes. A public choice problem may be to blame: voters may not be demanding effective speed enforcement regimes of their elected officials. To explore this dilemma, this project attempts to ascertain whether there is a relationship between state speed laws, roadway fatality rates, and public perceptions of speed. Better data are needed for definitive conclusions to be made regarding a possible relationship between these three bodies of knowledge. This report suggests that by improving data on the role of speed in crashes and public perceptions regarding speed, developing a standard measurement of speed law enforcement in each state, and adopting more consistent speed laws across states, a virtuous cycle can be initiated that helps dismantle the public choice problem, thus enabling the establishment of more effective speed enforcement regimes throughout the U.S. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement Traffic safety, Speeding, Traffic regulations, State laws, Law No restrictions. Document available from: enforcement National Technical Information Services, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 33 Toward Greater Understanding of the Relationship between Public Perceptions of Speed, Speed Laws, and Safety FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Frank Douma, MA, JD Director, State and Local Policy Program Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Frank Alarcon Research Assistant, State and Local Policy Program Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota February 2018 Published by: Roadway Safety Institute Center for Transportation Studies University of Minnesota 200 Transportation and Safety Building 511 Washington Ave. SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts a nd the accuracy of the information presented herein. The contents do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) or the University of Minnesota. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the USDOT’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The authors, the USDOT, and the University of Minnesota do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology for the Roadway Safety Institute, the University Transportation Center for USDOT Region 5 under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) federal transportation bill passed in 2012. Furthermore, numerous individuals within the University of Minnesota and throughout USDOT Region 5 provided insights and information that were instrumental to the completion of this report, namely: Martin Broyles (Wisconsin Department of Transportation), John Hourdos (University of Minnesota), Michelle May (Ohio Department of Transportation), Nichole Morris (University of Minnesota), Jim Rosenow (Minnesota Department of Transportation), Dona Sapp (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis), Matt Schmit (University of Minnesota), Alicia Sledge (Michigan State Police), Rachel Thelin (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis), and Marilee Tuite (University of Minnesota). The authors are further indebted to the work of Colleen Peterson on a previous project at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, which helped the authors further understand the context of the issue explored in this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: Literature on Public Perceptions and Political Behavior Related to Speed .........................2 CHAPTER 3: Recent Trends in Speed Laws in the United States ............................................................4 3.1 The National Maximum Speed Law and its Repeal.......................................................................4 3.2 Today: A Patchwork of state speed Laws ....................................................................................4 3.2.1 Maximum Speed Limits.......................................................................................................4 3.2.2 Absolute, Prima Facie and Mixed Speed Enforcement ..........................................................5 3.2.3 Design Speed and Operating Speed .....................................................................................5 CHAPTER 4: Methods, Data and Analysis ............................................................................................7 4.1 Region 5 State Speed-Related Laws ............................................................................................7 4.1.1 Illinois ................................................................................................................................7 4.1.2 Indiana ..............................................................................................................................8 4.1.3 Michigan............................................................................................................................8 4.1.4 Minnesota .........................................................................................................................8 4.1.5 Ohio ..................................................................................................................................8 4.1.6 Wisconsin ..........................................................................................................................9 4.1.7 Existing Attempts to Compare State Speed Enforcement Regimes.........................................9 4.1.8 Ranking of Region 5 Speed Enforcement Regimes ................................................................9 4.2 Crash and Fatality Data in Region 5 .......................................................................................... 11 4.3 Public Perceptions of Speed in Region 5 ................................................................................... 12 4.4 Comparison of Three State Rankings ........................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 5: Synthesis....................................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Challenges of Comparing the Three Bodies of Data ................................................................... 15 5.1.1 Speed Laws and Enforcement ........................................................................................... 15 5.1.2 Crash, Injury and Fatality Data........................................................................................... 16 5.1.3 Public Perceptions of Speed Data ...................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 6: Conclusions ..................................................................................................................