2.1 High-Visibility Enforcement
High-visibility enforcement campaigns have been used to deter aggressive driving and speeding. They are based on the same principles as high-visibility safety belt and alcohol-impaired driving enforcement: to convince the public that speeding and aggressive driving actions are likely to be detected and that offenders will be arrested and punished (see Chapter 1, Alcohol-Impaired Driving, Sections 2.1 and 2.2, and Chapter 2, Safety Belt Use, Section 2.1). Speeding and aggressive driving are moving violations. Enforcement cannot use checkpoints but must observe driving behavior on the road. In the high-visibility enforcement model, law enforcement targets selected high-crash or high-violation geographical areas using either expanded regular patrols or designated aggressive driving patrols. Officers focus on drivers who commit common aggressive driving actions such as speeding, following too closely, and running red lights. Enforcement is publicized widely. The strategy is very similar to saturation patrols directed at alcohol-impaired drivers (Chapter 1, Section 2.2). Use: No data is available on the number of jurisdictions operating high-visibility aggressive driving enforcement campaigns, but it is likely that they are not common. NCHRP (2003, Strategy A1) provides a few examples of recent aggressive driving enforcement programs. Effectiveness: The best effectiveness evidence comes from NHTSA demonstrations in three communities. All three demonstrations lasted six months and included extensive publicity but differed in other respects. Milwaukee was the most successful. Red-light running decreased at targeted intersections. Crashes in the city dropped by 12 percent in targeted corridors and by 2 percent in comparison corridors (NHTSA, 2002; McCartt et al., 2001). The Indianapolis demonstration was not a success. Average speeds dropped slightly. Total crashes increased 32 percent over the previous year. Crashes increased more in the demonstration area than in other areas, and the proportion of crashes involving aggressive driving behaviors also increased in the demonstration areas (NHTSA, 2004b; Stuster, 2004). Tucson had mixed results. Average speeds dropped moderately. Total crashes increased 10 percent in the demonstration areas and decreased in comparison areas. However, the proportion of crashes involving aggressive driving behaviors decreased by 8 percent in the demonstration areas (NHTSA, 2004b; Stuster, 2004). Taken together, the demonstrations suggest that high-visibility aggressive driving enforcement campaigns may have promise but success is far from guaranteed. Costs: As with alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt use enforcement campaigns, the main costs are for law enforcement time and for publicity. The Milwaukee demonstration received a $650,000 grant and the other two demonstrations each received a $200,000 grant. Time to implement: High-visibility enforcement campaigns may require four to six months to plan, publicize, and implement. |
||||