آیا بالا بردن سرعت یک رفتار ضد اجتماعی "واقعی"است؟مقایسه با سایر رفتارهای ضد اجتماعی

The relationship between speed and crashes has been well established in the literature, with the consequence that speed reduction through enforced or other means should lead to a reduction in crashes. The extent to which the public regard speeding as a problem that requires enforcement is less clear. Analysis was conducted on public perceptions of antisocial behaviors including speeding traffic. The data was collected as part of the British Crime Survey, a face-to-face interview with UK residents on issues relating to crime. The antisocial behavior section required participants to state the degree to which they perceived 16 antisocial behaviors to be a problem in their area. Results revealed that speeding traffic was perceived as the greatest problem in local communities, regardless of whether respondents were male or female, young, middle aged, or old. The rating of speeding traffic as the greatest problem in the community was replicated in a second, smaller postal survey, where respondents also provided strong support for enforcement on residential roads, and indicated that traveling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable. Results are discussed in relation to practical implications for speed enforcement, and the prioritization of limited police resources.

Within professional circles the overall relationship between speed and road crashes is uncontroversial (e.g., Aarts and van Schagen, 2006, Finch et al., 1994 and Richter et al., 2006). One conclusion that obviously follows is that speed reduction, for example through enforcement, should be effective in reducing crashes. One conclusion that does not obviously follow is the extent to which the public regard speeding as a problem that merits enforcement. It is likely that an effective overall strategy will require not only effective speed enforcement but also a public that is concerned about speeding. We will argue that without the latter, policy makers may not sanction the former. At a practical level winning public support is a critical factor in successful speed enforcement programs (Delaney et al., 2005b). One efficient enforcement strategy has been the use of cameras that automatically record speed choices. The use of safety cameras to enforce speed limits has become common in some parts of the world (Delaney et al., 2005b). For example, in England and Wales 91% of speeding offences are now detected by cameras (Fiti and Murray, 2006). Cameras also have demonstrable safety benefits in terms of both vehicle speed reduction and crash reduction (Chen et al., 2000, Gains et al., 2005 and Retting and Farmer, 2003). Despite the scientific evidence to support the use of automated speed enforcement, there has been considerable public debate. The importance of this debate has been witnessed in Canada, where an automated speed enforcement program in British Columbia was terminated following lobbying by interest groups (Delaney et al., 2005a). 1.1. Media representation of speeding In some countries where the use of cameras has been common, such as in Britain, there has been a discrepancy between the national and local newspaper coverage. The reporting of cameras in the local community where the camera has been placed has generally been more positive than in the national newspapers (Delaney et al., 2005a). For example, some parts of the national media in Britain have taken an anti-camera stance, with continuing criticisms that the motorist is being targeted rather than ‘real criminals’. In the Daily Mail newspaper the shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, was quoted saying, “This huge increase in summary motoring offences shows the police are focusing too much on motorists and not enough on catching serious criminals. This has to change” (Slack and Massey, 2005). In the Telegraph, former Home Office minister, Anne Widdicombe, was reported to argue for police prioritizing tackling burglars and other criminals, rather than pursuing motorists, and was quoted to say, “If police pull over a motorist for hogging a middle lane, they may well be asked about the progress they have made finding the burglar that visited the motorist's house. It would be a legitimate question, given that the police have limited resources, and have to prioritize their work” (Day, 2004). Newspaper columnists often use their platform to further the notion that the motorist is unfairly penalized, “The police can’t catch criminals. So they criminalize motorists instead … the two million drivers who get done every year are the poor saps who do everything that society asks them to—apart from keeping to often absurdly low speed limits … why are the police treating the average motorist as a criminal? Because catching real criminals is beyond them” (Parsons, 2003). 1.2. Public attitudes to speeding and automated speed enforcement In other areas of national debate, research shows that news media exerts a considerable influence on the formation of public opinion (e.g., Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). While national media has tended to claim that speeding is less serious in relation to other crimes, and is largely anti-speed enforcement, it is less clear whether this accurately reflects public opinion. In contrast to media representations, research on public attitudes towards speed and speed enforcement has, on average, been positive. In the United States, in a telephone survey of 500 residents in Washington, DC, 9 months after the start of a speed camera enforcement program, residents were asked whether they thought speeding drivers were a problem in the district (Retting, 2003). Results showed that almost two-thirds of residents felt speeding motorists were a problem (64%), with a greater percentage of drivers aged 60 years and older perceiving speeding motorists as a problem (81%) than drivers aged 30–59 (65%) and 18–29 (52%). With regards to speed enforcement, other telephone surveys of communities where photo-radar enforcement had been conducted or was being proposed revealed that public acceptance of cameras was just under 60%, with disapproval at around 35–40% (Freedman et al., 1990 and Lynn et al., 1992). In the Lynn et al. (1992) study, a greater percentage of females (73.2%) reported approval for the proposed enforcement than males (54.3%). Retting (2003) notes that overall support for speed cameras (51%) was lower in his study than in the Freedman et al. (1990) and the Lynn et al. (1992) studies, but explains that this could in part be explained by a relatively high percentage of respondents (56%) who had received, or knew someone who had received a speeding ticket since the cameras were in operation. Overall the Freedman et al. (1990) study reported only 2–5% of drivers had received a ticket in the previous 3 years, and in the Lynn et al. (1992) study the speed cameras were not yet installed. As previously mentioned, automated speed enforcement is more widespread in Australia and Europe than in North America, and public opinion surveys have largely focused on attitudes towards speed enforcement. Telephone surveys of Australians have found a majority support (over 85%) for at least no change or an increase in current levels of speed enforcement (Pennay, 2005 and Mitchell-Taverner et al., 2003). Pennay (2005) found that more females (46%) than males (31%) supported an increase in the level of enforcement, and, less expected, more support for an increase in enforcement by 15–24-year-olds (43%), compared to the 25–39-year-olds (39%), the 40–59-year-olds (38%), and the 60+-year-olds (36%). A European survey using face-to-face interviews on social attitudes to road traffic risk with just over 24,000 car drivers in 23 European countries found a high degree of public support for enforcement, with 76% of drivers in favor of more enforcement, and just over 60% agreeing or strongly agreeing that penalties for speeding should be more severe (SARTRE, 2004). In Britain alone, an extensive survey of driving behavior revealed that the majority of drivers thought the 30 mph speed limit in towns were set at the correct speed (+80%), with a third of drivers thinking the 30 mph speed limit in narrow residential streets was too high (Stradling et al., 2003). Approximately 50% of drivers thought speed limits on 30 mph roads should not be broken at all, 79% thought the current penalty for speeding was about right or too lenient, and 75% supported use of speed cameras to enforce speed limits (Stradling et al., 2003). In response to claims by opponents that speed cameras are ‘deeply unpopular’, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS, 2003) reported that opinion polls generally find widespread public support for speed cameras (e.g., Gains et al., 2005; Transport 2000, 2003). However, within government there is evidence of a persisting perception that speed cameras are controversial, with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2004) stating, “public attitudes to speed cameras are mixed”. The Parliamentary postnote continues, “there is widespread public and media debate about speed camera effectiveness and the motives for their use. Experience overseas indicate that public support is crucial to the success of speed camera schemes.” 1.3. Speed limit compliance Before addressing public perception of speed, it is worth considering actual speed behavior, and levels of non-compliance on roads, in particular urban roads. Non-compliance in the following incidences refers to all vehicles traveling above the posted speed limit, regardless of whether it is a minor or major infraction. Harkey et al. (1990) assessed speed characteristics and compliance with posted limits for free-flowing vehicles on roadways from 25 to 55 mph in four US states, and found that for 30 mph roads non-compliance with the speed limit was 76%. More recently, in an investigation of the effectiveness of speed reduction techniques in high density pedestrian areas in Minnesota, USA, Kamyab et al. (2002) found that 64% of vehicles were exceeding the 30 mph speed limit prior to speed reduction interventions taking place. A report by the European Transport Safety Council (1995) detailed speed limit compliance across European countries, citing the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit on 50 km/h (31 mph) urban roads as 64% in France (ONSR, 1994), and 71% in Spain (DGT, 1993). For the UK the percentage breaking the 30 mph speed limit was 50% (Department for Transport, 2006). The evidence from driving behavior on urban roads across countries, therefore, demonstrates that non-compliance with the speed limit is high. This is coupled with public support for speed reduction via enforcement as discussed earlier. What is less known is the public perception of speeding in relation to other antisocial behaviors. 1.4. Aims Within the scientific literature the focus has largely been on public attitudes to speed enforcement, and there has been a lack of research on public attitudes to speeding in relation to other community problems. Hence there is a lack of perspective regarding the extent to which people perceive speeding motorists to be a problem in comparison with other antisocial behavior in the local community. If, as noted in the literature (a) the prioritizing of police resources is an issue for public debate, and, (b) public support for speed enforcement is a key element in successful programs (Delaney et al., 2005b), then it would be useful to determine how the public perceive the issue of speeding relative to other forms of antisocial behavior. Attitudes to speeding traffic and other antisocial behaviors were analyzed from the latest British Crime Survey data (2003–2004). Given the gender effects reported in attitude surveys earlier in the introduction, coupled with the literature on gender differences in driving behavior (e.g., Byrnes et al., 1999 and French et al., 1993), it was expected that females would rate speeding traffic as a greater problem than males would. Likewise it was predicted that older respondents would rate speeding as a greater problem than younger respondents (French et al., 1993). In addition to the analysis on the antisocial behavior data from the BCS a smaller postal survey was conducted using an alternative method to the BCS where antisocial behaviors were generated by local communities in a pilot survey. This was done in case behaviors in the BCS were prescriptive and did not reflect antisocial behaviors as perceived by respondents. From this data the top 10 issues ranked as most problematic in the communities were selected for the postal survey. Furthermore, the second survey included two items regarding attitudes towards speed limit compliance and speed limit enforcement that were not present in the BCS.

Law enforcement can present authorities with a dilemma. Suppose that the majority of the population break a law. What mandate do authorities have for imposing on the majority of the people that they represent, a law that the majority break? Examining the public mandate may be worthwhile in these circumstances. At a practical level it has been argued that public debate can and has led to the collapse of an enforcement program (Delaney et al., 2005a). What then informs this public debate? While authorities may infer public opinion from the media there are times when the media may not present authorities with an accurate reflection of public concern. In the case of speeding it is not clear that the media have captured public concern. Indeed analysis of data on public perceptions of antisocial behavior in the latest British Crime Survey revealed that speeding traffic is rated as the greatest problem in local communities. Males and females both rated speeding traffic with the same degree of concern, with 30–59-year-olds and 16–29-year-olds rating it higher than the 60+ age group. Even when conducting analysis on the sub-groups, speeding traffic consistently came out as the antisocial behavior perceived to be the greatest problem, whether respondents were male or female, young, middle aged, or old. In contrast to previous research (e.g., Pennay, 2005 and Lynn et al., 1992) there was no significant gender difference in the concern for speeding traffic in the BCS. However, the gender difference was significant in the second survey, with females reporting greater support for speed limit compliance and endorsement of speed limit enforcement than males did. With regards to age effects, the finding that the younger age groups (16–29 years, 30–59 years) rated speeding traffic higher than the 60+ years group contrasts with previous literature where older respondents perceive speeding as a greater problem than their younger counterparts (Retting, 2003). It should be noted that over half the respondents in the Retting study had previously received a ticket for speeding. The reverse trend found in our study could be attributable to two factors: that the overall proportion of respondents with speeding tickets differed between the two samples; or, that the distribution of speeding tickets within each sample was different across age groups. Unfortunately, data on speeding tickets was unavailable in the BCS, and the distribution of tickets across age groups in the Retting study was not reported. On the basis of current results the police could argue that any enforcement program currently operating is compatible with public concern. As noted in the introduction there is an issue of prioritizing limited police resources. Clearly if these were to be allocated as a function of public concern then speed enforcement in the UK would be considerable. It might be argued, however, that voicing a concern does not automatically mean support for enforcement. Two points are worth noting. The first addresses the issue of support for enforcement. We found that people did support enforcement on 30 mph residential roads and did indicate that traveling at 35 mph on a 30 mph residential road was not acceptable. This is in line with previous evidence that the public accept the practice of speed enforcement (e.g., Gains et al., 2005, Lynn et al., 1992, Mitchell-Taverner et al., 2003 and Pennay, 2005). The second point is that concern about speeding could be realized through means other than enforcement. For example, traffic engineering or instruments such as Speed Indication Devices, which provide feedback rather than enforcement, could be employed. The potential contrast between concerns expressed about speeding and action on the road is of interest. It is not entirely clear whether those who express most concern about speeding are different from those who actually speed. It is possible that those who express concern about speeding do so in both their attitudes and their behavior. Alternatively it is entirely possible that peoples’ concern about speeding reflects what they feel they ought to do rather than what they actually do. Interestingly, the percentage of drivers breaking the speed limit is decreasing. In 1998 70% were observed to break the 30 mph speed limit whereas in 2005 this figure has come down to 50% (Department for Transport (2006). An important challenge for authorities is how to deal with the concern that the public express about speeding.