Summary

Speed is dangerous. It is a primary factor for nearly a third of all crashes where there are fatalities and over 40% of crashes where there are injuries or fatalities. Why? There is simple physics: crash severity increases disproportionately with vehicle speed, with energy of a collision governed by the square of the velocity. To put it in the highway perspective, a 70 mph collision into a barrier releases nearly a third more energy or violence than a 60 mph collision into that same barrier. That extra 10 mph &ndash in excess of the speed limit &ndash is quite important, especially when compounded by the human factor. If it takes a driver 1 &ndash 2 seconds to react, as is typical, the vehicle may have traveled another 15 &ndash 30 feet, or off a road, into a barrier, and through a work zone. Speed, while not by itself a cause of crashes, can make it difficult to avoid a collision. "The question we all have to ask ourselves when selecting a higher speed is, 'Do we feel lucky?'" We contend that traffic safety should not rely on individual circumstances of luck. An ASE deployment could capture violators and may instill a sense of caution to non-violators.

One solution, pioneered and in use in Europe for over 30 years and instituted across the US beginning in 1987 (Paradise Valley AZ), but rarely in a highway situation, is the use of ASE. ASE, also known as "speed cameras" or "photo radar", is an automated technology for regulating speeding. An ASE system is usually comprised of a high-speed traffic camera, Doppler radar, and a computer data collection and storage system. The Doppler radar antenna is low power with a narrow-beam (generally about 5 degrees) aimed at a 20 degree angle from the road centerline. This angle and low power render radar detectors incapable of detecting the radar until they are in the beam, while still allowing the unit to make accurate speed measurements on roadways up to about 5 lanes wide. The camera is usually in a box mounted on a pole.

In operation, speeders who exceed a defined threshold as measured by the radar trigger the camera. The resultant photo contains a rear view of the vehicle &ndash showing only its license plate and not the driver &ndash with the date, time, speed and location annotated with the picture. A citation is then mailed to the vehicle owner.

Research Plan

Our approach is geared toward assessing whether ASE is suitable for deployment on mainline highways in California. It therefore consists of two parallel, and in many respects equally important, research and evaluation tracks, technical and institutional. If ASE is to be deployed, both tracks are necessarily investigated, both must produce convincing elements, and importantly, both must be recognized as interdependent, e.g., quantification of an "acceptable" level of reliability helps overcome a potential objection to any ASE deployment policy. We must realize, however, that an assessment of technology alone will not do the job; while it may be a necessary antecedent to overcoming institutional or policy barriers, it is the decidedly nontechnical factors that must in the end be addressed.

In short, we recognize that Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) is a genuinely difficult public policy issue, as there is a sequence of antecedent institutional and legal matters that must be overcome prior to any Caltrans implementation. The results of our effort will be important in assessing the efficacy of ASE. Our effort features conduct of a series of interviews, surveys and focus groups and surveys of the practice to determine legal, institutional and other societal issues. We will then evaluate technologies and conduct of field trials at the Berkeley Highway Laboratory facility (I-80). We stop short of a Field Operational Test (FOT), as we will not issue ASE-produced speeding tickets.

At the project's end, we will deliver a detailed report on how ASE systems measure up on a variety of roadways, and we will also deliver an assessment of institutional issues, a detailed examination of public perception and, given sufficient ASE technical performance, a plan for deployment that addresses recommended policy steps in light of these perceptual issues. At project's end &ndash and given positive developments to date &ndash we will synthesize our results into a plan for field operational test deployment. If ASE proves to be technically or institutionally to difficult to implement, we will dispassionately produce that answer, too. It is important to note that the research team are not advocates of ASE, nor are we detractors.

We will conduct our project in two years along the following task plan:

Task 1. Conduct ASE Institutional and Behavior Analysis

Task 2-1. Analyze Legal and Constitutional Issues

Task 2-3. Interview Experts

Task 2-4. Conduct Focus Groups.

Task 2-5. Conduct Telephone Survey.

Task 2. Perform Feasibility Analysis

Task 3-1. Stakeholder Interviews and Meetings

Task 3-2. Data/Report Collection

Task 3-3. Site Visit and Observational Analysis

Task 3-4. Site Evaluations and Recommendations

Task 3. Conduct ASE Technical Evaluation

Task 1-1. Assess Specifications of Available ASE Systems.

Task 1-2. Acquire and Test Up to Three ASE Units.

Task 1-3. Conduct Roadside Tests.

Task 1-4. Review Assessment of ASE Systems.

Task 4 Preliminary FOT Design and Final Reporting