Since my birth, nearly three-quarters of a million people in the United States have perished using our transportation system due to excessive speeding. We all do it. Our culture and our siloed approach to this topic makes it nearly impossible for anyone to get their hands around the issue and tackle it to the ground. One would think with the amount of studies and research involving vehicle operating speed and speed limits, and the billions of dollars in infrastructure created using speed-based criteria, we would have solved this. But we’ve learned through research that engineering alone, education alone, enforcement alone, adjudication alone, or the public alone will not solve this issue.
Those same efforts completely united under common guiding principles produce a vector of substantial proportion—contributing to Vision Zero.
Vision Zero will not happen without prioritizing safety outcomes—data show large fatality groupings associated with arterial streets and rural highways. Conflating issues doesn’t help—such as stating that speed kills related on limited access facilities when arterials have greater fatalities; using the 85th percentile away from high-speed facilities and claiming it to be the gold standard; replacing speed signs, or building wide neighborhood streets rather than investing in speed management and being surprised by high operating speeds. These approaches divide us and distract from our common purpose. Here are three areas that we can advance collaboratively:
1. Let’s be leaders in setting speed limits properly by using context and science. Let’s consider all road users in our decisions and stop using simplistic “one size fits all” approaches. Montana and Texas are not Hawaii or New York. Use emerging research (such as NCHRP 17-76) and National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(NCUTCD) recommendations. Consider broadening the use of statutory maximum speed limit designations and use of default-citywide urban speeds.
2. Let’s engage judicial, enforcement, engineering, and the users together, not in silos. Collaboration is hard and time consuming. Judges who enable law enforcement to feel
like they cannot make tickets “stick” unless they write them many mph over the posted maximum speed is no more right than setting speed limits too low or too high relative to
road context. We can work together—other countries have.
3. Let’s set clear policy on the application of automated enforcement. The Governors Highway Safety Association, AAA, and so many others know of its proven safety effectiveness. If we’re committed to Vision Zero, then we must be committed to zero entrapment, zero undue enrichment, zero privacy invasion, and zero inequity in its application. PERIOD. If we commit to this together, then the barriers and fears preventing its application can be broken. I jumped in with both feet to the speed topic a few years ago with the NCUTCD on establishing appropriate speed limits. What I learned is this issue evokes a lot of emotion. ITE and our profession have many resources on this topic. We can meaningfully help shape our communities, but only if we work together—now more than ever.