Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389

Is speeding a real antisocial behavior? A comparison with

other antisocial behaviors
Damian R. Poulter, Frank P. McKenna

School of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AL, UK

Received 22 May 2006; received in revised form 20 July 2006; accepted 20 August 2006
Abstract
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 trafc. 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 trafc 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
trafc 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.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Speeding; Attitudes; Antisocial behavior
1. Introduction
Within professional circles the overall relationship between
speed and road crashes is uncontroversial (e.g., Aarts and van
Schagen, 2006; Finch et al., 1994; 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 strat-
egy 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 efcient enforcement strategy has been the use of cam-
eras 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 Eng-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 118 378 8530; fax: +44 118 378 6715.
E-mail address: f.p.mckenna@rdg.ac.uk (F.P. McKenna).
land and Wales 91% of speeding offences are now detected by
cameras (Fiti and Murray, 2006). Cameras also have demonstra-
ble safety benets in terms of both vehicle speed reduction and
crash reduction (Chen et al., 2000; Gains et al., 2005; Retting
and Farmer, 2003). Despite the scientic evidence to support
the use of automated speed enforcement, there has been con-
siderable public debate. The importance of this debate has been
witnessed in Canada, where an automated speed enforcement
program in British Columbia was terminated following lobby-
ing by interest groups (Delaney et al., 2005a).
1.1. Media representation of speeding
In some countries where the use of cameras has been com-
mon, such as in Britain, there has been a discrepancy between the
national and local newspaper coverage. The reporting of cam-
eras 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 con-
tinuing 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
0001-4575/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.015
D.R. Poulter, F.P. McKenna / Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389 385
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 Ofce minister, Anne Widdicombe, was reported
to argue for police prioritizing tackling burglars and other crim-
inals, 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 nding the bur-
glar that visited the motorists 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 cant 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 toapart 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 inuence on the formation of public
opinion (e.g., Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). While national
media has tended to claimthat speeding is less serious in relation
to other crimes, and is largely anti-speed enforcement, it is less
clear whether this accurately reects public opinion.
In contrast to media representations, research on public atti-
tudes 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 askedwhether 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 per-
centage of drivers aged 60 years and older perceiving speeding
motorists as a problem (81%) than drivers aged 3059 (65%)
and 1829 (52%). With regards to speed enforcement, other
telephone surveys of communities where photo-radar enforce-
ment had been conducted or was being proposed revealed that
public acceptance of cameras was just under 60%, with disap-
proval at around 3540% (Freedman et al., 1990; Lynn et al.,
1992). In the Lynn et al. (1992) study, a greater percentage of
females (73.2%) reportedapproval for the proposedenforcement
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 cam-
eras were in operation. Overall the Freedman et al. (1990) study
reported only 25% of drivers had received a ticket in the previ-
ous 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 widespreadinAustralia andEurope thaninNorthAmerica,
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; 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 1524-year-olds (43%), compared
to the 2539-year-olds (39%), the 4059-year-olds (38%), and
the 60+-year-olds (36%).
A European survey using face-to-face interviews on social
attitudes to road trafc 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 residen-
tial 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 speed-
ing 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 nd
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 cam-
eras are controversial, with the Parliamentary Ofce of Science
and Technology (2004) stating, public attitudes to speed cam-
eras 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 con-
sidering actual speed behavior, and levels of non-compliance on
roads, in particular urban roads. Non-compliance in the follow-
ing incidences refers to all vehicles traveling above the posted
speed limit, regardless of whether it is a minor or major infrac-
tion. Harkey et al. (1990) assessed speed characteristics and
compliance with posted limits for free-owing vehicles on road-
ways 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 Min-
nesota, USA, Kamyab et al. (2002) found that 64% of vehicles
were exceeding the 30 mph speed limit prior to speed reduction
interventions taking place.
386 D.R. Poulter, F.P. McKenna / Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389
A report by the European Transport Safety Council (1995)
detailed speed limit compliance across European countries, cit-
ing 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 scientic 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 pri-
oritizing 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 speed-
ing relative to other forms of antisocial behavior. Attitudes to
speeding trafc and other antisocial behaviors were analyzed
from the latest British Crime Survey data (20032004). Given
the gender effects reported in attitude surveys earlier in the intro-
duction, coupled with the literature on gender differences in
driving behavior (e.g., Byrnes et al., 1999; French et al., 1993),
it was expected that females would rate speeding trafc 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 BCSwere prescriptive and did not reect
antisocial behaviors as perceived by respondents. Fromthis data
the top 10 issues ranked as most problematic in the communities
were selected for the postal survey. Furthermore, the second sur-
vey included two items regarding attitudes towards speed limit
compliance and speed limit enforcement that were not present
in the BCS.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Analysis was conducted on survey data on perceptions of
antisocial behavior problems in the 20032004 BCS. Full details
of the survey design and measure are available from the Home
Ofce (2006). Briey, the 20032004 BCS is based on a rep-
resentative sample of 37,213 adults aged 16 and over in pri-
vate households in England and Wales between April 2003 and
March 2004 (response rate at initial telephone contact =74.1%).
Sampling was conducted using a multi-stage stratied random
sample, with the small user Postcode Address File used as the
general population sampling frame. Stratication was done by
Police Force Area, population density, and the proportion of
household heads in non-manual occupations.
One addition to the 20032004 BCS from previous years
was the new module on antisocial behavior, with the inclusion
of the item on speeding trafc. For the complete 16 items relat-
ing to perceptions of problems in local communities, a total
of 16,593 participants responded. For the speeding trafc item
alone, gender analysis included responses from 17,869 partici-
pants (male:female =7935:9934), and for age analysis there was
a total of 17,851 responses, spread across three age groups,
1629 years (n =2629), 3059 years (n =9374), and 60+ years
(n =5848).
In addition, a second postal survey was conducted in two local
communities in England. A total of 4200 questionnaires were
delivered by hand to all households in the two communities, with
a return rate of 29.0%, of which 1125 participants responded to
all 10 antisocial behavior items.
2.2. Procedure
The 20032004 BCS was a face-to-face survey of people
aged 16 and over living in private households in England and
Wales, conducted in peoples own household by an interviewer,
and included a variety of topics relating to their experience
of, and attitudes towards crime. For the module on antiso-
cial behavior, participants were asked to rate the degree to
which they perceived 16 antisocial behaviors to be a prob-
lem. The 16 antisocial behaviors included noisy neighbors or
loud parties (noisy neighbors), teenagers hanging around on
the streets (teenagers), people sleeping rough on the streets
or in other public places (rough sleepers), rubbish or litter
lying around (rubbish), vandalism, grafti and other delib-
erate damage to property and vehicles (vandalism/grafti),
people being attacked or harassed because of their skin color,
ethnic origin or religion (race attack), people using or dealing
drugs (drugs), people being drunk or rowdy in public places
(drunk), abandoned or burnt out cars (abandoned cars), peo-
ple being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street (pes-
tering) uncontrolled dogs and dog mess (dogs), conicts or
disputes between neighbors (neighbor dispute), cars parked
inconveniently, dangerously or illegally (parked cars), re-
works being set off that are not part of an organized display
(reworks), people using or carrying airguns or replica guns
(airgun), and speeding trafc (speeding trafc). Participants
were asked to rate the degree to which they perceived each
antisocial behavior as a problem in their area, dened as an
area 15 min walk from their house, on a Likert scale from 1
to 4 (1 =not a problem at all; 2 =not a very big problem;
3 =fairly big problem; 4 =very big problem). Specic analy-
sis was conducted on ratings for the speeding trafc itemalone,
in order to explore any potential gender and age differences in
ratings.
D.R. Poulter, F.P. McKenna / Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389 387
With regard to the postal survey, data from a pilot survey
revealed that the highest ranked problems in two local com-
munities were as follows: antisocial behavior from children or
youths, burglary, drug abuse/drug dealing, fear of going out at
night, y tipping, litter, noise at night, speeding motorists, under-
age drinking, and vandalism/criminal damage. These problems
largely overlapped with items in the British Crime Survey, with
the exception of burglary, fear of going out at night, and y
tipping. Fear of going out at night is not an antisocial behav-
ior per se, more a factor related to antisocial behavior, but was
included due to its selection by respondents in the pilot study.
Participants were required to rate their level of concern on a
Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 =not at all concerned, 2 =a little con-
cerned, 3 =concerned, 4 =quite concerned, 5 =very concerned)
for all 10 problems. This was followed by two questions relat-
ing to driving behavior in relation to speed limits and speed
enforcement. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which
they agreed with the statements It is acceptable to drive down
30 mph residential streets at 35 mph, and it is acceptable to
enforce speed limits on 30 mph residential streets, again on a
ve point Likert scale (1 =totally disagree, to 5 =totally agree).
One member of each household was asked to complete the ques-
tionnaire in their own time before returning it by post. Afreepost
envelope was included with the questionnaire. All participants
were informed that the research teamwould be unable to identify
them from the information provided.
3. Results
An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistical signif-
icance. Partial eta-squared (
2
p
) was calculated to indicate effect
size.
3.1. British Crime Surveyperceptions of antisocial
behavior
An initial comparison was made of rating of speeding traf-
c by vehicle owners (n =13,116) and non-vehicle owners
(n =3477). Vehicle owners ratings of speeding trafc as a prob-
lem (M=2.34, S.D. =0.96) were higher than non-vehicle own-
ers (M=2.20, S.D. =1.01). An independent t-test revealed this
difference was signicant (t(6066.62) =8.06, p <.05, 95% CI:
0.110.18). Both vehicle owners and non-vehicle owners gave
speeding trafc a signicantly higher rating than any other prob-
lem (p <.05), and therefore data was collapsed across the two
groups for the main analysis.
Overall, the problem given the highest average rating was
speeding trafc (M=2.30, S.D. =0.97), followed by rubbish
(M=2.03, S.D. =0.92), parked cars (M=2.02, S.D. =0.95),
and vandalism (M=1.98, S.D. =0.89).
Mauchlys test of sphericity revealed that the error covari-
ance matrix of the orthonormailised transformed dependent vari-
ables was not proportional to an identity matrix (W(119) =.15,
p <.01), and thus a Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted F-value was
adopted.
A repeated measures ANOVA (problem: noisy neighbors,
teenagers, rough sleeping, rubbish, vandalism, race attack,
Fig. 1. Mean ratings for perceptions of all 16 types of behavior as a problem
on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 =not a problem at all, to 4 =a very big problem), with
95% condence interval bars.
drugs, drunk, abandoned cars, pestering, dogs, neighbor dis-
pute, parked cars, reworks, airguns, speeding trafc) was con-
ducted on participants rating of problems. Results revealed a
main effect of Problem (F(13, 2000695.5) =4252.07, p <.01,

2
p
=.20). Post hoc within-participants contrasts showed that
speeding trafc was signicantly greater than any other prob-
lem (p <.01). Results are displayed in Fig. 1.
An a priori independent t-test was conducted on ratings of
how much speeding trafc was perceived as a problem by
males (M=2.30, S.D. =0.95) and females (M=2.32, S.D. =.99).
Results revealed a non-signicant difference between males and
females (t(17277.567) =1.29, p =.20, 95% CI: 0.050.01). It
should also be noted that speeding motorists were rated higher
than all other antisocial behaviors by both males and females.
An a priori one-way ANOVA(age: 1629 years, 3059 years,
60+ years) on ratings of speeding trafc as a problem revealed
a signicant main effect of Age (F(2, 17,848) =71.55, p <.01,

2
p
=.01). Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that the 3059 years
group and the 1629 years group both rated speeding trafc
signicantly higher than the 60+ group (p =.01), but there was
no signicant difference between the 3059 years group and the
1629 years group (p =.08). Results are presented in Fig. 2. It
Fig. 2. Mean ratings for perceptions of speeding trafc as a problem by age
group (1629 years, 3059 years, 60+ years), with 95% condence interval
bars.
388 D.R. Poulter, F.P. McKenna / Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389
should also be noted that all three age groups rated speeding
motorists higher than any other problem.
3.2. Postal survey of local community problems
Results of the postal survey replicated ndings fromthe BCS.
A repeated measures ANOVA (problem: antisocial behavior
from children or youths, burglary, drug abuse/drug dealing, fear
of going out at night, y tipping, litter, noise at night, speed-
ing motorists, under-age drinking, vandalism/criminal damage)
revealed a signicant difference in ratings of problems in the
community (F(7.54, 8471.25) =162.19, p <.01,
2
p
=.13), with
post hoc analysis showingspeedingmotorists ratedas the prob-
lemof most concern, signicantlygreater thanall other problems
(p <.01).
Independent t-tests on male and female ratings for the
two items relating to driver behavior with regards to speed
limits and speed enforcement were conducted. For the state-
ment It is acceptable to drive down 30 mph residential streets
at 35 mph, female participants (M=1.76, S.D. =0.98) rated
themselves as disagreeing with it to a greater degree than
male participants (M=1.94, S.D. =1.05). An independent t-
test revealed that this difference was signicant (t(1194) =3.14,
p <.01, 95% CI: 0.070.30). Female participants (M=4.35,
S.D. =0.91) rated themselves as agreeing with the statement
it is acceptable to enforce speed limits on 30 mph residential
streets more so than male participants (M=4.19, S.D. =0.98).
An independent t-test revealed that this difference was signi-
cant (t(1196) =2.82, p <.01, 95% CI: 0.050.26). Both females
and males rated themselves between 4: agree and 5: totally
agree.
4. Discussion
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 cir-
cumstances. 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 fromthe media there
are times when the media may not present authorities with an
accurate reection 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 trafc
is rated as the greatest problem in local communities. Males
and females both rated speeding trafc with the same degree
of concern, with 3059-year-olds and 1629-year-olds rating
it higher than the 60+ age group. Even when conducting anal-
ysis on the sub-groups, speeding trafc 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; Lynn et
al., 1992) there was no signicant gender difference in the con-
cern for speeding trafc in the BCS. However, the gender differ-
ence was signicant 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 nding that the younger age groups (1629 years,
3059 years) rated speeding trafc higher than the 60+ years
group contrasts with previous literature where older respon-
dents 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 respon-
dents 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 speed-
ing 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 programcurrently 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 rst addresses
the issue of support for enforcement. We found that people did
support enforcement on 30 mph residential roads and did indi-
cate that traveling at 35 mph on a 30 mph residential road was not
acceptable. This is in line with previous evidence that the pub-
lic accept the practice of speed enforcement (e.g., Gains et al.,
2005; Lynn et al., 1992; Mitchell-Taverner et al., 2003; Pennay,
2005). The second point is that concern about speeding could
be realized through means other than enforcement. For exam-
ple, trafc 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 reects 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 gure 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.
Acknowledgements
Material from Crown copyright records made available
through the Home Ofce and the UK Data Archive has been
D.R. Poulter, F.P. McKenna / Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 384389 389
used by permission of the Controller of Her Majestys Sta-
tionery Ofce and the Queens Printer for Scotland. This work
was funded in part by the Thames Valley Police as part of an
ongoing research program. We would also like to thank Thames
Valley Safer Roads Partnership for their co-operation.
References
Aarts, L., van Schagen, I., 2006. Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: a
review. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 38, 215224.
Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., Schafer, W.D., 1999. Gender differences in risk taking:
a meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 125 (3), 367383.
Chen, G., Wilson, J., Meckle, W., Cooper, P., 2000. Evaluation of photo radar
in British Columbia. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 32, 517526.
Day, E., 2004. Prosecute motorway lane hogs, RAC says. http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/.
Delaney, A., Ward, H., Cameron, M., 2005a. The history and development of
speed camera use. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report
No. 242.
Delaney, A., Ward, H., Cameron, M., Williams, A.F., 2005b. Controversies and
speed cameras: lessons learnt internationally. J. Public Health Policy 26 (4),
404415.
Department for Transport, 2006. Transport Statistics Bulletin: Vehicle Speeds
in Great Britain 2005. Department for Transport, London, UK.
DGT, Direccion General De Traco, 1993. Annuario estadistico general, Direc-
cion General De Traco, Madrid.
European Transport Safety Council, 1995. Reducing trafc injuries resulting
from excess and inappropriate speed, Brussels: European Transport Safety
Council. http://www.etsc.be/.
Finch, D.J., Kompfner, P., Lockwood, C.R., Maycock, G., 1994. Speed, speed
limits and crashes. Project Record S211G/RB/Project Report PR 58, Trans-
port Research Laboratory TRL, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Fiti, R., Murray, L., 2006. Motoring offences and breath test statis-
tics: England and Wales 2004, Home Ofce Statistical Bulletin 05/06,
www.homeofce.gov.uk/rds.
Freedman, M., Williams, A.F., Lund, A.K., 1990. Public opinion regarding photo
radar. Transportation Research Record 1270, TRB, Washington, DC, pp.
5965.
French, D.J., West, R.J., Elander, J., Wilding, J.M., 1993. Decision making
style, driving style and self-reported involvement in road trafc accidents.
Ergonomics 36, 627644.
Gains, A., Nordstrom, M., Heydecker, B., Shrewsbury, J., Mountain, L., Maher,
M., 2005. The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation
Report. PA Consulting Group, UCL, University of Liverpool, and Napier
University.
Gamson, N.A., Modigliani, A., 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on
nuclear power: a constructivist approach. Am. J. Soc. 95, 137.
Harkey, D.L., Robertson, H.D., Davis, S.E., 1990. Assessment of current
speed zoning criteria. Transportation Research Record, 1281. Transporta-
tion Research Board, Washington, DC.
Home Ofce, 2006. Research and Statistics Directorate and BMRB. Social
Research, British Crime Survey, 20032004 (computer le). Colchester,
Essex, UK Data Archive (distributor). SN: 5324.
Kamyab, A., Andrle, S., Kroger, D., 2002. Methods to reduce trafc speed in
high pedestrian areas. Report no. MN/RC-2002-18. Minnesota Department
of Transport, St. Pauls, Minnesota.
Lynn, C.W., Garber, N.J., Ferguson, W.S., Lienau, T.K., Lau, R., Alcee, J.V.,
Black, J.C., Wendzel, P.M., 1992. Automated Speed Enforcement Pilot
Project for the Capital Beltway: Feasibility of Photo Radar. Virginia Trans-
port Research Council, Charlottesville, VA.
Mitchell-Taverner, P., Zipparo, L., Goldsworthy, J., 2003. Survey on speeding
and enforcement. Report no. CR214a, Australian Transport Safety Bureau,
ACT, Australia.
ONSR, Observatoire National Interministerial de Securite Routiere, 1994. Bilan
annuel statistiques et commentariesannee 1993. Arcueil: Observatoire
National Interministerial de Securite Routiere.
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the Slower Speed
Initiative, 2003. Speed Cameras: 10 criticisms and why they are awed.
Research brieng, December 2003.
Parliamentary Ofce of Science and Technology, 2004. Postnote: Speed
Cameras, number 218, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/
POSTpn218.pdf.
Parsons, T., 2003. Why trafc cops play silly burglars. http://mirror.
co.uk/news/tonyparsons/tm column date=14072003-name index.html.
Pennay, D., 2005. Community attitudes to road safety: community attitudes
survey, wave 17, 2004. Report no. CR 214. Australian Transport Safety
Bureau, ACT, Australia.
Retting, R.A., Farmer, C.M., 2003. Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in
the district of Columbia. Transport. Res. Rec. 1830, 3437.
Retting, R., 2003. Speed cameraspublic perceptions in the US. Trafc Eng.
Contr. 44 (3), 100101.
Richter, E.D., Berman, T., Friedman, L., Ben-David, G., 2006. Speed, road
injury, and public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 27, 125152.
SARTRE, 2004. European drivers and road risk, Part 1: Report on principal
analyses, 4971, Arcueil, France, Institut National de Recherche sur les
Transports et leur Securite INRETS.
Slack, J., Massey, R., 2005. Soft Target motoristshalf of all court cases are
driving offences. Daily Mail, October 25, 2005.
Stradling, S.G., Campbell, M., Allen, I.A., Gorell, R.S.J., Hill, J.P., Win-
ter, M.G., Hope, S., 2003. The speeding driving: who, how and why?
Scottish Executive Social Research Development Department Research
Programme Research Findings 170/2003. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
Publications/2003/08/17977/24935.
Transport 2000, 2003. Polls show public want speed cameras. Press release:
November 29, 2003. www.transport2000.org.uk.