Relaxed speed enforcement safer: Study

New research has revealed how driver's react to tougher speed enforcement.

31 October 2016 Dom Tripolone

A new study has looked into how driver's react when constantly monitoring their speed.

It seems constantly monitoring your speed could be worse than actually speeding.

Research conducted by the University of Western Australia has found that when speed limits are more tightly enforced it has a detrimental effect on a driver's ability to handle certain situations.

Analysing 84 young drivers, the study observed how the participants reacted when using a driving simulator and were told they would be fined for travelling a 1km/h, 6km/h or 11km/h over the speed limit.

Using a peripheral detection task the study measured the driver's mental and visual workload and found that when the driver's were fined for 1km/h over the speed limit it had a negative impact on the user's peripheral vision, the ability to detect objects outside their line of sight.

The group were also asked to fill out a questionnaire to rank how difficult they found the experience at each level.

One of the study's authors, Dr Vanessa Bowden, stated that when a driver's mental and visual resources are divided between tasks, such as monitoring one's speed, it raised the risk of incidents on the road.

"Similar effects have been shown for individuals who drive while talking on a phone or operating their car's stereo," says Dr Bowden.

"Our overall finding was that stricter speed enforcement may impair a driver's ability to detect hazards, especially those on the side of the road, because drivers are dedicating more attention to monitoring their speed."

Drive Comments

10 Comments

CarGuy | 2016-10-31 05:46:00

Not surprised by the findings of this research. This same point has been made many times by various motoring groups only for the expert police, pollies and govt employed road safety bodies to deny that constantly monitoring speed due to low tolerances distracts drivers from full awareness of the road around them. Maybe just maybe some sense might creep into enforcement and a more tolerant approach be taken that may reduce the number of crashes, injuries and possibly deaths. Then again, if it means less revenue, no doubt the govt experts will keep their collective heads firmly buried in the sand.

Country Motorist | 2016-10-31 11:35:59

It is good to see a quantitative study of something qualitatively obvious. The simple solution would appear to be a higher upper bound on recorded speed before punishment is meted out. However, the mere fact drivers cruise so close to the posted speed limits suggests that those limits are too low. Therefore, two sensible options present themselves: 1: maintain current speed limits with a decent non-punishable margin, 10% seems quite reasonable. 2: Maintain the tight tolerance level, but raise speed limits 10% (less on busy narrow urban roads, more on quiet highways). Of course, none of this is likely to happen whilst Governments view us subjects rather than employers.

Mech | 2016-10-31 21:46:53

Re-introduce the Prima Facie limits, would be compatible with CM's view. Might even improve motorist attitude to Police and officialdom.

Chris Alger | 2016-10-31 23:35:55

And this is why I love cruise control! It removes the need to think about your speed and allows you to concentrate on all the other aspects of driving. I'm not at all surprised at the findings reported here. I'm sure there'd be an improvement in traffic flow if people were not so paranoid about watching their speed. And at a speed camera location I pass regularly, there may well be a reduction in crashes, too. I've seen a number of incidents at this location due to drivers realising too late that they're going past the cameras too fast and hitting the anchors, only to car the car behind them run up their backside. One of the incidents was quite serious, with the following driver swerving off the road and colliding with a light pole which then fell down across the road... in fast moving, busy conditions. The potential for safety cameras to have the opposite effect is very real.

Greg Sullivan | 2016-11-01 00:37:56

I think it is wrong to assume that drivers will not watch the speedo as closely if the tolerance is relaxed. I.e, a driver makes a decision at any given posted speed limit, where they want the speedo to be. If they think they are allowed to drive at 20 over the limit before being booked, then they may well set (limit+20) as their target speedo reading, and focus intently on maintaining that speed, to to allow them to drive as fast as possible. Now, a safer driver, who wants to set a target speed that is appreciably less than the maximum possible speed, can do that REGARDLESS of what the tolerance happens to be! I don't give a damn what the tolerance is, but I do care a LOT if they reduce the tolerance without telling me - THAT really would be a problem. We should have a nation-wide (if not international) standard for tolerance, and any change needs to be communicated. Regarding assisting the driver to keep their eyes on the road, cruise control, settable max speed, and heads-up display are all helpful. Autonomous vehicles will be ultimate solution.

| 2016-11-01 01:35:18

Greg, that would certainly be true of some drivers, it's how I drive, but I think it applies to people who put a lot more effort into their driving in the first place and can handle the effort. But I know my Dad, for example, was absolutely terrible at maintaining a speed because he never really enjoyed driving the way I do, so he didn't apply himself. Consequently he got a lot more tickets than I do and in his later years was obsessive about checking his speedo to make sure he was on or below the limit, at the expense of everything else.

Greg Sullivan | 2016-11-01 04:17:10

Yes, we all have different skill levels. It sounds like your dad needs to lower his average speed, so he can then relax more and concentrate more on other things. Just out of curiosity, has he had accidents after he started concentrating more on his speed?

alex33 | 2016-11-01 04:20:25

Relaxed enforcement of sensible speed limits in non-built-up areas has long been the protocol of most other developed countries, the UK in particular. The biggest challenge, however will be convincing the muppets at the helm of the country, drunk on revenue from speeding tickets that this is in fact the most sensible approach. I'd love to see all those highway patrol officers allocated to tasks that actually benefit the community.

chris s | 2016-11-01 07:02:16

My driving varies from inner city to short freeway dashes,[ which render cruse control useless], however I find the constant looking for camera locations/and looking at my speedo is a pain. There are heeps of near misses on the Monash, East link etc. Poor road design doesn't help like putting cameras and merging on ramps within meters. of each other. I 'm sure you will all agree, merging/changing lanes to let in traffic/ keeping a safe distance / travelling at a reasonable speed to allow all this to happen and watch your speedo is quite a challange

Robster | 2016-11-01 11:27:15

A good example of this is tunnels - If there's a place were the smooth and safe flow of traffic is more important than not exceeding the speed limit by a few kilometers per hour, it is in a tunnel. Yet on a journey through one of Melbourne's tunnels you'll encounter the majority of drivers so focussed on not speeding, rather than safe driving, that they brake randomly whenever their speed looks like it may get up near the limit. Think about that - travelling in a straight line. No intersections, stop signs, merging lanes or other exciting traffic conditions. Just straight ahead. In a tunnel. Surely that environment calls for more attention to smooth and uninterrupted traffic flow, and less to braking to avoid the crime of travelling a few percent above the limit.