Speed management work plan

NHTSA · 1997 · ROSA P / United States. Federal Highway Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This document outlines the 1997 Speed Management Work Plan, a joint initiative by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The plan addresses speeding, defined as exceeding posted limits or driving too fast for conditions, which contributes to approximately one-third of all fatal traffic crashes and costs the U.S. economy over $27 billion annually. The work plan was motivated by the repeal of the National Maximum Speed Limit in December 1995, which allowed states to raise speed limits, and the need to refine strategies for setting safe limits and managing speed-related safety issues. The plan employs a multi-faceted approach categorized into five areas: improved information and analysis, speed zoning, technology development, enforcement, and public information and education. Key methodological efforts include a comprehensive reexamination of speed limit setting criteria by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and a mandated report to Congress assessing the costs and benefits of the NMSL repeal. Data collection initiatives involve crash reconstruction studies, analysis of speed-roadway relationships, and surveys of driver motivations. Technological developments focus on automated speed enforcement (ASE), including drone radar and LIDAR, as well as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) for variable speed limits. Enforcement strategies emphasize cooperative law enforcement campaigns, such as "Campaign Safe & Sober," and the development of model enforcement programs. Several activities were underway or completed by 1997. The synthesis of state speed laws was completed, and guidelines for drone radar were distributed. Automated speed enforcement demonstration projects in Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington validated the technology and public acceptance. Field tests of laser speed enforcement in California demonstrated reduced speeds and crash rates. The TRB panel for evaluating speed setting criteria had convened, and field tests for new speed limit criteria were scheduled for Nevada. However, some activities, such as the study of speed variance between passenger cars and trucks and certain judicial education programs, were delayed or postponed due to funding constraints. The significance of this work plan lies in its systematic effort to align speed management with post-NMSL realities. By integrating research, engineering, enforcement, and public education, the agencies aim to reduce fatalities and injuries. The plan highlights the complexity of speeding as a behavioral and engineering issue, necessitating rational criteria for speed zoning and innovative enforcement technologies. It establishes a framework for ongoing evaluation and adaptation of speed management strategies to address both highway and local road safety concerns.

Key finding

The document serves as a strategic planning framework rather than a report of completed experimental results, detailing planned and ongoing activities to manage speeding through research, enforcement, and engineering strategies.

Methodology

other

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• speed management
• speed choice
• automated enforcement cameras
• regulatory evaluation
• perceptual countermeasures

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence, crash risk outcomes