AITPM Email Newsletter Volume 0910, October 2009 : Presidents Message

President’s Message Hello fellow AITPM members, Well I can’t believe it’s already October! My office is already organising its end of year function and looking to plan for 2010. Our whole School is moving to a different building next year, with the lovely L block eventually making way for a new shiny one. Those of you who have entered the Brisbane CBD from the south side, across the Captain Cook Bridge, would know L block as the big 9 storey brick and concrete Lego block ode to 1970’s functional architecture, which greets you on the right hand side. Onto traffic matters: an issue that has been tossing around in my mind of late is that of speed. I know I am growing older and may be prematurely becoming a “grumpy old man”, but everyone around me locally seems to be accelerating off from the stop line much faster than I was taught to for economical driving, both here and in the United States (yes they made my wife and me resit our written and practical driving tests when we lived there). People here in Australia also seem to be driving right on top of the posted speed limit, on whichever part of the Road Hierarchy, whether urban or rural. I was also taught on both sides of the planet that the posted speed limit is a maximum legal speed, not the recommended driving speed. This message did seem to sink in to the American drivers around me when we lived in Oregon - where people did appear to drive more cautiously. Further, posted speed limits in Oregon were, and I presume still are, set more conservative by about 5mph or 10km/h than Australian limits, for any given part of the Road Hierarchy. Another excellent speed limit treatment used in Oregon was in school zones, where reduced speed limits applied “when children are present” rather than during prescribed hours on school days. This would be especially useful here in Australia, where a lot of extra-curricular activities take place around schools outside of the prescribed speed limit hours. Before and after hours school care is on the increase (with parents dropping and collecting children near dawn and dusk in the winter), and many childcentred land uses are located adjacent to schools, such as Scouts/Guides halls, swimming pools and parks. Consequentially, I believe there needs to be some consideration towards more public campaigning about economical driving and the real purpose of the speed limit = or perhaps even a rethink of the speed limit concept, if people really are driving on top of it and it’s not just me becoming grumpier (our industrial psychology friends at the research centres may be able to assist us here). The Queensland organising committee is now in full swing organising the 2010 AITPM National Conference, What’s New?, so please keep a lookout for related content. Best regards to all, Jon Bunker PS A Cartoonists view of traffic engineers I thought you might enjoy this. http://xkcd.com/277/

How do other people influence your driving speed? Exploring the 'who' and the 'how' of social influences on speeding from a qualitative perspective

Using only legal sanctions to manage the speed at which people drive ignores the potential benefits of harnessing social factors such as the influence of others. Social influences on driver speeds were explored in this qualitative examination of 67 Australian drivers. Focus group interviews with 8 driver types (young, mid-age and older males and females, and self-identified Excessive and Rare speeders) were guided by Akers’ social learning theory (Akers, 1998). Findings revealed two types of influential others: people known to the driver (passengers and parents), and unknown other drivers. Passengers were generally described as having a slowing influence on drivers: responsibility for the safety of people in the car and consideration for passenger comfort were key themes. In contrast, all but the Rare speeders reported increasing their speed when driving alone. Parental role modelling was also described. In relation to other drivers, key themes included speeding to keep up with traffic flow and perceived pressure to drive faster. This ‘pressure’ from others to ‘speed up’ was expressed in all groups and reported strategies for managing this varied. Encouragingly, examples of actual or anticipated social rewards for speeding were less common than examples of social punishments. Three main themes relating to social punishments were embarrassment, breaching the trust of others, and presenting an image of a responsible driver. Impression management and self-presentation are discussed in light of these findings. Overall, our findings indicate scope to exploit the use of social sanctions for speeding and social praise for speed limit compliance to enhance speed management strategies.

Analysis of road potential and bottlenecks based on operating speed

Vehicle detectors have been installed at approximately every 300 meters on each lane on Tokyo metropolitan expressway. Various traffic data such as traffic volume, average speed and time occupancy are collected by vehicle detectors. We can understand traffic characteristics of every point by comparing traffic data collected at consecutive points. In this study, we focused on average speed, analyzed road potential by operating speed during free-flow conditions, and identified latent bottlenecks. Furthermore, we analyzed effects for road potential by the rainfall level and day of the week. It’s expected that this method of analysis will be utilized for installation of ITS such as drive assist, estimation of parameters for traffic simulation and feedback to road design as congestion measures.

The impact of police speed enforcement practices on self-reported speeding: An exploration of the effects of visibility and mobility

Research has highlighted the relationship between vehicle speed and increased crash risk and severity. Evidence suggests that police speed enforcement, in particular speed camera operations, can be an effective tool for reducing traffic crashes. A quantitative survey of Queensland drivers (n = 852) was conducted to investigate the impact of police speed enforcement methods on self-reported speeding behaviour. Results indicate that visible enforcement was associated with significantly greater self-reported compliance than covert operations irrespective of the mobility of the approach, and the effects on behaviour were longer lasting. The mobility of operations appeared to be moderated the visibility of the approach. Specifically, increased mobility was associated with increase reported compliant behaviour, but only for covert operations, and increased longevity of reported compliant behaviour, but only for overt operations. The perceived effectiveness of various speed enforcement approaches are also analysed across a range of driving scenarios. Results are discussed in light of the small effect sizes. Recommendations for policy and future research are presented.

‘Speed blurs emotional effect’

Review of 'The Kursk', La Boite Theatre Company, published in The Australian, 3 September 2009.

Treadmill adaptation and verification of self-selected walking speed : a protocol for children

The term self-selected (i.e., individual or comfortable walking pace or speed) is commonly used in the literature (Frost, Dowling, Bar-Or, & Dyson, 1997; Jeng, Liao, Lai, & Hou, 1997; Wergel-Kolmert & Wohlfart, 1999; Maltais, Bar-Or, Pienynowski, & Galea, 2003; Browning & Kram, 2005; Browning, Baker, Herron, & Kram, 2006; Hills, Byrne, Wearing, & Armstrong, 2006) and is identified as the most efficient walking speed, with increased efficiency defined by lower oxygen uptake (VO^sub 2^) per unit mechanical work (Hoyt & Taylor, 1981; Taylor, Heglund, & Maloiy, 1982; Hreljac, 1993). [...] assessing individual and group differences in metabolic energy expenditure using oxygen uptake requires individuals to be comfortable with, and able to accommodate to, the equipment.