SITUATINS AFFECTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AVERAGE SPEED ENFORCEMENT: A STUDY ON SPEED BEHAVIOR OF DRIVERS

Öz

Average Speed Enforcement is a global new approach that is one of the speed enforcement systems applied to solve high speed and accident problems. This application measures the average speeds of vehicles over a section, thereby encouraging the drivers to obey the speed limit for longer distances. Accidents due to high speed occur within the borders of the Antalya Mediterranean University in Turkey. In this study, average speed technology was setup on mobile vehicles for a safer traffic occasion. Average speed values of drivers were measured in two period 1st of which is secret and 2nd of which is announced via 1st and 2nd period (before/after) speed etudes at 11 different sections with speed limits of 20, 30 and 50 km/s. Average speeds decreased along the 20, 30 and 50 km/s speed limit sections by 2.15 km/s (%4.50), 1.81 km/s (%5.10) and 4.50 km/s (%8.35) respectively as a result of the applied system without any enforcement sanction but only by way of warnings and announcements. A statistically significant difference at a level of p<0.05 was determined between 1st period /2nd period speed averages. It was determined at the end of the 2nd period that the system is effective for decreasing the average speeds; however, it was also observed that the drivers on the F, G, A, H and J sections started straying away from the consistency to decrease their speeds. It was determined that the speed limit application started losing its effectiveness along these sections as we moved away from the announcement date since there was no enforcement sanction which had an adverse effect on the efficiency of the applied system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Average speed enforcement,independent samples t test

ORTALAMA HIZ UYGULAMASININ VERİMLİLİĞİNİ ETKİLEYEN DURUMLAR: SÜRÜCÜLERİN HIZ DAVRANIŞI ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Trafikte yüksek hız ve kaza problemini çözmek için uygulanan hız denetim sistemleriden biri olan Ortalama Hız Uygulaması dünya çapında yeni bir yaklaşımdır. Bu uygulama, bir yol kesiti boyunca araçların ortalama hızlarını ölçmektedir, dolayısıyla sürücüleri anlık hız yaptırım uygulama sistemlerinden daha uzun mesafeler boyunca hız sınırı uyumuna teşvik etmektedir. Türkiye’de Antalya Akdeniz Üniversitesi sınırları içinde yüksek hız kaynaklı kazalar görülmektedir. Bu makalede kampüs içinde daha güvenli bir trafik ortamı için, ortalama hız teknolojisi mobil araçlara kurulmuştur. 1. ve 2. evre (önce/sonra) hız etütleri ile kampüsteki sürücülerin 1.’si gizli 2.’si ise ilan edilmiş iki evredeki ortalama hız değerleri 20, 30 ve 50 km/s hız limitli 11 farklı güzergâhta ölçülmüştür. Uygulanan sistemde, kampüs sınırları içerisinde herhangi bir cezai yaptırım olmaksızın sadece uyarı ve duyurular ile; ortalama hızlar 20, 30 ve 50 km/s hız limitli güzergâhlarda sırayla 2.15 km/s (%4.50), 1.81 km/s (%5.10) ve 4.50 km/s (%8.35) azalmıştır. 1. evre/2. evre hız ortalamaları arasında p<0.05 düzeyinde anlamlı fark bulunmuştur. 2. evre sonunda sistemin ortalama sürüş hızlarını düşürmek konusunda etkili olduğu tespit edilmiş; fakat 2. evrenin ilerleyen ölçüm günlerinde F, G, A, H ve J güzergâhlarında sürücülerin hızlarını düşürme istikrarlarından uzaklaşmış olduğu görülmektedir. Sistemin cezai yaptırımı olmadığı için duyuru tarihinden uzaklaşıldıkça hız limiti uygulamasının etkisini bu güzergâhlarda kaybetmekte olduğu ve bu durumun uygulanan sistemin verimliliğini olumsuz yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ortalama hız uygulaması,bağımsız örnekler t testi

Kaynakça

1. Aarts, L., Van Schagen, I., 2006. Driving Speed and The Risk of Road Crashes: A Review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 215–224.
2. Australian Transport Council, 2011. National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020. Australian Transport Council, Canberra, ACT: ATC.
3. Cascetta, E., Punzo, V., 2011. Impact on Vehicle Speeds and Pollutant Emissions of an Automated Section Speed Enforcement System on the Naples Urban Motorway. In TRB 2011 Annual Meeting, 17.
4. Cascetta, E., Punzo, V., Montanino, M., 2011. Empirical Evidence of Speed Management Effects on Traffic Flow at Freeway Bottleneck, In TRB 2011 Annual Meeting.
5. Champness, P., Sheehan, M., Folkman, L.M., 2005. Time and Distance Halo Effects of an Overtly Deployed Mobile Speed Camera. In the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
6. Collins, G., 2007. Traffic Flow İmprovements with Average Speed Enforcement, In International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems, Birmingham, United Kingdom. De Pauw, E., Daniels, S., Brijs, T, Hermans, E., Wets, G. 2014. Automated Section Speed Control on Motorways: An Evaluation of the Effect on Driving Speed, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 73, 313–322.
7. Fleiter, J., Lewis, I.M., Watson, B.C., 2013. Promoting a More Positive Traffic Safety Culture in Australia : Lessons Learnt and Future Directions. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety Conference, 6-8 Kasım 2013, South Australia, 25(1), 27.
8. Gil, MJM., Malenstein, UPMJ, 2007. Innovative Technology for Monitoring Traffic,Vehicles and Drivers, Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European Roads.

9. Gunay, B., Ceylan, H., Turan, F., Aslan, H., Sönmez, Ö., 1996. Trafik Yavaşlatım Uygulamalarının Trafik Mühendisliği ve Kent Planlaması Açısından İncelemesi Newcastle Kenti Örnekleri. Birinci Ulusal Ulaşım Sempozyumu, 6-7 Mayıs, İstanbul.
10. Høye, A., 2014a. Speed Cameras, Section Control, And Kangaroo Jumps – A Meta-Analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 73, 200-208.
11. Høye, A., 2014b. Safety Effects of Section Control - An Empirical Bayes Evaluatio, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 74, 169-178.
12. Karagoz, Z., 2009. Karayolu Trafiğinde Bir Akıllı Hız Kesici Sisteminin Geliştirilmesi. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
13. Kloeden, C.N., McLean, A.J., Glonek, G., 2002. Reanalysis of Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement in Adelaide South Australia. Department of Transport and Regional Services, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.
14. Koy, T., Benz, S., 2009. Automatic Time-Over-Distance Speed Checks İmpacts on Driving Behaviour and Traffic Safety. In the 6th ITS World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Stockholm.
15. Montella, A., Punzo, V., Montanino, M., 2012a. Analysis of Drivers’ Compliance to Speed Limits Enforced with an Automated Section Speed Enforcement System. In Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting.
16. Montella, A., Persaud, B., D'Apuzzo, M., Imbriani, L.L., 2012b. Safety evaluation of an automated section speed enforcement system. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2281, 16-25.
17. Montella, A., Imbriani, L., Marzano, V., Mauriello, 2014. Effects on Speed and Safety of Point-To-Point Speed Enforcement Systems: Evaluation on the Urban Motorway A56 Tangenziale di Napoli. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 75, 164-178.
18. Montella, A., Punzo, V., Chiaradonna, S., Mauriello, F., Montanino, M., 2015. Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement System: Speed Limits Design Criteria and Analysis of Drivers’ Compliance. Transport. Res. Part C 53, 1–18.
19. Pau, M., Angius, S., 2001. Do speed bumps really decrease traffic speed? An Italian experience. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(5), 585-597.
20. Roberts, CA., Brown-Esplain, J., 2005. Technical Evaluation of Photo Speed Enforcement for Freeways, Arizona. Rapor No: 596, 109p.
21. Simcic, G, 2009. Section Control: Towards a More Efficient and Better Accepted Enforcement of Speed Limits? Erişim Tarihi: 01.02.2013. http://archive.etsc.e u/documents/Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%205.pdf
22. Soole, D., Fleiter, J., Watson, B., 2012. Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement. Report No: APR415-12. 165p.
23. Soole, DW., Watson, BC., Fleiter JJ., 2013a. Effects of Average Speed Enforcement on Speed Compliance and Crashes: A review of the Literature, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 54, 46-56.
24. Soole, DW., Fleiter, Judy J., Watson, Barry C., 2013b. Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement: Recommendations for Better Practice. Australasian Road Safety Research Policing and Education Conference, 28-30 August, Brisbane.
25. Speed Check Service, 2007b. Temporary Roadworks Speed Enforcement - M6. Erişim Tarihi: 01.02.2013. http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/pdf/M6%20TASCA R%20case%20study.pdf
26. Speed Check Services, 2009a. SPECS Safety Cameras-M4 10-12 Technology Upgrade. http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/images/M4_Ca se_Study.pdf
27. Speed Check Services,2009b. SPECS: Results. Erişim Tarihi: 01.02.2013. http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/specs.htm
28. Stefan, C., 2005. Automatic Speed Enforcement on the A13 Motorway (NL): Rosebud WP4 – Case B Report. Austrian Road Safety Board (KfV), Austria.
29. Stoelhorst, H., 2008. Reduced Speed Limits for Local Air Quality and Traffic Efficiency. In the 7th European Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, 3-6 June 2008 Geneva, Switzerland.
30. Wilson, C., Willis, C., Hendrikz, J. K., Le Brocque, R., Bellamy, N., 2012. Speed Cameras for the Prevention of Road Traffic İnjuries and Deaths. Erişim Tarihi:22.10.2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.p ub3/full
31. Young, K.L., Regan, M. A., 2007. Intelligent Transport Systems to Support Police Enforcement of Road Safety Laws. ATSB Research and Analysis Report No: 2007-02, 62p.