The Partnership for Advancing Road Safety is a new organisation set up in the US to push the national debate on speed and intersection safety, something which hitherto has been absent. Here, executive director David Kelly explains the organisation's work. With moves to address drink/drug driving and the wearing of seatbelts starting to prove successful in the US, the use of inappropriate speed and poor driving at intersections have become responsible for a proportionately greater number of the deaths and in
"We need a national debate which includes automated enforcement as one part of the solution", - David Kelly
The Partnership for Advancing Road Safety is a new organisation set up in the US to push the national debate on speed and intersection safety, something which hitherto has been absent. Here, executive director David Kelly explains the organisation's work.
With moves to address drink/drug driving and the wearing of seatbelts starting to prove successful in the US, the use of inappropriate speed and poor driving at intersections have become responsible for a proportionately greater number of the deaths and injuries on the US's roads. Speed and intersection safety have crept up the national political agenda over the last couple of years, therefore. That led, last year, to the formation of PARS, the785 Partnership for Advancing Road Safety. The organisation officially launched in February this year.
Supported financially by some of the major automated enforcement system manufacturers and suppliers in the US market, PARS is working to encourage greater discussion of the different ways to enforce traffic laws and is focusing on speed and intersection safety in particular as these, it says, have not been given enough attention to date by the Federal Government.
Executive director David Kelly, a former Acting Administrator and Chief of Staff for the834 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), denies however that the formation of PARS is just a ruse by its constituents to increase the market for automated enforcement.
"We need a national debate which includes automated enforcement as one part of the solution. If increasing market share was the goal, I think we'd see a very different organisation to PARS. This isn't about increasing the size of the market or market share; the funders of PARS are competitors and will continue to compete with each other in many respects as they always have. But they saw a need for discussion and to cooperate collectively in such way as to allow positive engagement with the wider community.
"The discussion is safety. That includes 'traditional' non-automated enforcement, training and education as well as the application of technology. It may well be that many of the initiatives PARS becomes involved in over time don't even include automated enforcement."
Being such a recent creation, PARS is, he says, at the very earliest stages of reaching out to the safety community. But there are, he continues, many local speed and intersection enforcement initiatives which it would be beneficial to replicate at the state and national level. PARS aims to be a conduit for this: "Our partners are involved with numerous programmes that are very effective at the local level. These might differ in detail but they have the same core values. This is all about keeping people alive."
The absence of a debate on such issues at the Federal level is particularly noticeable. Kelly puts this down to the historical importance, in terms of the overall numbers of casualties caused, to driving while under the influence or of not wearing seatbelts.
"We had about 40,000 people dying on the roads each year, and the prime causes were intoxication and not belting up. Well, the best ways to tackle those issues were to encourage people to drink less and to put on seatbelts. And those efforts there were successful; the numbers of people killed have fallen to around 36,000 annually. That means, in relative terms, that speed and intersection safety have achieved greater importance. I don't think it's a lack of political will for a national discussion but more a case of focus having been elsewhere.
"The debate, though, is gaining critical mass. A big reason is because NHTSA, at its core, has a scientific agenda - everything is done with numbers. Now, as the numbers even out, emerging issues are coming to the fore."
Another factor is that many of the decisions on safety projects are made at the local level.
Kelly: "Most of the decisions aren't made at the Federal level and the Federal Government has no authority to implement a safety programme. The latter tend to be formulated by the state legislatures, and things vary wildly there. Some states are consistently very good at passing traffic safety legislation, and some are consistently very bad.
"At the state level there are some politicians, such as in Arizona, who are tremendously supportive. Others elsewhere take the view that it is for the individual to self-determine.
"However NHTSA can drive the debate through how funding is carried out. It provides funds for safety initiatives to the states for use in local projects. And the states want that money."
"What was surprising is that among those who support its use, half felt that their friends and neighbours would be against it. There's a disparity between the personal levels of support and the perceived general levels of support. We need to move to a situation where people are thinking, 'I know my neighbour also supports this.'"
Kelly highlights the very vocal stance taken by single-issue groups who cite the 'violation of rights' and 'Big Brother approach' which automated enforcement represents.
"As always, these people get the most attention because they are more vocal and better organised," he says. "The fact is that most people like or support automated enforcement. They just don't jump up and down about it because they see it as common sense."
The balance between individual and collective rights is at the heart of every debate on transport safety-related debate in the US. An example is motorcycle helmet safety laws: proponents of their mandatory use point to the fact that while the individual may be exercising his or her right to not wear one, that individual right all too often translates to a collective, long-term and therefore expensive social security burden when things go wrong and someone is seriously injured rather than killed outright.
Some countries, such as the UK, have implemented outright bans on the use of mobile phones while driving. The US, however, is still struggling to find a consensus.
"I think there's tremendous agreement on the banning of texting or emailing - anything which involves taking the hands off the steering wheel while driving," says Kelly. "Secretary LaHood and President Obama have signed an executive order banning federal driver from doing so while working.
"That's a first step towards more widespread acceptance of the risks involved with using phones while driving."
"Education and enforcement are best used in combination, because education need not always be about the issue at hand. So, for example, telling people 'Don't text' could be rather less effective than 'If you do, you'll be stopped and fined'. High-visibility enforcement is the best way we have to drive down offences and there are some pilot projects for distracted driving going on now in Connecticut and upstate New York."
"Take Washington, DC as an example: there are cameras everywhere for reasons of homeland security. If I cross a bridge into town, that'll be picked up. We accept that, it makes us safer, and yet the odds of being involved in a wide-scale terrorist attack on DC are much lower than of being in a traffic accident. It's worth noting that people who live in areas where automated enforcement has already been deployed tend to be among the most supportive of the technology.
"PARS isn't going to be expanding the market. It's not here to sell systems. It's here to increase the understanding of safety and of automated enforcement as a part of a comprehensive road safety strategy. Because we can't simply turn everything over to automation."
"We need to work with the public to place safety front and centre and take the initiative back from the vocal minority. Our primary effort is going to be via public education campaigns and local advocacy groups. That effort has already started.
"We don't have plans, as yet, to engage with those up on Capitol Hill but if we sense that senior politicians are keen to engage then we'll reassess.
"Ours is a national remit supplemented through local coalitions. What we're aiming to do will take time but we have the commitment. And we'll work with whomever wants to be a part of the discussion."
With moves to address drink/drug driving and the wearing of seatbelts starting to prove successful in the US, the use of inappropriate speed and poor driving at intersections have become responsible for a proportionately greater number of the deaths and injuries on the US's roads. Speed and intersection safety have crept up the national political agenda over the last couple of years, therefore. That led, last year, to the formation of PARS, the
Supported financially by some of the major automated enforcement system manufacturers and suppliers in the US market, PARS is working to encourage greater discussion of the different ways to enforce traffic laws and is focusing on speed and intersection safety in particular as these, it says, have not been given enough attention to date by the Federal Government.
Executive director David Kelly, a former Acting Administrator and Chief of Staff for the
"We need a national debate which includes automated enforcement as one part of the solution. If increasing market share was the goal, I think we'd see a very different organisation to PARS. This isn't about increasing the size of the market or market share; the funders of PARS are competitors and will continue to compete with each other in many respects as they always have. But they saw a need for discussion and to cooperate collectively in such way as to allow positive engagement with the wider community.
"The discussion is safety. That includes 'traditional' non-automated enforcement, training and education as well as the application of technology. It may well be that many of the initiatives PARS becomes involved in over time don't even include automated enforcement."
Being such a recent creation, PARS is, he says, at the very earliest stages of reaching out to the safety community. But there are, he continues, many local speed and intersection enforcement initiatives which it would be beneficial to replicate at the state and national level. PARS aims to be a conduit for this: "Our partners are involved with numerous programmes that are very effective at the local level. These might differ in detail but they have the same core values. This is all about keeping people alive."
The absence of a debate on such issues at the Federal level is particularly noticeable. Kelly puts this down to the historical importance, in terms of the overall numbers of casualties caused, to driving while under the influence or of not wearing seatbelts.
"We had about 40,000 people dying on the roads each year, and the prime causes were intoxication and not belting up. Well, the best ways to tackle those issues were to encourage people to drink less and to put on seatbelts. And those efforts there were successful; the numbers of people killed have fallen to around 36,000 annually. That means, in relative terms, that speed and intersection safety have achieved greater importance. I don't think it's a lack of political will for a national discussion but more a case of focus having been elsewhere.
"The debate, though, is gaining critical mass. A big reason is because NHTSA, at its core, has a scientific agenda - everything is done with numbers. Now, as the numbers even out, emerging issues are coming to the fore."
Another factor is that many of the decisions on safety projects are made at the local level.
Kelly: "Most of the decisions aren't made at the Federal level and the Federal Government has no authority to implement a safety programme. The latter tend to be formulated by the state legislatures, and things vary wildly there. Some states are consistently very good at passing traffic safety legislation, and some are consistently very bad.
"At the state level there are some politicians, such as in Arizona, who are tremendously supportive. Others elsewhere take the view that it is for the individual to self-determine.
"However NHTSA can drive the debate through how funding is carried out. It provides funds for safety initiatives to the states for use in local projects. And the states want that money."
Public attitudes
"One thing we'll be working to do is have people realise just how great the support is for automated enforcement. In studies we've conducted, 80 per cent of people questioned support the idea of automated enforcement at intersections; 67 per cent support the use of automated speed enforcement."What was surprising is that among those who support its use, half felt that their friends and neighbours would be against it. There's a disparity between the personal levels of support and the perceived general levels of support. We need to move to a situation where people are thinking, 'I know my neighbour also supports this.'"
Kelly highlights the very vocal stance taken by single-issue groups who cite the 'violation of rights' and 'Big Brother approach' which automated enforcement represents.
"As always, these people get the most attention because they are more vocal and better organised," he says. "The fact is that most people like or support automated enforcement. They just don't jump up and down about it because they see it as common sense."
The balance between individual and collective rights is at the heart of every debate on transport safety-related debate in the US. An example is motorcycle helmet safety laws: proponents of their mandatory use point to the fact that while the individual may be exercising his or her right to not wear one, that individual right all too often translates to a collective, long-term and therefore expensive social security burden when things go wrong and someone is seriously injured rather than killed outright.
Some countries, such as the UK, have implemented outright bans on the use of mobile phones while driving. The US, however, is still struggling to find a consensus.
"I think there's tremendous agreement on the banning of texting or emailing - anything which involves taking the hands off the steering wheel while driving," says Kelly. "Secretary LaHood and President Obama have signed an executive order banning federal driver from doing so while working.
"That's a first step towards more widespread acceptance of the risks involved with using phones while driving."
Perception of risk
"What are missing are effective countermeasures," Kelly continues. "We need to increase perceptions of the risk of getting caught for an offence. A number of studies over the last two decades have asked drivers what would dissuade them from doing something. Consistently, getting a ticket was ranked above having a crash, which in turn was ranked above killing somebody. Routine - using the same roads day after day to make the same journeys to and from work or the supermarket - reduces perceptions of the chances of getting caught."Education and enforcement are best used in combination, because education need not always be about the issue at hand. So, for example, telling people 'Don't text' could be rather less effective than 'If you do, you'll be stopped and fined'. High-visibility enforcement is the best way we have to drive down offences and there are some pilot projects for distracted driving going on now in Connecticut and upstate New York."
Market development
There is a lot of potential for expansion in the US automated enforcement market, Kelly notes. But, he says, it needs to be done in a way in which people think it increases their safety - without that, the all-too-crucial public support will be absent."Take Washington, DC as an example: there are cameras everywhere for reasons of homeland security. If I cross a bridge into town, that'll be picked up. We accept that, it makes us safer, and yet the odds of being involved in a wide-scale terrorist attack on DC are much lower than of being in a traffic accident. It's worth noting that people who live in areas where automated enforcement has already been deployed tend to be among the most supportive of the technology.
"PARS isn't going to be expanding the market. It's not here to sell systems. It's here to increase the understanding of safety and of automated enforcement as a part of a comprehensive road safety strategy. Because we can't simply turn everything over to automation."
Who and how
Kelly says that the main focus of PARS will be on engagement with law enforcement agencies and those responsible for implementing safety programmes"We need to work with the public to place safety front and centre and take the initiative back from the vocal minority. Our primary effort is going to be via public education campaigns and local advocacy groups. That effort has already started.
"We don't have plans, as yet, to engage with those up on Capitol Hill but if we sense that senior politicians are keen to engage then we'll reassess.
"Ours is a national remit supplemented through local coalitions. What we're aiming to do will take time but we have the commitment. And we'll work with whomever wants to be a part of the discussion."
