U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Speeding in

Residential

Areas

by

Michael S. Scott

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

No. 3

Speeding in

Residential Areas

Michael S. Scott

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#99-CK-WX-K004 by the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions

contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series

Guide No. 3

About the Guide Series i

About the Guide Series

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The

guides are written for police–of whatever rank or

assignment–who must address the specific problem the guides

cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and

methods. The guides are not primers in problem-oriented

policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to

focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the

problem, and means to assess the results of a problemoriented policing project. They are designed to help police

decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have

already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced

as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also

published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For

those who want to learn more about the principles and

methods of problem-oriented policing, the assessment and

analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is

most likely to work in your community. You should not

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what

works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii Speeding in Residential Areas

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

The guides describe responses that other police

departments have used or that researchers have tested.

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your

particular problem, they should help give a broader view of

the kinds of things you could do. You may think you

cannot implement some of these responses in your

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when

police have discovered a more effective response, they have

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving

the response to the problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is

available to the police; for other problems, little is available.

Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing

research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more

research on that particular problem. Regardless, research

has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you

might have about the problem. The research may help get

you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot

tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of

keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant

research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed

to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed

and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of

each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a

complete bibliography of research on the subject.

• Are willing to work with other community agencies to find

effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.

They must frequently implement them in partnership with

other responsible private and public entities. An effective

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine
About the Guide Series iii

partnerships with others and be prepared to invest

considerable effort in making these partnerships work.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be

aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders

of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may

have effectively addressed a problem using responses not

considered in these guides and your experiences and

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used

to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and

share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series is very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author,

other project team members, COPS Office staff and

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by

proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University

of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of

criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate

professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati;

Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana

Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the

project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy

coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne

Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was

conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela

Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of

the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line

police officers, police executives and researchers who peer

reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Speeding in Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Factors Contributing to Speeding in Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Beliefs and Attitudes About Speeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Crashes and Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Speeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Responses to the Problem of Speeding in Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Engineering Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Education Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Enforcement Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Contents vii
viii Speeding in Residential Areas

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Problem of Speeding in Residential Areas 1

The Problem of Speeding in Residential

Areas

This guide addresses the problem of speeding in residential

areas, one of the most common sources of citizen complaints

to the police. It is often the chief concern of community

groups, largely because of the perceived risks to children. Yet

because speeding must compete with other problems for

police attention, problems that may appear far more serious,

the police often do not devote a lot of resources to it.

Speeding in residential areas causes five basic types of harm:

• it makes citizens fear for children's safety;

• it makes pedestrians and bicyclists fear for their safety;

• it increases the risk of vehicle crashes;

• it increases the seriousness of injuries to other drivers,

passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists struck by a vehicle;

and 

• it increases noise from engine acceleration and tire friction.

Speeding increases the risks of crashes and injuries for several

reasons:

• the driver is more likely to lose control of the vehicle;

• the vehicle safety equipment is less effective at higher

speeds;

• the distance it takes to stop the vehicle is greater;

• the vehicle travels farther during the time it takes the driver

to react to a hazard; and 

• crashes are more severe at higher speeds.1
2 Speeding in Residential Areas

Related Problems

Speeding in residential areas is only one of many trafficrelated problems the police must address. Other related

problems that call for analysis and response include:

• aggressive driving (commonly referred to as "road rage"),

• speeding and traffic crashes on highways,

• speeding and traffic crashes on rural roads,

• running of red lights, and

• drunken driving.

Factors Contributing to Speeding in Residential Areas

Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem

will help you frame your own local analysis questions,

determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key

intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Even modestly higher speeds can spell the difference between

life and death for pedestrians struck by a vehicle. The force of

impact on the human body is more than one-third greater at

35 mph than at 30 mph.2 Each 1-mph reduction in average

speeds translates roughly to a 5 percent reduction in vehicle

crashes.3

Speeders are disproportionately involved in vehicle crashes.4

Speeding is a contributing factor in about one-eighth of all

crashes and in about one-third of all fatal crashes.5 Most

crashes occur in urban areas, although most fatalities occur on

more remote highways.6
The Problem of Speeding in Residential Areas 3

Beliefs and Attitudes About Speeding

Many cultures heavily promote speeding, giving it a generally

positive social image. Vehicle advertisements often show

driving that would be unsafe for average drivers on real roads.

Most drivers do not think speeding is a particularly serious or

dangerous offense, except in areas where children might be

present.7 Drivers tend to overestimate their driving skills and

underestimate the risks of crashing.8 Speed-related vehicle

collisions are more commonly thought of and referred to as

"accidents" rather than "crashes," suggesting that collisions

are not drivers' fault.

Many drivers admit to speeding in residential areas.9 Their

reasons for speeding include being behind schedule and

wanting to make up for lost time, being unaware of the speed

limit, and trying to keep up with other traffic.10 The most

important factor in determining speed is the driver's

perception of the road environment and of what speed it is

safe to drive.11, † Whatever drivers' specific reasons, it appears

they make calculated decisions to speed,12 creating

opportunities for the police to alter their calculations.††

From a wider social policy perspective, reducing speed must

be balanced with other goals such as promoting a healthy

economy (which partly entails getting goods and services

delivered quickly), reducing environmental pollution, and

promoting healthy behavior (by encouraging walking, running

and bicycling).13

† Traffic engineers take drivers'

perceptions into account in setting

speed limits. The common standard

for a posted speed limit is the speed

at which 85 percent of drivers travel

at or below, known as the 85th

percentile speed (National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration 1997).

†† For detailed information on

drivers' habits, attitudes and beliefs,

see National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1998); Department

of the Environment, Transport and

the Regions (1998); and Corbett and

Simon (1992).

Understanding Your Local Problem 5

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized

description of speeding in residential areas. You must

combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of

your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will

help you design a more effective response strategy.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask in

analyzing your particular problem of speeding in residential

areas, even if the answers are not always readily available.

Your answers to these and other questions will help you

choose the most appropriate responses later on.

Crashes and Complaints 

• How many crashes occur in residential areas? How many

are crashes with other vehicles? Pedestrians? Bicyclists? 

• How serious are the injuries?

• What percentage of crashes in residential areas are speedrelated?

• How, specifically, do the speed-related crashes occur? Single

vehicle going off the road? Multiple vehicles crashing into

one another? Head-on, rear-end, side-impact crashes?

• Are there multiple factors involved, such as speeding to

make it through yellow traffic signals?

• How many complaints do police receive about speeding in

residential areas? What, specifically, do citizens complain

about? Actual crashes? Fear of walking or riding? Noise?
6 Speeding in Residential Areas

Speeders

• Who are the most frequent offenders? Area residents?

Commuters? Visitors? Why do they say they speed?

• Who are the worst offenders? How fast do they drive?

Locations/Times

• On which specific streets or blocks is speeding a problem?

On what days and at what times? (Computer mapping

software can help you answer a number of questions about

where and when the problem occurs.)

• Is the speed limit prominently posted?

• Is the speed limit proper for road conditions? Too high?

Too low? What is the 85th percentile speed?

• What road conditions make speeding more likely? Can

these conditions be modified?

• Do crashes occur at intersections, on straight roads or at

curves?

Current Responses

• How much do officers conduct speed enforcement in the

problem areas now? What factors determine where they

conduct it? Are speed and crash studies conducted before

targeting particular locations for enforcement?

• What is the formal or informal tolerance range before

officers issue citations? What do most drivers think it is?

• Do officers give warnings in lieu of citations? Do they

officially record those warnings? What criteria do they use

in deciding to give warnings? 

• Does the law allow officers to use speed cameras?
Understanding Your Local Problem 7

• What are the typical fines and penalties for speeding in the

problem areas? Do they seem to be meaningful

consequences for offenders?

• Have officers used speed display boards in problem areas?

• Do officers work closely with road and traffic engineers to

establish speed limits and identify and correct speed-related

problems?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify

your responses if they are not producing the intended results.

You should take measures of your problem before you

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they

have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the

target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide

to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

Speeding, unlike so many other problems the police must

address, allows for precise measurement–of speeds, crashes,

causes, complaints, etc. Measures of the effectiveness of

responses to speeding problems, therefore, can and should be

reliable and accurate. The following are potentially useful

measures of the effectiveness of responses to speeding in

residential areas:

• the average speeds of vehicles (taken in mid-blocks),

• the percentage of vehicles speeding,
8 Speeding in Residential Areas

• the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by

various amounts,

• the number of vehicle crashes,

• the number of injuries caused by vehicle crashes,

• the severity of injuries caused by vehicle crashes, and

• the volume of citizen complaints about speeding.

The number of citations issued is not an appropriate measure

of the impact of your responses; it merely provides

information about police enforcement levels. Pay attention to

the possible displacement effects of your efforts: drivers may

divert to adjoining areas or roads, with positive or negative

results.
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 9

Responses to the Problem of Speeding in

Residential Areas

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible

responses to address the problem.

The following response strategies provide a foundation of

ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies

are drawn from a variety of research studies and police

reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your

community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy

will involve implementing several different responses. Law

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing

or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering

what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in

your community shares responsibility for the problem and can

help police better respond to it. Regardless of which

responses you prefer, it is strongly recommended that you

consult with affected citizens and transportation authorities

before implementing the responses. Much common wisdom

about how to reduce speeds is wrong, but unless citizens are

properly informed and consulted about what is and is not

effective and acceptable, they will not likely support your

actions.

Engineering Responses

1. Using traffic calming. Traffic calming describes a wide

range of road and environment design changes that either

make it more difficult for a vehicle to speed or make drivers
10 Speeding in Residential Areas

believe they should slow down for safety. The measures are

also intended to make roads easier and safer for pedestrians

and bicyclists to use. Traffic calming measures are particularly

effective at reducing speeds in residential areas.14 Some of the

more common traffic calming measures are:

• narrowing the road,

• putting bends and curves in the road,

• installing road humps,†

• adding chicanes (traffic deflections that narrow or redirect

the road),

• marking the road to create the illusion that it is narrowing,

• adding pedestrian crosswalks that are raised or made from

distinctive materials,

• planting trees and other foliage along roadsides,

† Road (or speed) humps are

different from speed bumps. Speed

humps are about 12 feet wide and 2 to

3 inches high, and can be crossed

safely at 20 to 30 mph. Properly

designed, they can accommodate

large vehicles such as fire trucks.

Speed bumps are shorter and

narrower, and can be crossed safely

only at lower speeds. They can

damage large vehicles. They are

more appropriately installed in

parking lots than on roads.

Although the street sign describes them as "street

bumps," these "speed humps" can be crossed

safely by cars traveling 20 to 30 mph.

Kip Kellogg
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 11

• building traffic circles† and roundabouts,††

• building traffic islands (for pedestrians crossing a wide road),

• installing gateways to residential neighborhoods,

• permitting parking on both sides of residential streets,†††

• timing traffic signals for vehicles traveling the desired speed,

• erecting mid-block barriers that create two cul-de-sacs, and

• adding mid-block build-outs (sidewalk area extensions into

the road).

† The city of Seattle has installed

over 600 traffic circles, mainly in

residential neighborhoods where they

are popular among residents. The

circles have helped reduce traffic

crashes and resulting injuries

dramatically (National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration 1999).

See www.usroads.com/journals

(TranSafety) for detailed descriptions

of traffic circles.

†† It is essential that vehicles

traveling in the roundabouts have the

right-of-way, rather than those entering

the roundabouts, for them to be

effective in reducing crashes

(National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration 1999).

††† The speed reductions achieved

by permitting parking must be offset

against the increased risk to

pedestrians who dart into the road

from between parked vehicles.

Traffic circles, of varying sizes, reduce speeds and crashes in residential areas.

Kip Kellogg

Neighborhood gateways remind drivers that they are entering

residential areas where lower speeds are appropriate.

Kip Kellogg
12 Speeding in Residential Areas

The U.S. Department of Transportation prepares traffic

advisory leaflets that provide illustrations and technical details

about many road design features.

The Dutch pioneered the redesign of residential areas in ways

that blend driving and nondriving activities. Roads are

designed as extensions of the public space used for walking,

riding and playing rather than as separate avenues for vehicle

travel.15 In the United States, Seattle; Portland and Eugene,

Ore.; and West Palm Beach and Sarasota, Fla., have used

traffic calming measures extensively.

Traffic calming measures can be expensive, however, so their

cost-effectiveness must be determined over the long term.

Traffic calming measures work best if they are understood

and accepted by the public, take into account the special

requirements of emergency response vehicles, and are

reinforced with adequate levels of police enforcement.16

Properly designed, traffic calming measures can also reduce

noise levels by reducing vehicle acceleration. Without traffic

calming measures, it is difficult for police to reduce average

vehicle speeds below 25 mph.17

2. Posting warning signs and signals. Painting speed limits

or "SLOW" on the road surface, in combination with posting

roadside signs, can help reduce speeds.18 Transverse pavement

markings create the illusion of high speed, and when placed

ahead of traffic hazards, have been shown to cause drivers to

slow down.19 Strobe light signals, flashing signals and warning

signs painted in eye-catching fluorescent colors can improve

drivers' awareness of special hazards and reduced speed

limits.20 Where there are many other signs and sights

competing for drivers' attention, it is not easy to get drivers to

notice speed warnings. Warning signs and signals are more

effective if they convey the reason that drivers should slow
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 13

down (e.g., curve ahead, school zone, road construction).21

Other signs, such as those that warn of children in the area,

are not known to effectively reduce speeds.22

Education Responses

The goal of education responses is to make speeding socially

unacceptable. But given the current acceptability of speeding,

there is the potential for a negative backlash against antispeeding campaigns.23

3. Conducting anti-speeding public awareness

campaigns. Anti-speeding public awareness campaigns have

been recommended, even though their effects may not be

immediate and substantial; they help change the social

acceptability of speeding and alter drivers' beliefs that they are

better and safer than other drivers.24 Public awareness

campaigns need not be overtly accusatory, but should convey

facts about the dangers and consequences of speeding so as

to debunk common myths about speed and driving. Because

many drivers say they speed merely to keep up with traffic,

Warning signs such as these pedestrian crossing and school

zone signs remind drivers to slow down.

Kip Kellogg
14 Speeding in Residential Areas

encouraging voluntary compliance with speed limits can help

slow down those drivers who consciously or subconsciously

follow the lead of other drivers.

A twist on the conventional public awareness campaign that

discourages speeding is a campaign that encourages obeying the

speed limit. In some campaigns of this sort, police have

achieved positive results by stopping drivers and thanking

them for obeying the speed limit; in others, signs have been

posted indicating the percentage of drivers obeying the speed

limit.25

An interesting method for making the public aware of the

hazards of speeding in school zones comes from Lithuania.

There, drivers are required to keep their headlights on at all

times during the first week school is in session as a reminder

to one another to drive carefully where children are present.

Some public awareness campaigns are professionally

developed, using television, radio and billboards. These

campaigns typically convey official, government-sanctioned

messages about speeding risks. Anti-speeding campaigns

developed at the grass-roots level are potentially even more

effective than official campaigns. Using simple lawn signs,

speed display boards, warning letters, or personal appeals to

speeders who have been stopped, these campaigns can convey

more heartfelt messages to speeders about the risks they

create.

Grass-roots anti-speeding signs convey more heartfelt messages to speeders.

Kip Kellogg
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 15

4. Informing complainants about actual speeds.

Complainants do not always estimate vehicle speeds

accurately. Vehicle speed almost always seems faster to a

stationary pedestrian than to a moving motorist. Where you

suspect that complainants' concerns may be exaggerated, you

might have a police officer monitor speeds with complainants

present. Some complainants may be surprised to learn that

vehicles are in fact traveling the speed limit. This does not

necessarily mean that speeds are appropriate for the

conditions, but at a minimum it helps complainants better

understand what responses might be most appropriate to

remedy the problem.

5. Providing realistic driver training. Realistic driver

training similar to what police officers receive can help drivers

better appreciate the effects of speed on their ability to

control a vehicle.26 Proper realistic training courses require

skilled instructors, special safety equipment and protected

driving areas.

Enforcement Responses

6. Enforcing speeding laws. Long-term changes in drivers'

attitudes toward speeding depend on drivers' perceived risk of

being stopped.27 However, a considerable investment of

resources is required to significantly increase the risk of

getting caught.28 The public generally supports speed

enforcement, especially in residential areas and other areas

where there are children.29 Speed enforcement works best if

• drivers believe it will occur;

• it has meaningful costs to offenders;

• police apply it generally, rather than at specific times and

locations; and
16 Speeding in Residential Areas

• drivers are not tipped off by cues as to when it is or is not

happening.30

With respect to the last condition above, you must balance

making the public aware of the enforcement campaign against

allowing drivers to anticipate precisely where and when

officers are conducting enforcement. For example, you might

consider advertising on the radio that the police will be

enforcing speeding laws on particular roads on particular days,

but not give visual cues to drivers of the exact location of the

speed detection devices and officers. This will enhance the

deterrent effect for drivers listening to the radio, without

reducing the deterrent effect for those who are not. The

enforcement times and locations should be varied enough so

that drivers do not become confident that they can avoid

detection. Advance publicity of enforcement campaigns also

increases public support for enforcement by establishing a

sense of fairness to drivers. Explaining why police have

targeted particular locations for enforcement (e.g., high rate of

crashes or citizen complaints) also increases public support.†

Enforcement should be conducted both at problem locations

and at randomly selected locations to maximize deterrence.††

Stationary marked police vehicles are more effective than

moving marked police vehicles in reducing speed.31

Police enforcement is expensive to maintain consistently, and

it quickly loses its effect where the enforcement effort is not

visible to drivers.32 Intensive speed enforcement also loses its

effectiveness because of the typical incentive system for

traffic officers–they are rewarded for issuing citations rather

than for maintaining reduced average speeds. Consequently, as

soon as the enforcement effort has the positive effect of

reducing speeds, there are fewer violations and traffic officers

move on to other locations, after which speeds quickly resume

their pre-enforcement levels.33

† The Silverthorne, Colo., Police

Department surveyed the community

to determine the thresholds at which

the public believed the police should

issue speeding citations at specific

locations. The police issued the

survey results to drivers stopped for

speeding, thereby enhancing police

authority to enforce speeding laws

and minimizing citizen complaints

about speed enforcement.

†† An Australian study concluded

that posting police officers in marked

police vehicles on randomly selected

stretches of road at random times

generally is a cost-effective way to

maximize deterrence and reduce

traffic crashes (Leggett 1997).
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 17

7. Enforcing speeding laws with speed cameras. Speed

cameras, also referred to as photo radar, are cost-effective in

reducing speeds, crashes, injuries, and fatalities, particularly

when detected violations are prosecuted.34 Speed cameras,

used in conjunction with other responses, were determined to

have been effective in reducing the percentage of speeders,

vehicle crashes, injuries, and fatalities in Victoria, Australia.35

There, speed cameras were mounted either in unmarked

police vehicles or on tripods along the roadside, without

advance warnings to drivers about the cameras' location. The

police could move the cameras around so drivers could not

predict where they were placed. Most were placed along roads

with 60-kilometer-per-hour (37.2-mph) speed limits, and so

the results from this test do not necessarily apply to

residential roads. However, there is little reason to assume

cameras will not work on such roads. Some drivers slow down

when approaching speed cameras, but quickly speed up once

they pass.36 This can be countered by hiding the cameras

Drivers should not be able to easily detect when and where speed

enforcement is occurring.

Kip Kellogg
18 Speeding in Residential Areas

better and otherwise preventing drivers from knowing exactly

where they are. In some jurisdictions, the relatively

inexpensive protective boxes in which speed cameras are

placed are mounted in many locations, leaving drivers

uncertain as to which boxes actually contain cameras at any

particular time.

The public has generally accepted the use of speed cameras,

especially in high-risk zones, although there are some strong

objections to the invasion of privacy and preferences for

personal interactions with enforcers.37 Speed cameras were

first authorized by law in the United Kingdom in 1991; they

are now used by all British police forces. Norway has used

them effectively since 1988.38 Not all U.S. jurisdictions have

specifically authorized speed cameras for prosecution, and

some states and municipalities have specifically rejected

proposals for their use. You should first gauge public support

for speed cameras before formally attempting to use them.

There are also a number of issues regarding the fees charged

by companies that install and operate speed cameras, and how

the revenue generated from fines is to be used.

The first generation of speed cameras required that the film

be taken manually from the cameras, to be processed. More

advanced technology allows for more efficient remote image

processing.39

8. Using speed display boards. Speed display boards

measure oncoming vehicles' speeds and prominently display

the speeds to drivers. Speed display boards have been shown

to reduce speeds and crashes, and appear to be at least as

effective as speed cameras in reducing speeds, and to do so

more cost-effectively.40 Speed display boards are particularly

effective with drivers who are not paying attention to their
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 19

speed. They are more effective when supplemented with

police enforcement–in this combination, the effect can last

several weeks after they are removed. Unattended display

boards, however, are vulnerable to vandalism.

9. Arresting the worst offenders. As one method for

changing public attitudes toward speeding, some police

agencies have amended their arrest policies and placed serious

offenders (those driving much higher than the speed limit) in

custody rather than merely releasing them with a citation. The

intent is to convey a strong message that driving well over the

speed limit is a seriously dangerous offense and not a

harmless technical infraction.† This response may require

special legislation and policies.

10. Having citizen volunteers monitor speeding. Some

police agencies have recruited and trained citizen volunteers

to operate speed detection devices in residential areas.41 The

volunteers record the vehicle speeds and license plate

† The Glendale, Ariz., Police

Department (1998) used this

response as part of a comprehensive

strategy to reduce speeding. The

police department's custodial arrest

policy was specifically authorized

under state law.

Kip Kellogg

Speed display boards are a cost-effective way to reduce speeds.
20 Speeding in Residential Areas

numbers and turn them over to the police. Police then send

official warning letters to the registered vehicle owners. Other

police agencies, such as the Madison, Wis., Police

Department, have had citizens join police officers on traffic

stops to explain the community's concerns about speeding to

drivers.

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

11. Reducing speed limits. Speed limits alone have little

effect on actual vehicle speeds. Reducing posted speed limits

will typically decrease actual average vehicle speeds by only

one-fourth of the reduction.42 So, for example, reducing the

posted speed limit from 30 to 25 mph will reduce actual

average vehicle speeds by only a little more than 1 mph.

When speed limits are set lower than what most drivers

consider safe (typically, the 85th percentile), the net effect is

to cause many drivers to ignore those speed limits, as well as

other posted speed limits;43 if police enforcement of the

reduced limits fails to establish a credible deterrent, drivers

may increasingly lose respect for all speed limits. In some

jurisdictions, a posted speed limit lower than the 85th

percentile speed may constitute a legal defense to

enforcement. Careful speed studies should be conducted

before speed limits are changed. Similar roads should have

similar speed limits so drivers do not come to believe that

speed limits are set arbitrarily. 44, †

Traffic and road engineers may inadvertently increase vehicle

speeds when they build extra safety margins into the road

design and speed limit.45 For example, if they want vehicles to

travel 25 mph along a particular road, they might set the

speed limit at 25 mph, but design the road using accepted

guidelines for 30-mph travel, thinking this will provide an

extra safety margin. However, the accepted guidelines already

† The Wisconsin Transportation

Information Center (1999) published

a guide for setting speed limits on

local roads. Although it specifically

refers to Wisconsin, much of the

information applies to any

jurisdiction.
Responses to Speeding in Residential Areas 21

have a safety margin factored into them, so the result is a

double safety margin that actually makes the road seem safe

for travel at 35 to 40 mph. Because most drivers travel at what

they perceive are safe speeds rather than the posted speed

limit, they will end up driving 10 to 15 mph faster than the

engineers originally intended. This unintended effect reflects

an underlying tension in road safety–a desire on the one hand

to build roads that encourage drivers to drive at slower, safer

speeds, and a desire on the other hand to make roads safe

enough for drivers who choose to drive faster. Road and

traffic engineers have often tried to resolve this tension by

making roads wider, straighter and more obstruction-free.

More recent trends have been in the opposite direction, to get

drivers to slow down.

12. Increasing fines and penalties. Higher fines and

penalties, beyond the threshold that offenders consider

meaningful, do not continue to reduce speeds.46

13. Erecting stop signs. Many aggrieved citizens believe that

erecting stop signs along residential roads will force drivers to

slow down. They pressure elected officials and traffic

engineers to erect new stop signs. However, the most

common effect on actual driving behavior is that drivers

speed up mid-block to make up for lost time, thereby keeping

average speeds high, increasing acceleration noise and

decreasing fuel efficiency.47

14. Installing speed bumps or rumble strips. Speed bumps,

as opposed to speed humps, do not effectively reduce speeds,

and can be hazardous.48 Rumble strips–intermittent series of

bumps across the road–do not reduce speeds directly; they

merely serve to warn drivers of a hazard ahead.49
22 Speeding in Residential Areas

15. Reengineering vehicles. New vehicle technology holds

some potential to control speeding, but most features are not

yet standard or widely accepted by the public.50 Speed limiters

prevent a vehicle from going faster than a set speed. Speed

limiters can be programmed to receive electronic signals from

transmitters along the road and adjust maximum speeds

automatically. So-called smart cards can electronically record a

vehicle's speed and report it automatically to enforcement

authorities. Electronic speed indicators, reading electronic roadside

signals, can warn drivers they are speeding, or speed indicators

in the vehicle can electronically trigger roadside warning

signals.
Appendix 23

Appendix: Summary of Responses to

Speeding in Residential Areas

The table below summarizes the responses to speeding in

residential areas, the mechanism by which they are intended to

work, the conditions under which they ought to work best,

and some factors you should consider before implementing a

particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy

will involve implementing several different responses. Law

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing

or solving the problem.

1.

2.

9

12

Using traffic

calming

Posting warning

signs and signals

Makes it more

difficult for

vehicles to speed,

or makes drivers

believe they

should slow down

for safety

Encourages

drivers to slow

down by

reminding them

of the speed limit

and calling their

attention to

hazards on the

road ahead

...road and

environment

changes are made

in compliance

with

recommended

specifications, the

affected public

supports the

changes, and

potential negative

impacts are

considered and

minimized

...the signs or

signals stand out

from other road

signage, they

convey the reason

for the reduced

speed, and they

are supplemented

by police

enforcement

Some changes to

the environment

require high

capital

expenditures;

cost-effectiveness

must be

considered over

the long term

Where there are

many other signs

and sights

competing for

drivers' attention,

it is not easy to

get drivers to

notice speed

warnings

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Engineering Responses
24 Speeding in Residential Areas

3.

4.

5.

6.

13

15

15

15

Conducting antispeeding public

awareness

campaigns

Informing

complainants

about actual

speeds

Providing

realistic driver

training

Enforcing

speeding laws

Intended to

change the social

acceptability of

speeding

Improves

complainants'

understanding of

the exact nature

of the problem

Helps drivers

better appreciate

the effects of

speed on their

ability to control

a vehicle

Increases drivers'

risks of being

stopped

...they are

carefully tailored

for various target

audiences (e.g.,

commuters, young

male drivers)

...you suspect

that complaints

are exaggerated or

unrealistic

...drivers can

actually feel the

effects of speed

on their driving

skills

...drivers believe

it will occur, it has

meaningful costs

to offenders,

police apply it

generally rather

than only at

specific times and

The effects are

usually not

immediate and

substantial; the

messages need not

be overtly

accusatory, but may

convey facts about

the dangers and

consequences of

speeding to debunk

myths about speed

and driving

Proving that

vehicles are

traveling the speed

limit does not

necessarily mean

that speeds are

appropriate for

conditions, but

might suggest that

responses other

than enforcement

are more

appropriate

Requires skilled

instructors, special

safety equipment

and protected

driving areas

Requires a lot of

resources initially to

change drivers'

perceived risks of

getting stopped;

giving the public

advance notice must

be balanced against

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Education Responses

Enforcement Responses
Appendix 25

6. (cont’d)

7.

8.

9.

17

18

19

Enforcing

speeding laws

with speed

cameras

Using speed

display boards

Arresting the

worst offenders

Significantly

increases the level

of speed

monitoring and

enforcement, thus

increasing drivers'

perceptions of

the risk of getting

caught speeding

and serving as a

deterrent

Encourages

drivers to slow

down by

measuring vehicle

speeds and

prominently

displaying them 

Helps change the

common belief

that speeding is

not a serious

offense

locations, and

drivers are not

tipped off by cues

as to when

enforcement is or

is not happening

...camera

placement is not

too obvious, and

locations are

changed

periodically

... a high

percentage of

drivers speed

inadvertently, and

the speed display

boards are

supplemented by

police

enforcement

...there is

sufficient public

support 

not allowing drivers

to anticipate where

and when

enforcement is

occurring; expensive

to maintain

consistently

Drivers slow down

when they know

they are

approaching a speed

camera, but quickly

speed up once they

have passed it; some

strong public

concerns about

invasions of privacy

and absence of

personal interaction

in enforcement;

usually requires

special legislative

authorization for

cameras' use as

evidence in

prosecution;

financial issues

related to fees and

uses of fine revenue

Unattended speed

display boards are

vulnerable to

vandalism

May require special

legislative and

policy authorization

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations
26 Speeding in Residential Areas

10.

11.

12.

13.

19

20

21

21

Having citizen

volunteers

monitor speeding

Reducing speed

limits

Increasing fines

and penalties

Erecting stop

signs

Enhances

informal social

disapproval of

speeding 

Intended to slow

drivers' speeds

through posted

signs and police

enforcement

Creates

meaningful

consequences for

speeders, thereby

deterring all

drivers, generally,

and those who are

cited, specifically

...citizens who

are directly

affected by the

speeding

participate

...there are

adequate levels of

police

enforcement

...the fines and

penalties are set

high enough to

get drivers'

attention, but not

so high as to

compromise

public support for

them

Citizens must be

properly trained for

the specific tasks

Reducing speed

limits by itself will

reduce average

speeds only by

small amounts;

some speed limits

are too low rather

than too high,

inviting disrespect

for them; careful

speed studies

should be

conducted before

changing speed

limits

Beyond a certain

threshold, higher

fines and penalties

do not continue to

reduce speeds

The effects are to

increase speeds

mid-block and

increase noise from

vehicle acceleration

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Responses With Limited Effectiveness
Appendix 27

14.

15.

21

22

Installing speed

bumps or rumble

strips

Reengineering

vehicles

Technological

devices can

restrict vehicles'

maximum speed,

automatically

notify authorities

that vehicles are

speeding, or

trigger warning

signals to drivers

when they are

speeding

...consumers are

willing to accept

this technology

and pay for it

They do not reduce

speeds directly, but

merely warn drivers

of hazards ahead

To date, few

vehicles or roads

are equipped with

this technology, and

public support for it

is not yet certain

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Endnotes 29

Endnotes

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1997). 2 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1999); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999). 3 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); Corbett and Simon (1999). 4 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998). 5 Corbett and Simon (1999); Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998); National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1997). 6 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); Glazer (1997). 7 Corbett and Simon (1999); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1998). 8 Corbett and Simon (1999). 9 Corbett and Simon (1999); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1998). 10 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1998). 11 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999). 12 Corbett and Simon (1992). 13 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998). 14 Corbett and Simon (1992); Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998); National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999); Michigan

Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.); Glazer (1997). 15 Glazer (1997). 16 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 17 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998).
30 Speeding in Residential Areas

18 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999). 19 Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). 20 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999);

Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). 21 TranSafety (1997). 22 Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). 23 Bourne and Cook (1993). 24 Corbett and Simon (1999); Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999); National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1998, 1999). 25 Sherer et al. (1984). 26 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998). 27 Bourne and Cook (1993). 28 Bourne and Cook (1993); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999). 29 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1998). 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 31 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 32 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 33 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 34 Bourne and Cook (1993); Cameron, Cavallo and Gilbert

(1992); Corbett and Simon (1999); Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998); National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999); TranSafety

(1997). 35 Bourne and Cook (1993); Cameron, Cavallo and Gilbert

(1992). 36 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998). 37 Bourne and Cook (1993); Corbett and Simon (1999);

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1998,

1999). 38 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999).
Appendix 31

39 Bourne and Cook (1993). 40 TranSafety (1998); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999); Michigan Office of Highway Safety

Planning (n.d.). 41 Los Angeles Police Department (1996); Michigan Office of

Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). 42 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1999); Michigan Office of Highway Safety

Planning (n.d.). 43 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998); National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (1997). 44 Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions (1998). 45 Glazer (1997). 46 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 47 Glazer (1997); Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning

(n.d.). 48 Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). 49 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999). 50 Corbett and Simon (1999); Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998).

References 33

References

Bourne, M., and R. Cook (1993). "Victoria's Speed Camera

Program." In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 1.

Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Cameron, M., A. Cavallo and A. Gilbert (1992). "Crash-Based

Evaluation of the Speed Camera Program in Victoria, 1990-

1991." Victoria, Australia: Monash University Accident

Research Center.

Corbett, C., and F. Simon (1999). "The Effects of Speed

Cameras: How Drivers Respond." London: Brunel

University Center for Criminal Justice Research.

(1992). "Decisions To Break or Adhere to the Rules

of the Road, Viewed From the Rational Choice

Perspective." British Journal of Criminology 32(4):537-549.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

(1999). "Kill Your Speed Campaign." January/February.

www.detr.gov.uk

(1998). "New Directions in Speed Management: A

Review of Policy." Oct. 19. www.detr.gov.uk

Glazer, S. (1997). "Aggressive Driving: Can Road Designers

and Police Calm Motorists Down?" CQ Researcher 7(28):651-

671.

Glendale (Ariz.) Police Department (1998). "Speed

Enforcement Program." Submission for the Herman

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing.
Leggett, L. (1997). "Using Police Enforcement To Prevent Road

Crashes: The Randomised Scheduled Management System."

In R. Homel (ed.), Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public

Intoxication and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey,

N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Los Angeles Police Department (1996). "West Traffic Division."

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence

in Problem-Oriented Policing. See also, Helfand, D. (1996).

"Gunning for Speeders." Los Angeles Times, April 4.

Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (n.d.). "Speed

Control in Residential Areas." Report of the Residential Area

Speed Control Ad Hoc Committee of the Traffic Engineering

and Enforcement Committee. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan

Office of Highway Safety Planning.

www.ohsp.state.mi.us/safety/saf_roadway.htm

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999).

"Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian

Injuries." Final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation. www.nhtsa.dot.gov

(1998). "Nationwide Survey Regarding Speeding and

Other Unsafe Driving Actions, Volumes I-III." Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. www.nhtsa.dot.gov

(1997). Speed Management Work Plan. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Transportation. www.nhtsa.dot.gov

Sherer, M., R. Friedmann, A. Rolider, and R. Van Houten

(1984). "The Effects of a Saturation Enforcement Campaign

on Speeding in Haifa, Israel." Journal of Police Science and

Administration 12:4, 425-430.

34 Speeding in Residential Areas
References 35

TranSafety (1998). "Study Reports on the Effectiveness of

Photo Radar and Speed Display Boards." Road Injury

Prevention and Litigation Journal. www.usroads.com

(1997). "Warnings Combined With Enforcement Can

Reduce Speeding." Road Management Journal.

www.usroads.com

Wisconsin Transportation Information Center (1999). Setting

Speed Limits on Local Roads. Wisconsin Transportation

Bulletin No. 21. Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin Transportation

Information Center.

About the Author 37

About the Author

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is an independent police consultant based in

Savannah, Ga. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill,

Fla.; served in various civilian administrative positions in the

St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City

police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison,

Wis., Police Department. Scott developed training programs

in problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research

Forum (PERF), and is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. He is the

author of Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20

Years, and coauthor (with Rana Sampson) of Tackling Crime

and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving.

Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a

bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Recommended Readings 39

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). This guide is a companion to the

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It provides basic

guidance to measuring and assessing problem-oriented

policing efforts. Available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
40 Speeding in Residential Areas

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke

(Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 1998).

Explains how crime theories such as routine activity theory,

rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.
Recommended Readings 41

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20

Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000).

Describes how the most critical elements of Herman

Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport

News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman (Police

Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the rationale

behind problem-oriented policing and the problem-solving

process, and provides examples of effective problemsolving in one agency.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships, by

Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy

Rinehart and Meg Townsend (U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1998)

(also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief

introduction to problem-solving, basic information on the

SARA model and detailed suggestions about the problemsolving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies,

Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Harrow and

Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and methods of

situational crime prevention, and presents over 20 case

studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
42 Speeding in Residential Areas

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson and

Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for

Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing. Available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Guides in the Series 43

Other Guides in This Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series (available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov):

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002.

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002.

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
44 Speeding in Residential Areas

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott.

2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and

Meg Townsend. 1998.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of

Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770 or check our website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site by the address listed below.

e05021557 Created Date: May 21, 2002

www.cops.usdoj.gov