www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

Integrating Speed Management 

within Roadway Departure, Intersections, and 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Focus Areas
02

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in 

the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the 

information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the 

document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous 

quality improvement. 
i

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-16-017

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Integrating Speed Management within Roadway Departure, Intersections, 

and Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Focus Areas

5. Report Date

 April 2016

6. Performing Organizations Code

7. Authors

 Michelle Neuner, Jennifer Atkinson, Brian Chandler, Shauna Hallmark, Robert 

Milstead, Richard Retting

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos

11251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston, VA 20190

Subconsultants:

Brudis & Associates, Inc.

Iowa State University

Sam Schwartz Engineering

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

 Contract No. DTFH61-10-D-00024

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Report

 March 2014-August 2015

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSA

15. Supplementary Notes

Guan Xu (guan.xu@dot.gov), Office of Safety Speed Management Safety, served as the Task Manager for the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff members contributed as technical working group 

members, reviewers, and/or provided feedback to the project at various stages: Craig Allred, Will Longstreet, 

Tamara Redmon, Gabe Rousseau, Jeff Shaw, and Abdul Zineddin.

16. Abstract

Speeding contributes to nearly one-third of all roadway fatalities, and this proportion has remained largely 

unchanged for the past decade. Since roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes have been 

identified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the three areas with great potential to reduce fatalities, 

States are being encouraged to integrate speed management into these three safety focus areas. To assist agencies 

with integrating speed management into their policies, practices, and safety plans, this report presents information 

on national speeding-related crash trends, promotes a speed-related crash data analysis approach, and recommends 

strategies and initiatives for integrating speed management into an agency’s overall policies, as well as their roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicyclist safety programs.

17. Key Words

Speed management, focus areas, roadway departure, intersection, 

pedestrian, bicyclist, safety, countermeasure

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 128

22. Price 

 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

iii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Speed Management and the Three Focus Safety Areas.................................................................................................................4

1.2 Research Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................................................5

1.3 Organization of Report..........................................................................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2. Speed Management State of the Practice ........................................................................................ 7

2.1 Policies and Procedures........................................................................................................................................................................................7

2.2 Safety Plans and Focus Areas............................................................................................................................................................................7

2.3 Research Publications and Guidance...........................................................................................................................................................9

2.4 Future Opportunities.............................................................................................................................................................................................9

Chapter 3. Program Level Strategies for Integrating Speed Management................................................. 11

3.1 Establish or Enhance Policies, Safety Plans, and Performance Measures .........................................................................11

3.2 Educate and Improve Awareness ..............................................................................................................................................................12

3.3 Collaborate with Stakeholders .....................................................................................................................................................................13

3.4 Establish Data Analysis Process for Analyzing Speeding-related Crash Data ................................................................13

Chapter 4. Integrating Speed Management within the Three Safety Focus Areas ................................... 17

4.1 Roadway Departure and Speed Management...................................................................................................................................17

4.1.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends................................................................................................................................................17

4.1.2 Strategies......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Intersections and Speed Management.................................................................................................................................................. 25

4.2.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends.............................................................................................................................................. 25

4.2.2 Strategies..........................................................................................................................................................................................................28

4.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists and Speed Management................................................................................................................................31

4.3.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends...............................................................................................................................................31

4.3.2 Strategies......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Chapter 5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................37

5.1 Gaps and Opportunities for Future Safety Improvements..........................................................................................................37

Appendix A –Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-Critical Events................47

Appendix B – Safety Focus Groups and Summary of Interviews ................................................................105

Appendix C – Additional Resources................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix D – Gaps and Needs in Research...................................................................................................... 113
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Trend in Fatalities and Speeding-related Fatalities in the United States.......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 – Integrating Speed Management with the Three Focus Areas Can Help Transportation Agencies Move 

Towards Zero Deaths, the National Vision for Safety .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3 – Pedestrian's Risk of Death Relating to Impact Speed................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4 – Percent of Roadway Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Crash Type..........................................................................18

Figure 5– Critical Locations for Rollover/Overturn Roadway Departure Crashes..........................................................................................18

Figure 6– Critical Locations for Opposing Direction Roadway Departure Crashes......................................................................................18

Figure 7– Critical Locations for Roadway Departure Crashes Involving Trees..................................................................................................18

Figure 8 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by 

Type of Roadway......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19

Figure 9 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by 

Type of Roadway......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19

Figure 10 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Speed Limit (MPH) of Corresponding Approach.........................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 11 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Speed Limit (MPH) of Corresponding Approach.........................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 12 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Horizontal Alignment.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 13 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Horizontal Alignment.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 14 – Percentage of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatalities by 

Driver Age and Gender........................................................................................................................................................................................................................22

Figure 15 – Distribution of Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by Hour of Day .....................................................22

Figure 16 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway..............25

Figure 17 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) 

of Corresponding Approach ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 18 – Percentage of Drivers by Age and Gender Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes...................26

Figure 19 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle .................27

Figure 20 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle....................27

Figure 21 – Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Crash Type...........................................................................28

Figure 22 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections 

by Vehicle Type..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28

Figure 23 – Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Location.......................................................32

Figure 24 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by 

Posted Speed Limit.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 25 – Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by 

Age and Gender.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33

Figure 26 – Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Hour of Day................................................33
v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

BAC Blood Alcohol Concentration

CMF Crash Modification Factors

CRF Crash Reduction Factors

CV Connected Vehicle

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GES General Estimation System

HAWK High Intensity Crosswalk

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

ICWS Intersection Collision Warning System

IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NDS Naturalistic Driving Study

NHS National Highway System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PEDSAFE Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

RCUT Restricted Crossing U-turn Intersection

RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon

RSAP Roadside Safety Analysis Program

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program

SHSP State Highway Safety Plan

TZD Towards Zero Deaths

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

V2I Vehicle to Infrastructure

V2P Vehicle to Pedestrian

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Speeding, defined as traveling too fast for conditions or in excess of the posted speed limits, contributes 

to nearly one-third of all roadway fatalities, and this proportion has remained largely unchanged for 

the past decade. Practitioners and communities working to reduce speeding-related crashes need the 

latest information and tools to guide their efforts. Since roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes have been identified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the three 

areas with great potential to reduce fatalities, States are encouraged to integrate speed management 

into these three safety focus areas. In order to assist agencies with integrating speed management into 

their policies, practices, and safety plans, this report presents information on national speeding-related 

crash trends, promotes a speed-related crash data analysis approach, and recommends strategies and 

initiatives for integrating speed management into both an agency’s overall policies as well as its roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety programs.

This project’s objectives were as follows:

• Investigate current practices of speed management at State and local levels within roadway departure, 

intersection, and pedestrian safety focus programs;

• Conduct an analysis of national crash data to identify speeding-related safety issues within the three 

safety focus programs;

• Identify gaps and needs for effectively managing speed to improve roadway departure, intersection, 

and pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and

• Develop strategies, approaches, and activities agencies can use to integrate speed management 

within roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety activities.

There is a wide variety of policies, practices, and procedures regarding speed management across the 

United States. Some States have their own manual of uniform traffic control devices, traffic studies 

manuals, guidelines, or other policies and procedures regarding speed management. Others do not 

have jurisdiction-specific speed management policies or guidance available to their practitioners. 

Many State and local agencies lack documentation regarding the methods or procedures to identify 

speeding-related crash problems within the roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian safety 

focus areas. With regard to Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP), all States reference speeding in their 

plans, although mostly in the context of enforcement and aggressive driving. Several States list roadway 

departure, intersections, and pedestrian safety as emphasis areas, but most of those States do not include 

a specific mention of speeding as a factor contributing to crashes, nor do they identify speeding-related 

countermeasures. Therefore, there are opportunities for agencies to enhance their speed management 

programs, whether by improving their policies on setting speed limits, defining their speeding-related 

data analysis process, or incorporating more speed management techniques or countermeasures within 

their safety action plans.

Agencies are encouraged to take a broad look at their policies and programs related to speed to identify 

opportunities on how speed management can be more fully integrated by considering the following 

program-level strategies:

• Establish or enhance policies, safety plans, and performance measures,

• Educate and improve awareness,
2

• Collaborate with stakeholders, and

• Establish data analysis process for analyzing speeding-related data.

In addition to program-level strategies, roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian and bicyclist 

focus areas are a vital link in managing speed and targeting speeding-related crashes. By reviewing 

the results of this research project’s crash analysis report,1 investigating the state of the practice, and 

conducting interviews with national experts, researchers have been able to identify key issues relating 

to speeding-related crashes in each focus area and present potential strategies to assist agencies in 

addressing speeding-related crashes within those focus areas.

Overall, speeding is a complex problem involving the interaction of many factors such as public attitudes, 

vehicle performance, roadway design, posted speed limits, and enforcement strategies, to name a few. 

For a State or local agency to manage speed successfully, it must integrate and coordinate engineering, 

enforcement, and education efforts. This requires numerous techniques and cooperation among 

multiple groups to effectively accomplish the goal of reducing speeding-related fatalities and injuries. 

State and local agencies must integrate speed management strategies within their organization, policies, 

and each of the three focus areas in order to meet their safety goals.

1 See Appendix A, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-critical Events.
3

Chapter 1. Introduction

“NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was charged with a speeding-related offense 

or if an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit 

was a contributing factor in the crash.”

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Over the past decade, the United States has made great strides in reducing roadway fatalities, which 

fell from more than 42,000 in 2003 to approximately 33,000 in 2013. While the reduction in fatalities is 

significant and to be commended, additional focus on speed management is needed to continue the 

trend. Reducing fatalities and severe injuries on the Nation’s transportation system is directly impacted 

by the effort agencies put into managing roadway speed. Speeding is a key factor in many safety areas, 

including impaired driving, unbelted drivers, distracted drivers, motorcycles, pedestrian safety, roadway 

departure, intersection safety, and truck rollovers. Speeding contributes to nearly one-third of all roadway 

fatalities, and this proportion has remained largely unchanged for the past decade. Practitioners and 

communities working to reduce speeding-related crashes need the latest information and tools to guide 

their efforts.

Figure 1 - Trend in Fatalities and Speeding-related Fatalities in the United States 

(Source: FARS, 2003 to 2012)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

0

5%

10%

15%

30%

20%

25%

35%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Total FATALITIES Percent SPEEDING-RELATED

31.5% 31% 31.2% 31.9% 31.8% 31.4% 31.5% 31.8%

30.8%30.4%
4

Excessive speeding is a key crash contributor that must be addressed in order to continue the 

advancement Toward Zero Deaths (TZD), the national vision for safety. Therefore, it is essential that 

agencies examine gaps and needs related to speed management and identify and explore new 

approaches to addressing speeding-related issues. 

Roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes have been identified by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the three focus areas with great potential to reduce fatalities. 

Many States have incorporated the three focus areas into their State Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and, as 

the next step, FHWA is encouraging States to integrate speed management into these three safety 

focus areas.

To assist agencies with integrating speed management into their policies and practices, this report 

presents information on national speeding-related crash trends, promotes a speed-related crash data 

analysis approach, and recommends strategies and initiatives for integrating speed management into 

roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety programs.

Figure 2 – Integrating Speed Management with the Three Focus Areas Can Help Transportation Agencies 

Move Towards Zero Deaths, the National Vision for Safety

1.1 Speed Management and the Three Focus Safety Areas

Speeding is a complex problem, involving the interaction of many factors including public attitudes, 

sentiments and culture; road user behavior; vehicle performance; roadway design; traffic characteristics; 

weather conditions; posted speed limits; enforcement strategies; and legislative and judicial decisions. 

For a State or local agency to successfully manage speed, it must integrate and coordinate engineering, 

enforcement, and education efforts. The effort requires numerous processes and cooperation among 

multiple groups to effectively accomplish the goal of reducing speeding-related fatalities and injuries. 

Speed 

Management

Towards 

Zero 

Deaths Roadway Departure

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Intersections

Speed 

Management

Towards 

Zero 

Deaths Roadway Departure

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Intersections

Roadway Departure

Itti

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

SPEED

MAN

A

G

E

ME

ED

M

A

NAGEMENT

High-Speed Crashes

and Fatalities
5

Roadway departure, intersection, 

and pedestrian and bicycle crashes 

collectively contribute to an 

overwhelming 90 percent of the 

traffic fatalities in the United States.2

Speeding contributes to nearly 30 

percent of all traffic fatalities and 

reaches into all three of the focus 

areas.3 Nearly 40 percent of fatal 

roadway departure crashes and 20 

percent of fatal intersection crashes 

are speeding-related.4 Although the 

percentage of speeding-related pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities is less than 10 percent,5 travel speed 

at impact greatly influences the severity of pedestrian 

crashes, as illustrated in Figure 3.6 Integrating a speed 

management component into each of the three focus 

areas is essential for State and local agencies to meet 

their safety goals. 

1.2 Research Methodology

This project supports the USDOT Speed Management 

Program Plan,7 which was developed jointly by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, FHWA, 

and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in 

order to improve public health and safety by reducing 

speeding-related fatalities and injuries.

The research for this project took place in multiple 

phases.8 In Phase 1 researchers scanned and 

documented practices and processes used by State 

and local agencies, focusing on how speeding-related 

problems and issues are identified; what approaches 

are used for speeding-related data collection and 

analysis; and which engineering-, enforcement-, and

education-related speed management countermeasures practitioners use to tackle speeding-related 

safety issues. The state of the practice is summarized in Chapter 2. 

2 FHWA Office of Safety Web site, “Focused Approach to Safety– Purpose of the Focused Approach.” Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fas/ (accessed 

December 8, 2015).

3 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2004-2012.

4 See Appendix A, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-critical Events.

5 See Appendix A, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-critical Events.

6 AAA Foundation, Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death (Washington, DC: AAA, September 2011). Available at: https://www.

aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

7 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Speed Management 

Program Plan, Report No. DOT HS 812 028 (Washington, DC: May 2014).

8 At the start of this research project, the focus areas identified by FHWA were roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrians. During the course of the 

project, the focus areas were updated in July 2015 to roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrians and bicyclists. Memorandum available at: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fas/docs/signed_memo2015.pdf

Research Objectives

hInvestigate current practices of speed 

management at State and local levels 

within the three focus areas of roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

safety focus programs.

hConduct an analysis of national crash 

data to identify speeding-related safety 

issues within the three safety focus 

programs.

hIdentify gaps and needs for effectively 

managing speed to improve roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety. 

hDevelop strategies, approaches, and 

activities agencies can use to integrate 

speed management within roadway 

departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety activities.

23 mph 42 mph 58 mph

90%

50%

10%

Average risk of death for a pedestrian

at impact raises as speed increases 

Figure 3 – Pedestrian's Risk of Death Relating to Impact Speed
6

Phase 2 of the research involved conducting detailed analyses of speeding-related fatal and serious injury 

crash data to evaluate the role of speeding in crashes or other safety-critical events. The first analysis 

included a summary of the characteristics of speeding-related crashes using crash data from the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimation System (GES). Researchers also explored the 

characteristics of speeding-related fatal crashes for the three focus areas (roadway departure, intersections, 

and pedestrians and bicyclists). The final analysis included existing summarized data from the Strategic 

Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) large-scale naturalistic driving study (NDS). The research team 

extracted baseline and safety-critical events from the InSight Data Access Website, comparing them to 

assess the role of speed. Additionally, the research team conducted a typology of characteristics for safetycritical events. The full report from the comprehensive data analysis is included in Appendix A.

In the final phase, the research team held individual interviews and safety focus group discussions with 

Federal, State, and local practitioners to investigate major speed management issues and to identify gaps 

for addressing roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety problems. In addition, 

researchers identified new or enhanced initiatives for integrating speed management into each of the 

three focus areas. The list of members for each safety focus group, the one-on-one interview questions, 

and the group’s discussion agenda are available in Appendix B.

By using the information gained through these steps of the research project, the team identified 

strategies, approaches, and activities agencies can use to integrate speed management in their overall 

program and within roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety activities. 

Some additional resources are provided in Appendix C that may be useful for transportation agencies to 

consider when preparing their speed management strategies. A list of gaps and needs relating to speed 

management, effectiveness of countermeasures, and speeding-related crash risks emerged during the 

comprehensive literature review, crash data analysis, and focus group interviews. These are presented in 

Appendix D.

1.3 Organization of Report

This chapter of the report, Chapter 1 – Introduction, provided an introduction and background 

information on the research effort that resulted in this document. It also introduces the relationship 

between speed management and the safety focus areas, including the methodology of the research.

Chapter 2 – Speed Management State of the Practice. This section gives readers an overall summary 

of the current state of the practice relating to agencies’ speed management approaches and integration 

into the safety focus areas.

Chapter 3 – Program Level Strategies for Integrating Speed Management. Here, readers are 

introduced to program-level strategies on how speed management can be integrated throughout the 

planning, project development, construction, and maintenance stages, and how such strategies can be 

institutionalized through policy.

Chapter 4 – Integrating Speed Management within the Three Safety Focus Areas. This chapter 

provides an overview of national crash trends involving speeding-related fatal crashes and suggests 

potential strategies to assist agencies in addressing speeding-related crashes within each focus area.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion, reinforces the importance of integrating speed management into the 

roadway departure, intersection, pedestrian and bicyclist focus areas, while recognizing there are 

opportunities in research and other initiatives to further enhance existing speed management strategies.
7

Chapter 2. Speed Management State of the Practice

Understanding the current state of the practice can help practitioners both to identify gaps and needs 

within an agency’s speed management policies and practices as well as to select successful strategies for 

addressing speed-related crashes.

2.1 Policies and Procedures

There is a wide variety of policies, practices, and procedures regarding speed management across the 

United States. Some States have their own manual of uniform traffic control devices, traffic studies 

manuals, guidelines, or other policies and procedures regarding speed management. Others do not 

have jurisdiction-specific speed management policies or guidance available to their practitioners.

When States develop their own manual on uniform traffic control devices or supplement the national 

version, they often include additional guidance on setting speed limits or placing signs and markings. 

For example, Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a supplement to the national 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and added information on items such as photo enforcement, 

speed hump markings, and additional guidelines on school zones. Florida DOT created Speed Zoning 

for Highways, Roads, and Streets in Florida, a manual that provides guidelines and recommended 

procedures for establishing uniform speed zones on roadways throughout the State. Massachusetts 

DOT also has established procedures for speed zoning on State and municipal roadways. Iowa DOT has 

an online traffic and safety manual that includes information on the process for establishing speed limits 

and completing speed studies.

Some transportation agencies have gone further and created their own traffic calming manuals 

or handbooks, which provides detailed guidance regarding the appropriate use, design, and 

implementation of traffic calming measures. Delaware DOT’s manual is intended to help encourage 

closer adherence to posted speeds, discourage cut-through traffic, and enhance user safety and 

community aesthetics. Pennsylvania’s Traffic Calming Handbook provides guidance for the State DOT 

and municipalities for implementing traffic calming measures throughout the State.

Overall, while many States have developed general speed management policies and guidance on 

setting speed limits and completing speed studies, researchers identified many State and local agencies 

that lacked documentation regarding the methods or procedures to identify speeding-related crash 

problems within the roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian safety focus areas.

2.2 Safety Plans and Focus Areas

With regard to State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP), all States reference speeding in their plans, 

although mostly in the context of enforcement and aggressive driving. Several States list roadway 

departure, intersections, and pedestrians as emphasis areas, but most of these do not include a specific 

mention of speeding as a contributing factor, nor do they identify speeding-related countermeasures.

The following summary is based on information available as of January 2015.

Fifteen States included speed management actions in their SHSP as part of a roadway departure 

emphasis area. These states apply strategies such as:
8

• Targeted corridor education and enforcement

• Advance warning signs

• Flashing beacons

• Curve markings on pavement

• Rumble strips

• Safety Edge SM

9

• Transverse lines with decreasing spacing

• Edge lines for lane narrowing.

Nine States included speed management actions as part of their intersection emphasis area. These 

states utilize strategies such as:

• Targeted speed enforcement

• Implementation of automated enforcement

• Education and outreach

• Pavement friction improvements at locations with wet pavement crash history

• Advanced warning flashers to inform drivers of a need to stop at high speed signalized intersections

• Rural intersection warning and decision support systems

• Roundabouts

• Installation of medians within the influence of intersection approaches. 

Seven States included speed management actions as part of their strategic plans for pedestrians. These 

states employ strategies such as:

• Installation of medians near intersections

• Clearly marked crosswalks

• High intensity activated crosswalk beacons

• Rectangular rapid flash beacons

• Traffic calming techniques (e.g., speed humps, bulb-outs, street trees, on-street parking)

• Road Diets

• Education and outreach.

The attention to speeding issues varies widely across the State SHSPs, with some States providing 

minimum mention of speeding as part of a broader aggressive driving focus, and others providing 

greater details and targets related to speeding-related crashes.

In recent years, more than 20 State DOTs and a number of local agencies have developed focused safety 

action or implementation plans. FHWA continues to support development of State-level Roadway 

Departure Action Plans and Intersection Action Plans – efforts that began in 2008. Each plan includes 

analysis of speeding-related crashes and recommends engineering, enforcement, and education 

countermeasures to reduce speeding-related roadway departure or intersection-related crashes. The 

9 Safety EdgeSM provides a transition for vehicles to return to the pavement more smoothly and easily by shaping the edge of pavement to 30 degrees and 

eliminating vertical drop-off. More information on Safety EdgeSM is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/intro.cfm.
9

plans estimate the cost of these strategies and the benefits of each in terms of reduced annual traffic 

crashes, severe injuries, and fatalities. To date, FHWA has led development of more than 35 of these plans.

Many State DOTs and local communities recognize the need to address pedestrian crashes and have 

developed pedestrian action plans which include a range of countermeasures to reduce pedestrianmotor vehicle crashes. Although speed reduction is a significant focus of these pedestrian action plans, 

some plans are more robust than others.

2.3 Research Publications and Guidance

Many research publications and guidance documents address speed management, speeding-related 

crashes, and speeding countermeasures in general, but the relevance to the three focus areas varies. 

The FHWA Office of Safety - Speed Management website contains links to resources and a wide 

range of engineering measures for managing speed in addition to each’s effect on speed and safety.10 

Other available literature, such as NCHRP Report 500 – Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing Speedingrelated Crashes, provides solid guidance regarding engineering and law enforcement strategies and 

countermeasures to reduce the risk of speeding-related crashes.11 For a more comprehensive list of speed 

management-related resources, see Appendix C.

2.4 Future Opportunities

In summary, there are many opportunities for agencies to enhance their speed management programs, 

whether by improving policies on setting speed limits, defining speeding-related data analysis process, 

or incorporating more speed management techniques or countermeasures within safety action plans. 

Additional information on how to identify and deploy strategies that will support the goal of enhancing 

speed management programs is discussed in Chapter 3.

10 FHWA Office of Safety, “Speed Management Safety” Web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/. Accessed December 8, 2015.

11 T.R. Neuman, K.L. Slack, K.K. Hardy, V.L. Bond, et al. NCHRP 500 – Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing Speed-Related Crashes, Transportation Research Board of 

the National Academies, (Washington, DC: TRB, 2009). Available at: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/160862.aspx.

11

Chapter 3. Program Level Strategies for Integrating Speed 

Management

Prior to exploring the detailed, specific strategies for 

managing speed within the three safety focus areas, FHWA 

encourages agencies to take a broad look at their speedingrelated policies and programs to identify opportunities for 

integrating speed management throughout the planning, 

project development, construction, and maintenance 

stages and for institutionalizing speed management 

through agency policy.

There are a number of program-level strategies agencies 

may pursue. These are identified and discussed below.

3.1 Establish or Enhance Policies, Safety 

Plans, and Performance Measures 

There is potential for agencies to more fully integrate 

speed management into their practices by establishing or enhancing their policies, safety plans, and 

performance measures. Elevating speed management as a primary strategy to support a broad vision for 

safety will create positive safety outcomes.

• Establish speed management policies that create a clear direction for practitioners within the 

organization. Policies may include disseminating technical information on the importance of 

establishing appropriate speeds for all types of roads in the network, conducting assessments, and 

monitoring existing speed limits, the role of speed in crash severity, and the effect of speeding on the 

environment (e.g., fuel consumption, emissions, and noise). Agencies may also choose to enact more 

detailed policies such as jurisdiction-wide guidance on the applications of specific speed management 

countermeasures.

• Establish procedures for setting speed limits by conducting engineering speed studies using an 

established, uniform protocol across the agency and employing the USLIMITS2 web-based tool to 

support and confirm speed limit setting decisions. 

• Set performance goals and metrics related to speed management (e.g., reducing the number of 

speeding-related fatalities and severe injuries, reducing top-end speeders).

• Develop a jurisdiction-wide speed management action plan.

• Review all current agency safety plans (e.g., SHSP; roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian 

safety implementation plans; etc.) to identify opportunities to integrate speed management.

• Integrate speed management programs with related highway safety activities, such as programs 

to combat impaired driving and safety initiatives targeted at youths, motorcyclists, and commercial 

vehicle operators. 

What is USLIMITS2?

USLIMITS2 is a web-based tool 

designed to help give advice 

to practitioners about setting 

reasonable, safe, and consistent 

speed limits for specific segments of 

roadway. It is applicable to all types 

of roads, from rural local roads and 

residential streets to urban freeways. 

For additional information, visit 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits.
1212

3.2 Educate and Improve Awareness 

Many people do not fully understand speed concepts, the basis of speed limits, reasons for speed 

management countermeasures, or the effect of speed on safety and crash risk. Agencies need to 

employ diverse training and outreach strategies to educate a variety of groups.

• Educate staff on speed management (include planners, designers, construction inspectors, traffic 

engineers, and maintenance personnel):12

- Explain speed definitions and concepts; how to set speed limits, choose design speed, and select 

appropriate speed management countermeasures

- Incorporate speed management learning modules within other established training programs

- Educate staff throughout the entire lifecycle of the project development process on the importance 

of context sensitivity awareness (e.g., types of users, surroundings, functional classification, etc.); 

design features (e.g., curves, intersections); and countermeasures affecting speed.

• Make speed management/awareness a priority throughout all phases of a project by developing 

speed management checklists.

• Review and evaluate current communication/outreach strategies to ensure speed management is 

represented and look for ways to integrate speed management messages within other focus areas.

• Determine whether a particular group needs a larger focus or more education on speeding-related 

issues by analyzing the speeding-related crashes by:

- Driver characteristics

- Location within the jurisdiction

- Contributing circumstances

- Crash type (e.g., roadway departure, intersection-related)

- Driver behaviors.

• Develop specific education campaigns focused on partners, such as:

- Judges and prosecutors 

- Elected officials

- Law enforcement

- Corporations

- Education community (e.g., teachers, administrators, volunteer groups)

- Other special interest groups.

• Develop and target public information and education programs to specific aspects of the speeding 

problem based on data analysis. Some common aspects may include the following:

- Young drivers

- Males

- Nighttime crashes

- Adverse weather and traffic conditions

12 NHTSA sponsors a Speed Program Management course that is conducted by the Transportation Safety Institute.
13

- Impaired driving

- School zones

- Work zones

- Roads and streets with major potential conflicts in traffic and with pedestrians.

3.3 Collaborate with Stakeholders 

Stakeholder involvement and collaborative arrangements are vital for improving transportation safety by 

building trust, understanding, and comprehensive solutions.

• Gather input from groups outside the transportation agency (e.g., pedestrian and bicyclist groups, 

special community groups, law enforcement, public officials, schools, etc.) when making decisions on 

speed limits.

• Collaborate internally and with partner agencies to improve speeding-related data, such as:

- Improve data collection and analysis by combining speeding-related data across other 

organizations and databases, 

- Examine the types of data relating to speed currently being captured and identify areas for 

improvement (e.g., inventories for speed limits, curves, etc.),

- Join together with law enforcement to determine the definition of speeding-related crashes and 

ensure the crash type is consistently reported. Review the law or statute that defines speedingrelated crash to determine whether it can be revised for clarity.

• Assist law enforcement in their patrol efforts by identifying high-crash locations where speeding was a 

contributing factor.

• Collaborate with law enforcement and the judicial system to ensure speed limit violations or citations 

are consistent; gather input on their perspectives regarding specific speed limits.

• Proactively work with elected officials to promote speeding-related legislation.

• Work together with local agencies and/or neighboring States to share best practices, success stories, 

and lessons learned regarding speed management by holding peer exchanges or conferences.

3.4 Establish Data Analysis Process for Analyzing Speeding-related 

Crash Data 

Many agencies do not have an established process for analyzing their speeding-related crash data. 

Using the national crash analysis report as the base model, States can replicate the process using their 

own crash data to begin identifying State-specific trends and can compare the results to national data.13 

Analyzing speeding-related crash data within the focus areas allows agencies to effectively enhance their 

existing focus area safety plans with appropriate speed management countermeasures and strategies.

Speeding-related Roadway Departure Crashes

• Roadway characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated roadway departure crashes by:

- Roadway type

13 For more information, the crash analysis report, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety Critical Events, is included in Appendix A.
14

- Speed limit

- Speed limit (only non-vehicle collisions)

- Horizontal Alignment.

• Driver characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related 

roadway departure crashes by:

- Age and gender

- Blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

• Environmental characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated roadway departure crashes by:

- Time of day

- Hour of day

- Surface conditions.

• Vehicle type

• Crash type (e.g., non-vehicle collision, front-to-front, front-to-rear, angle, sideswipe)

• First harmful event (e.g., tree, rollover, culvert/ditch/embankment, etc.)

• Characteristics of a specific type of crash, for example:

- Rollover crashes (by speed limit, BAC, surface condition, or vehicle type)

- Opposing direction crashes (by speed limit, BAC, surface condition, or vehicle type).

Speeding-related Intersection Crashes

• Roadway characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated fatal intersection crashes by:

- Traffic control

- Intersection type

- Roadway type

- Speed limit.

• Driver characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related 

fatal intersection crashes by:

- Age and gender

- Blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

• Environmental characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated fatal intersection crashes by:

- Time of day

- Hour of day

- Surface conditions.

• Vehicle type

• Crash type (e.g., non-vehicle collision, front-to-front, front-to-rear, angle, sideswipe)
15

• First harmful event (e.g., tree, rollover, culvert/ditch/embankment, etc.)

• Characteristics of a specific type of crash, for example:

- Angle crashes (by speed limit, BAC, surface condition, or vehicle type)

- Rear-end crashes (by speed limit, BAC, surface condition, or vehicle type)

- Left-turn crashes (by speed limit, BAC, surface condition, or vehicle type).

Speeding-related Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes

• Roadway characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated pedestrian and bicycle crashes by:

- Location

- Roadway type

- Speed limit.

• Driver characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes by:

- Age and gender

- Blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

• Environmental characteristics - analyze the percentage or distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated pedestrian and bicycle crashes by:

- Time of day

- Hour of day.

• Vehicle type.

17

Chapter 4. Integrating Speed Management within the Three 

Safety Focus Areas

With roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes accounting for approximately 

90 percent of the traffic fatalities in the United States, these key focus areas are a vital link in managing 

speed and targeting speeding-related crashes.14 Using the results of this research project’s crash analysis 

report,15 this chapter includes crash trends involving speeding-related fatal crashes and potential 

strategies to assist agencies in addressing speeding-related crashes within each focus area. While each 

focus area and its respective strategies are listed in separate sections within Chapter 4, FHWA encourages 

agencies to use a combination of strategies since speeding-related crash issues often overlap into 

multiple focus areas. Overall program-level strategies (non-focus area specific) are listed in Chapter 3.

4.1 Roadway Departure and Speed Management

A roadway departure crash is defined by FHWA as “a crash which occurs after a vehicle crosses an edge 

line or a center line, or otherwise leaves the traveled way.”16

Roadway departure crashes are frequently severe and account for the majority of highway fatalities. 

In 2013, there were 18,257 fatalities as a result of roadway departure crashes, which accounted for 56 

percent of the traffic fatalities in the United States.17 Approximately 40 percent of fatal roadway departure 

crashes are speeding-related.18

4.1.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends

Crash analysis performed on national data relating to speeding-related and roadway departure crashes 

gives insight into the nature of these crash types, where these crashes occur, and driver characteristics or 

behavioral elements that may affect the number and severity of these crashes.

The FHWA Safety Roadway Departure Program analyzed Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and 

General Estimation System (GES) data (2010-2013) and determined there are three primary event types 

that are most harmful in 75 percent of all roadway departure crashes:

• Overturn/rollover crashes

• Opposing direction crashes

• Crashes involving trees.

14 FHWA Office of Safety, “Focused Approach to Safety – Purpose of the Focused Approach” Web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fas/. Accessed 

December 8, 2015.

15 See Appendix A, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-critical Events.

16 FHWA Office of Safety, “Roadway Departure Safety” Web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/. Accessed December 8, 2015.

17 Ibid.

18 See Appendix A, Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-critical Events.
18

Figure 4 – Percent of Roadway Departure Fatalities and Serious Injuries by Crash Type (FARS and GES 2010-2013) 

These top three crash types have been designated as primary emphasis areas and researchers determined 

speed is one of the contributing factors. Each crash category underwent further analysis to determine 

where these crashes occur and significant contributing factors. Figures 5 through 7 show the results.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Overturns/Rollovers

28% 27%

19%

15%

25%

17%

Opposing Direction

FATALITIES SERIOUS INJURIES

Involving Trees

0

20

40

60

80

Rural Areas

Percent

76%

72%

43%

Posted Speed 

>= 50 mph

Curves 0

20

40

60

80

100

Undivided

Roads

83%

70% 70%

31%

23%

Rural 

Areas

Posted Speed Curves

>= 50 mph

Adverse 

Conditions 

(wet/icy)

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

Urban

Areas

67%

33%

51% 49% 46%

Rural 

Areas

Posted Curves

Speed >= 

50 mph

Posted 

Speed <= 45 mph

Percent

Figure 5– Critical Locations for Rollover/Overturn Roadway 

Departure Crashes (Source: FARS 2010-2013)

Figure 6– Critical Locations for Opposing Direction 

Roadway Departure Crashes (Source: FARS 2010-2013)

Figure 7– Critical Locations for Roadway Departure Crashes Involving Trees (Source: FARS 2010-2013)
19

While the data above focuses more broadly on roadway departure crashes (not necessarily speedingrelated), the following sections present some crash trends for speeding-related roadway departure crashes.

ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS

Initially, some may be surprised to learn that the majority of fatal speeding-related roadway departure 

crashes do not happen on Interstates and freeways. In fact, 85 percent of vehicles involved in these fatal 

crash types were traveling on local, collector, minor arterial, or other principal arterial roadways, as shown 

in Figure 8. 

 Figure 8 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

The following figure shows the percentage of vehicles involved in these types of crashes that were 

speeding and non-speeding by roadway type during the 2010-2012 period. Nearly half of all vehicles 

involved in fatal roadway departure crashes on local roads are speeding-related. Other principal arterials 

and interstates ranked lowest at 32.4 percent and 33.8 percent, respectively.

Figure 9 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Local

Collector

Minor arterial

Other principal 

arterial

Freeway/

expressway

Interstate

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

49.4%

40.8%

37.3%

32.4%

40.8%

33.8%

50.6%

59.2%

62.7%

67.6%

59.2%

66.2%

Interstate 10.4 %

Freeway/expressway 3.2 %

Other principal arterial 16%

Collector 25.1% Minor arterial 16.7%

Local 27.2%

Unknown 1.5%
20

POSTED SPEED LIMIT

The distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related roadway departure fatal crashes by speed limit 

during the 2010-2012 period is shown in Figure 10. More than half of the vehicles involved in speedingrelated roadway departure fatal crashes occur on roadways posted between 40 and 55 mph.

Figure 10 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by 

Speed Limit (MPH) of Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

Figure 11 provides the percentage of vehicles involved in speeding and non-speeding roadway 

departure fatal crashes according to speed limit category. Note that the proportion of speeding-related 

crashes increases as the posted speed limit decreases.

Figure 11 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Speed Limit (MPH) of Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

<=25 mph 5.9%

30 to 35 18%

40 to 45 21.4%

50 to 55 35%

60+ 17.3%

Unknown 2.3%

0 20 40 60 80 100

<=25 mph

30 to 35

40 to 45

50 to 55

60+

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

53.7%

49.4%

40.8%

32.4%

29.4%

46.3%

50.6%

59.2%

67.6%

70.6%
21

ROADWAY GEOMETRY

A major aspect of preventing speeding-related roadway departure crashes is addressing curves. As 

Figure 12 shows, a large share of speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes occur on tangent 

sections of roadways. More than 37 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal roadway 

departure crashes are on curves.

 Figure 12 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Horizontal Alignment 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

When fatal roadway departure crashes are broken down separately 

by whether they occur on curves or straight sections of roadway, the 

likelihood of these types of crashes being speeding related is higher 

on curves. Close to half of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure 

crashes on curves were coded as speeding related. By comparison, 30 

percent of speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes occurred 

on tangent sections of roadway.

DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

The national data shows a very clear distinction: males are more likely to be involved in a roadway 

departure fatal crash and have even higher likelihood of being involved in a speeding-related roadway 

departure fatal crash. During the 2010-2012 period, males comprised approximately 75 percent of roadway 

departure fatalities and accounted for nearly 80 percent of speeding-related roadway departure fatalities. 

When looking at the fatal roadway departure crashes within each age group, both males and females in 

the 15 to 20 age group were more likely to be involved in speeding-related roadway departure crashes. 

As shown in Figure 14, 42.7 percent of fatal roadway departure crashes for females in the 15 to 20 age 

group were speeding-related while 52.6 percent of fatal roadway departure crashes for males in that age 

group were speeding-related.

Straight

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

Curve

69.6% 52.7%

30.4% 47.3%

Straight 62.2%

Curve right 16.1%

Curve left 18%

Curve -unknown direction 3.7%

Figure 13 – Percentage of Vehicles 

Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Roadway Departure Crashes by 

Horizontal Alignment 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)
22

 Figure 14 – Percentage of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatalities by Driver Age and Gender 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

TIME OF DAY

With respect to the time of day, Figure 15 shows 60 percent of the speeding-related fatal roadway 

departure crashes happen between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m. Further analysis reveals that between midnight 

and 5 a.m., nearly 50 percent of all fatal roadway departure crashes that occur are speeding-related.

 Figure 15 – Distribution of Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by Hour of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

4.1.2 Strategies

A number of potential strategies and countermeasures exist for agencies to consider when addressing 

speeding-related roadway departure crashes. By reviewing the national data, investigating the state 

of the practice, and conducting interviews with national experts, our researchers identified key issues 

relating to speeding-related roadway departure crashes. Some recommended strategies were identified 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

42.7%

52.6%

37.4%

34.9%

32.5%

29.9%

22.1%

18.9%

14.5%

51.8%

45.4%

37.7%

32.8%

26.8%

22.2%

16.9%

FEMALE MALE

Percent

Midnight to 5 a.m. 29.3%

5 to 8 a.m. 8.2%

10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 18.3%

6 p.m. to midnight 31.0%

4 to 6 p.m. 8.9%

6 to 10 a.m. 4.4%
23

through agency interviews and published resources.19 Every situation or location is unique, and agencies 

should exercise engineering judgment for determining the appropriate solution for their specific crash 

concerns.

Issue: National data shows 85 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related roadway departure 

fatal crash types were traveling on local, collector, or minor arterial, or other principal arterial roadways.

Potential strategies:

• Appropriate speed limits. Ensure speed limits are set appropriately by completing an engineering 

speed study and employing FHWA’s USLIMITS2, a web-based tool to support and confirm speed limit 

setting decisions.20 

• Speed limit review. Create a plan to review speed limits on these types of roadways systematically.

• Data analysis. Analyze crash data to determine corridors where a large amount of speeding-related 

roadway departure crashes are occurring and provide this information to law enforcement and 

engineers in the jurisdiction. 

• Countermeasure Selection. Using the results of the data analysis and identifiable crash clusters, 

select appropriate speed management treatments using the speed management countermeasure 

reference materials available on FHWA’s Speed Management website and other tools and resources 

listed in Appendix C.

Issue: Males are involved in nearly 80 percent of speeding-related roadway departure fatalities. 

Drivers ages 15 to 20 are more likely to be involved in speeding-related roadway departure 

fatal crashes.

Potential strategies:

• Targeted educational campaigns. Create educational campaigns that target high-risk groups, such 

as males or all drivers in the 15 to 20 age group. These could include media outlets or venues such as 

high schools and universities, sporting events, clubs or extracurricular activities, and popular 

local hangouts.

• Collaboration with partners. Collaborate with partners to improve driver education (e.g., schools, 

driver education programs, universities). Consider revisions for State driver education manuals.

Issue: Roadway departure fatalities within curves are more likely to be speeding-related.

Potential strategies:

• Pavement markings. Pavement markings to consider are edge line striping for delineation or 

markings which create the illusion of traveling faster or narrowing lanes (e.g., converging chevron 

marking pattern, transverse markings, optical speed bars).

• Rumble strips. Install centerline, edge line rumble strips, or both to provide audible and tactile 

notification to the driver if the vehicle departs the lane.

• Standard curve signing. Ensure the appropriate curve signing is applied to meet MUTCD standards.

• Enhanced signing. Apply enhanced signing and delineation (e.g., oversized signs, florescent sheeting, 

full post delineation, double-up signs).

19 Additional resources are listed in Appendix C.

20 FHWA developed USLIMITS2 to help practitioners set reasonable, safe, and consistent speed limits for specific roadway segments. It is applicable to all types 

of roads ranging from rural local roads and residential streets to urban freeways. For additional information, visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits.
24

• Dynamic or ITS signs. Install dynamic chevrons, speed feedback signs, 21and speed activated 

warning or speed limit reminder signs. Variable speed limit signs may be beneficial in areas where 

inclement weather is common.

• High friction surface treatment.22 Effective in addressing locations with friction or wet crash issues, 

high-friction surface treatments secure a thin layer of specially engineered, durable, high-friction 

aggregate as a topping on resins or polymers – usually urethane, silicon, or epoxy – with a binder. 

While this countermeasure does not reduce speeding vehicles, it provides long lasting skid resistance 

while also making the overlay much more resistant to wear and polishing, improving safety within 

curves.

• Safety EdgeSM

23 or widening pavement. Installing Safety EdgeSM along roadways or widening 

pavement within curves may increase the likelihood of drivers to regain control of their vehicle if they 

drift out of their lane.

Issue: Rollover/overturn crashes, opposing direction crashes, and crashes involving trees are the 

three primary event types that are most harmful in 75 percent of all roadway departure crashes, and 

speeding is identified as one of the contributing factors.

Potential Strategies:

• Data analysis. Analyze crash data to determine where these three types of crash types are occurring 

on the road system and either identify top corridors or use a systemic approach for choosing and 

implementing proven countermeasures.

• Keep vehicles on the roadway and in their appropriate directional lane. Choose 

countermeasures that help keep vehicles on the roadway and in their lane, such as rumble strips or 

stripes, high-friction surface treatments, and high-visibility center and edge line striping.

• Reduce potential for crashes and crash severity when vehicles do leave the roadway or their 

lane. Countermeasures that support this strategy include applying the Safety EdgeSM ;widening the 

shoulder; removing, shielding, or delineating fixed objects; increasing the clear zone; and flattening 

slopes.

Speed management countermeasures references are available on FHWA’s Speed Management website.

FHWA has published two desktop references that summarize studies on the effectiveness of engineering 

countermeasures in reducing crashes and managing speed.24 The CMF Clearinghouse provides a 

comprehensive database of CMFs along with supporting documentation to help agencies identify 

potential countermeasures and their proven levels of effectiveness.25 

21 FWHA, Evaluation of Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs on Curves: A National Demonstration Project, FHWA-HRT-14-020 (Washington, DC: FHWA, January 

2015). Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/14020/index.cfm

22 FHWA, “High Friction Surface Treatments Frequently Asked Questions” FHWA-CAI-14-019. (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2014). Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-2/pdfs/fhwa-cai-14-019_faqs_hfst_mar2014_508.pdf

23 Safety EdgeSM provides a transition for vehicles to return to the pavement more smoothly and easily by shaping the edge of pavement to 30 degrees and 

eliminating vertical drop-off. More information on Safety EdgeSM is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/intro.

cfm

24 FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_

count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm, and FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Crashes, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_crashes.cfm, accessed September 4, 2015.

25 CMF Clearinghouse, available at: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
25

4.2 Intersections and Speed Management

“An intersection, by design, is a planned location where vehicles traveling on different highways 

may come into conflict. The functional area of an intersection extends upstream and downstream 

from the physical area of the crossing streets. The different approach and crossing movements 

by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians make at-grade intersections one of the 

most complex traffic situations that people encounter.”

Excerpt from FHWA Issue Brief 2, “The National Intersection Safety Problem,” 2009

4.2.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends

Intersections account for almost 20 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes and more than one-third of 

all speeding-related crashes. A summary of the national crash analysis results for speeding-related fatal 

crashes at intersections is shown below. The full analysis is included in Appendix A.

ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS

Figure 16 shows the distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by 

roadway type during the 2010–2012 period. Nearly 53 percent took place on arterial roadways. Local 

roads contained more than 25 percent of the vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection 

crashes.

 Figure 16 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

POSTED SPEED LIMIT

The analysis by speed limit in Figure 17 shows that almost 60 percent of vehicles involved in speedingrelated fatal intersection crashes from 2010 to 2012 happened on roadways with speed limits between 

30 and 45 mph.

Interstate 1.1%

Freeway/expressway 2.2 %

Other principal 

arterial 30.1%

Collector 15.8% Minor arterial 22.8%

Local 26.9%

Unknown 1.1%
26

Figure 17 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) 

of Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

Following the same trend as speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes, male drivers account 

for more than 75 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes at intersections. When looking at the fatal 

intersection crashes within each age group, both males and females in the 21 to 24 age group were 

more likely to be involved in speeding-related intersection crashes. As shown in the figure below, 24.3 

percent of female drivers and 35.6 percent of male drivers in that age group who were involved in fatal 

intersection crashes during the 2010-2012 period were speeding. 

 Figure 18 – Percentage of Drivers by Age and Gender Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

<=25 mph 11%

30 to 35 27.9%

40 to 45 30.1%

50 to 55 20.3%

60+ 5.4%

Unknown 5.2%

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

Percent

20.8%

31.6%

24.3%

19.4%

20.4%

17.3%

15.5%

12.0%

9.5%

35.6%

29.4%

23.9%

20.7%

14.8%

13.6%

10.3%

FEMALE MALE

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
27

VEHICLE TYPE

The fact that passenger cars and light trucks account for approximately 75 percent of the vehicles 

involved in fatal intersection crashes is not surprising since they are the predominant transportation 

modes. With motorcycles making up just 3 percent of all registered vehicles in the United States and 

accounting for only 0.7 percent of all vehicle miles travelled,26 the results in Figure 19, which shows that 

motorcycles account for over 17 percent of the vehicles that were involved in speeding-related fatal 

intersection crashes between 2010 and 2012, is significant.

 Figure 19 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

When analyzing each vehicle type separately to determine the percentage involved in speeding-related 

fatal intersection crashes, approximately 30 percent of motorcycle-involved intersection crashes—the 

highest percentage of all vehicle types—were considered speeding-related.

 Figure 20 – Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

26 FHWA Office of Safety, “Motorcycle Safety” Web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles/ . Accessed December 8, 2015.

Large truck/buses 6.5%

Light truck 32.3%

Motorcycle 17.4%

Passenger cars 42.1%

Other 1.8%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Passenger cars

Motorcycle

Light truck

Large truck/buses

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

22.2%

28.6%

19.1%

16.1%

77.8%

71.4%

80.9%

83.9%
28

CRASH TYPE

Figure 21 shows that, at more than 41 percent, 

angle crashes make up the highest percentage 

of speeding-related fatal intersection crashes for 

the 2010-2012 period, and collisions with nonvehicle objects (e.g., pedestrians, bicycles, roadside 

features, etc.) follows closely behind, accounting 

for almost 40 percent. Notably, although rear-end 

crashes make up just over 6 percent of all fatal 

intersection crashes, they more than doubled that 

percentage (13.3 percent) for speeding-related 

fatal intersection crashes. Around 44 percent of 

rear-end fatal intersection crashes took place in 

rural areas.

When looking at the crash types independently, 

additional insight can be gained on the nature 

of fatal intersection crashes. Figure 22 shows 

the distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated fatal angle crashes at intersections by 

vehicle type during the study period. Once 

again, motorcycles are the predominant vehicle 

type in these crashes. Almost 40 percent of the 

vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal angle 

crashes were motorcycles.

4.2.2 Strategies

FHWA, the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE), and other organizations have 

developed a number of potential resources 

for agencies to use in identifying successful strategies for improving intersection safety. Many of these 

strategies and countermeasures are just as applicable for addressing speeding-related intersection 

crashes. By reviewing the national data, investigating the state of the practice, and conducting interviews 

with national experts, some key issues or focus areas relating to speeding-related intersection fatal 

crashes were identified. These strategies were discovered through agency interviews and published 

resources.27 Every situation or location is unique, and agencies should exercise engineering judgment 

when determining the appropriate solution for their specific crash concerns.

27 Additional resources are listed in Appendix C.

Other/unknown 0.7%

Non-vehicle 

collision 39.4%

Front-to-front 3.5%

Angle 41.3%

Front-to-rear 13.3%

Sideswipe 1.9%

Large truck/buses 3.1%

Light truck 25.0%

Passenger cars 33.8%

Motorcycle 36.8%

Other 1.3%

 Figure 21 – Distribution of Speeding-related 

Fatal Intersection Crashes by Crash Type 

 (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

Figure 22 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections 

by Vehicle Type (Source: FARS 2010-2012)
29

Issue: National data shows nearly 53 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related intersection 

fatal crash types were traveling on arterial roadways.

Potential strategies:

• Appropriate speed limits. Ensure speed limits are set appropriately by completing an engineering 

speed study and employing FHWA’s USLIMITS2.

• Improve visibility or conspicuity of intersection. Ensure sight distance is adequate, clear sight 

distance triangles, install advance signing, or enhance striping. For signalized intersections, install 

backplates or reflectorized backplates; use mast arms instead of span-wire. For unsignalized 

intersections, install larger and/or more reflective signing.

• Traffic calming. Incorporate traffic calming measures at intersections along arterials, such as 

constructing roundabouts or mini roundabouts, applying lane narrowing techniques (using striping or 

a combination of striping and rumble strips), or creating median islands.

• Signal timing. Create a plan to systematically review signal timings at intersections on these types 

of roadways. Ensure the yellow and all-red clearance intervals are appropriate for the speed limit and 

the intersection geometry. Coordinate signals on appropriate roadways to promote progression and a 

uniform speed.

• Dilemma zone protection measures. Install advance detection sensor equipment that adjusts the 

start time of the yellow-signal phase either earlier or later based on observed vehicle locations and 

speeds; install advance warning signs that notify drivers of the need to stop at an upcoming signalized 

intersection.

• Enforcement. Determine specific arterial roadway corridors with a high speeding-related intersection 

crash history and conduct high-visibility enforcement and education efforts. Use red-signal 

enforcement lights28 (i.e., “tattletale lights”), which assist law enforcement officers in more efficiently 

and safely issuing citations for drivers at an intersection. If the State or local jurisdiction allows, install 

red light running automated enforcement systems (see Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 

[FAST Act], Section 1401, for federal funding rules on these systems). 

Issue: Motorcyclists have a high risk of being involved in speeding-related intersection fatal crashes.

Potential strategies:

• Targeted education campaigns. Create educational campaigns that target motorcyclists or 

motorcycle clubs to promote safe riding. Campaigns can also target “other drivers” to promote 

increased awareness of motorcyclists.

• Conspicuity of motorcyclists. Encourage high visibility apparel and equipment for riders.

• Helmet laws. Support laws that require approved helmet use. NHTSA estimates that more than 700 

lives could be saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.29

• Rider training. Work with appropriate organizations to coordinate and/or require training before a 

rider can be licensed.

• Emergency responder training. Engage and ensure emergency response personnel are properly 

trained to understand, identify, and treat the specific types of injuries common to motorcycle crashes 

(e.g., pelvic injuries).

28 FHWA, “Red-Signal Enforcement Lights,” FHWA-SA-09-005 (Washington, DC: FHWA 2009). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/

techsum/fhwasa09005/

29 NHTSA, “Traffic Safety Facts, 2013 Data: Motorcycles,” DOT HS 812 148 (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2015). Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Pubs/812148.pdf
30

Issue: Angle crashes make up the highest percentage of speeding-related fatal intersection crashes 

at over 41 percent.

Potential strategies:

• Roundabouts and mini roundabouts. Roundabouts and mini roundabouts eliminate crossing 

conflicts that are present at conventional intersections, reducing both the total number of potential 

conflict points as well as the most severe of those conflict points.

• U-turn-based intersection designs. Both the restricted crossing U-turn intersection (RCUT) 

and median U-turn designs reduce overall conflict points significantly compared to conventional 

intersections. More importantly, certain RCUT designs have the potential to eliminate all “crossing” 

conflict points, which contribute to the most severe angle crashes (see Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act [FAST Act], Section 1401, for federal funding rules on these systems).

• Automated red-light enforcement. If the State or local jurisdiction allows installation of this 

enforcement method, photo enforcement can reduce red-light running and associated angle crashes 

(see Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act [FAST Act], Section 1401, for federal funding rules on 

these systems).

Issue: Speeding-related fatal intersection crashes are more likely to happen in rural areas.

Potential strategies:

• Improve visibility or conspicuity of intersections. Ensure sight distance is adequate, clear sight 

distance triangles, install advance signing, enhance signing and striping. Install lighting if there are 

high occurrences of speeding-related intersection crashes at night.

• Transverse rumble strips. Transverse rumble strips (i.e., in-lane rumble strips) are raised or grooves 

placed across the travel lane to supplement signing and alert drivers of the need to reduce speed as 

they approach an intersection.

• High friction surface treatment.30 Effective in addressing locations with friction or wet crash issues, 

high friction surface treatments secure a thin layer of specially engineered, durable, high-friction 

aggregates as a topping on resins or polymers – usually urethane, silicon, or epoxy – with a binder. 

While this countermeasure does not reduce speeding vehicles, it provides long lasting skid resistance.

• Detection control systems. Install advance detection sensors, which adjusts the start time of the 

yellow-signal phase either earlier or later based on observed vehicle locations and speed; install 

advance warning signs that notify drivers of the need to stop at an upcoming signalized intersection

• Rural ITS solutions. Install ITS solutions such as intersection collision warning systems (ICWS), speed 

feedback signs, speed activated warning or speed limit reminder signs, or other signs or beacons that 

notify the side street or major street vehicle of an approaching vehicle. Variable speed limit signs may 

be beneficial in areas where inclement weather is common.

• Transverse or optical speed bars. These pavement markings are generally spaced at gradually 

decreasing distances and are used to increase the drivers’ perception of speed and cause them to 

reduce speed.

• U-turn-based intersection designs. U-turn-based intersection designs, such as the RCUT or median 

U-turn can be beneficial on higher-speed rural divided highways by reducing conflict points and 

the probability of severe types of crashes. Certain RCUT designs have the potential to eliminate all 

“crossing” conflict points, which contribute to the most severe angle crashes.

30 FHWA, High Friction Surface Treatments Frequently Asked Questions, available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/pdfs/fhwacai-14-019_faqs_hfst_mar2014_508.pdf
31

• Left and right turn lanes. While adding left and right turn lanes may not reduce speeds, these 

auxiliary lanes allow the turning vehicles to move out of the main travel lanes, reducing the likelihood 

of rear-end speeding-related crashes or sudden lane-changing avoidance maneuvers. Consider offset 

left and right turn designs in order to provide better sight distance at the intersection.

Issue: While roundabouts and mini roundabouts are two of the most effective measures for 

managing speed through intersections and reducing severe crashes, initial cost or public sentiment 

often precludes widespread implementation in favor of conventional intersection designs and lowcost improvements.

Potential strategies

• Education and outreach. Educate the public and government officials on the benefits and safety of 

roundabouts.

• Life cycle cost. Calculate the life cycle cost, including the safety cost, in the planning and evaluation of 

intersection treatments.

• Roundabout-first policy. Implement an agency policy that requires consideration and evaluation 

of a roundabout as an alternative during a reconstruction or new intersection project. Typically, these 

types of policies indicate that, if the analysis shows a roundabout is a feasible alternative, the roundabout 

should then be considered a preferred option due to its great safety and operational benefits.

References and resources for speed management countermeasures are available on FHWA’s Speed 

Management website. FHWA has published desktop references that summarize studies on the 

effectiveness of engineering countermeasures in reducing crashes and managing speed. 31 As an 

additional resource, the CMF Clearinghouse provides a comprehensive database of CMFs along with 

supporting documentation to help agencies identify potential countermeasures and effectiveness.32

4.3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists and Speed Management

Transportation safety is not only about motor vehicle safety, it also encompasses protecting vulnerable 

users. Pedestrian safety is a primary concern in communities across the United States, with pedestrians 

accounting for approximately 14 percent of traffic fatalities.33 In 2013, bicyclist deaths accounted for over 

2 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities. 34,35

4.3.1 National Crash Data Analysis Trends

The speeding-related crash analysis completed on the national data included information on both 

pedestrians and bicyclists involved in fatal crashes. Approximately 8 percent of fatal crashes involving 

a pedestrian or bicyclist were speeding related, and 73 percent occurred predominantly in an urban 

setting. When looking at all fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes, the speeding-related crashes were 

almost twice as likely to be hit and run. While the complete report is included in Appendix A, some of 

the more significant results are listed below.

31 FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_

count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm, and FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Crashes, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_crashes.cfm, accessed September 4, 2015.

32 CMF Clearinghouse, available at: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

33 FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_

count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm, and FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Crashes, 2014, available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_crashes.cfm, accessed September 4, 2015.

34 The term bicyclist includes bicyclists and other cyclists including riders of two-wheel, non-motorized vehicles, tricycles, and unicycles powered solely by 

pedals.

35 NHTSA, “Traffic Safety Facts, 2013 Data: Bicyclists and Other Cyclists,” DOT HS 812 151 (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2015). Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.

dot.gov/Pubs/812151.pdf
32

LOCATION

Locations for speeding-related fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes are summarized in Figure 23. The 

majority of these fatal crashes did not take place at an intersection. These locations, making up nearly 

55 percent of fatal speeding-related pedestrian and bicycle crashes, may indicate mid-block crossings. 

Shoulders, roadsides, or parking lanes accounted for approximately 15 percent.

 Figure 23 – Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Location (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

SPEED LIMIT

The distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes by posted 

speed limit is shown in the figure below. More than 50 percent occurred on roads with speed limits 

between 30 mph and 45 mph, although roadways with these types of speed limits are more likely to 

have higher pedestrian and bicyclist volumes. Conversely, roads with speed limits of 60 mph or more, 

which account for almost 20 percent of the vehicles involved in these types of fatal crashes, typically 

have fewer pedestrians and bicyclists. 

 Figure 24 – Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Posted Speed 

Limit (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

Non-intersection 54.4%

Sidewalk 7.4%

Other 15.1%

Intersection 8.8%

Shoulder, roadside, or 

parking lane 14.3%

<=25 mph 13.9%

40 to 45 mph 20.5%

60 mph >= 19.2%

50 to 55 mph 15.2%

30 to 35 mph 31.1%
33

DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

As with the other focus areas, males also make up more than 70 percent of drivers in speeding-related 

pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes. The age group that is more likely to be involved in speedingrelated fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes is quite different than those involved in speeding-related 

roadway departure and intersection crashes. The distribution of drivers by age and gender category 

is shown in Figure 25 (the sum of all bars equals 100 percent). Males aged 45 to 64 make up nearly 30 

percent of all speeding-related fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Because of hit and run crashes, driver 

characteristics in all crashes may not be identified.

 Figure 25 – Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Age and 

Gender (Source: FARS 2010-2012)

TIME OF DAY

As shown in Figure 26, the most problematic time period was 6 p.m. to midnight, during which period 

nearly 40 percent of speeding-related fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred. The period with the 

second highest rate of crashes was from midnight to 5 a.m., during which time almost 20 percent of fatal 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred.

 Figure 26 – Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Hour of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

2.8%

7.6%

2.1%

4.9%

3.5%

5.5%

3.8%

1.8%

3.1%

6.2%

10.7%

10.3%

15.9%

11.8%

6.1%

4.0%

FEMALE MALE

Percent 0 5 10 15 20

Midnight to 5 a.m. 19.8%

5 to 8 a.m. 13.1%

10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 15.0%

6 p.m. to midnight 39.5%

4 to 6 p.m. 7.0%

8 to 10 a.m. 5.6%
34

4.3.2 Strategies

Addressing speeding-related, fatal pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes may be more challenging or overwhelming to agencies 

compared to the other focus areas. The lack of robust data and 

convincing leaders to prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

are just some of the hurdles that agencies must overcome. 

Below are some of the common issues regarding speedingrelated pedestrian and bicycle crashes that were identified 

both by agencies and by national data analysis results. The 

recommended strategies were identified through agency 

interviews and published resources.36 Every situation or location 

is unique, and agencies should exercise engineering judgment 

for determining the appropriate solution for their specific crash 

concerns. Although many of these strategies focus on pedestrian 

safety, many are also applicable to bicycle safety improvements.

Issue: It is challenging for agencies to identify clusters or 

problem locations for improving pedestrian safety because of data quality and quantity.

Potential strategies:

• Data improvement plan. Work together with law enforcement, emergency responders, community 

leaders, and special interest groups to improve and identify ways to capture information on the 

amount of pedestrians in a particular area, pedestrian injuries, and excessive speeding violations

• Pedestrian facilities review. Create an overall plan for assessing existing pedestrian facilities and 

identify gaps and needs relating to pedestrian safety. Activities might include: accurately inventorying 

existing facilities, identifying sidewalk gaps, verifying pedestrian facilities are constructed to meet ADA 

requirements, checking for properly marked crosswalks, and reviewing pedestrian cycle lengths at 

signalized intersections. These activities can help identify potential problem areas where pedestrians 

may be more vulnerable to speeding-related crash risks.

• Maintain inventories. Develop a process to keep crash and facility inventory data up to date. 

Issue: National data analysis revealed nearly 40 percent of speeding-related fatal pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes took place between 6 p.m. and midnight. The period with the second greatest 

number of crashes, almost 20 percent, was from midnight to 5 a.m. 

Potential Strategies:

• Lighting. In areas where there is a high amount of pedestrian activity, install lighting to illuminate 

intersections and crosswalks. Ensure existing lighting at intersections and crosswalks is designed 

properly for maximum safety and illuminance of pedestrians.

• Rectangular rapid flash beacons. Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB) are user-activated (or 

detection activated) amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersection or midblock crossings. RRFBs are shown to significantly increase driver yielding behavior at crosswalks when 

supplementing standard pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings. 37

36 Additional resources are listed in Appendix C.

37 FHWA, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), FHWA-SA-09-009, May 2009. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/

fhwasa09009/

“Every transportation agency, 

including DOT, has the 

responsibility to improve conditions 

and opportunities for walking 

and bicycling and to integrate 

walking and bicycling into their 

transportation systems.”

– U.S. DOT Policy Statement 

on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and 

Recommendations, March 2010
35

• In-roadway warning lights. Each side of a crosswalk is lined with a series of actuated, amber lights 

embedded in the roadway that light up to warn approaching drivers when a pedestrian is in or near 

the marked crosswalk. The MUTCD contains information on the use and installation of in-roadway 

warning lights.

• Public outreach and education. Educate pedestrians and bicyclists on the importance of wearing 

reflective clothing or installing reflectors on bicycles for visibility at nighttime.

Issue: The majority of pedestrian speeding-related fatal crashes do not take place at an intersection.

Potential Strategies:

• Raised median or refuge islands. Raised medians or islands provide for a safe area for pedestrians, so 

they do not have to cross the entire street at once and only need to negotiate one direction of traffic 

at a time.

• Pedestrian hybrid beacon (i.e., High intensity Activated crossWalK or “HAWK”). The pedestrianactivated warning device is located on the roadside or on mast arms over midblock pedestrian 

crossings. In general, they should be used if gaps in traffic are not adequate to permit pedestrians to 

cross, if vehicle speeds on the major street are too high to permit pedestrians to cross, or if pedestrian 

delay is excessive.38

• Rectangular rapid flash beacons. Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB) are user-activated (or 

detection activated) amber LEDs that can supplement warning signs at mid-block crossings. RRFBs are 

shown to significantly increase driver yielding behavior at crosswalks when supplementing standard 

pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings.39

• Barriers to prevent unwanted crossings. Identify areas where pedestrians are making decisions to 

cross at unsafe locations and install barriers that prevent crossing.

• Enforcement, education, and outreach. Plan targeted enforcement and education campaigns for 

pedestrians on safe crossing habits, the risks of walking alongside higher-speed roadways, promote 

walking against traffic, etc., along with educating drivers to slow down and yield to pedestrians.

Issue: Many roadways have historically been designed with vehicles as the primary user; little 

consideration has traditionally been given to non-motorized users.

Potential Strategies:

• Context sensitive design. Incorporate context sensitive design into agency policy by examining 

needs of communities and the users of the roadway. Incorporate pedestrian and other users in the 

purpose and need for projects where appropriate.

• Road Diets. With the four-lane to three-lane conversion being the most common lane 

reconfiguration, Road Diets have been proven to reduce top-end speeders as well as to allow a more 

pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design by reallocating space for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian 

refuge islands, etc.40

38 FHWA, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, FHWA-SA-12-012, October 2014. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_012.cfm

39 FHWA, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB), FHWA-SA-09-009 (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2009). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/

resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/

40 FHWA, Road Diet Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-14-028 (Washington, DC: FHWA, November 2014). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/

info_guide/
36

• Accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists. Designers can review FHWA’s Accommodating Bicycle 

and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach. FHWA’s Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design 

Guide also provides practical information and promotes design flexibility for implementing separated 

bicycle lanes.

• Bicycle-friendly rumble strips. While rumble strips provide tremendous safety benefits for motorists, 

they may cause concern for bicyclists. Design opportunities exist whereby the impacts of rumble 

strips on other road users can be reduced by adjusting the strips’ dimensions and location.41

Speed management countermeasures references are available on FHWA’s Speed Management website. 

FHWA has published desktop references that summarize studies about the effectiveness of engineering 

countermeasures in reducing crashes and managing speed.42 The CMF Clearinghouse provides a 

comprehensive database of CMFs along with supporting documentation to help agencies identify 

potential countermeasures and effectiveness.43

41 FHWA, “Technical Advisory: Shoulder and Edge Line Rumble Strips,” T 5040.39, Revision 1 (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2011). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.

gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/t504039/

42 FHWA, A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, FHWA-SA-14-101 (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2015). Available at http://safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm

43 CMF Clearinghouse, available at: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
37

Chapter 5. Conclusion

Over the past decade, the United States has made great strides in reducing roadway fatalities. While 

the reduction in fatalities is significant and to be commended, additional focus on speed management 

is needed to continue the trend. Since roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes have been identified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the three areas with 

great potential to reduce fatalities, States are encouraged to integrate speed management into these 

three safety focus areas. Agencies are also encouraged to take a broad look at their existing policies and 

programs to identify opportunities on how speed management can be more fully integrated throughout 

their organization.44 

This document has provided information on national speeding-related crash trends, promotes a speedrelated crash data analysis approach, and recommends strategies for integrating speed management 

within an agency’s policies, as well as their roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety focus areas.

5.1 Gaps and Opportunities for Future Safety Improvements

Speeding is a complex problem and achieving reductions in speeding-related crashes will require 

comprehensive efforts, involving strategies and inputs from the engineering, education and outreach, 

enforcement, and emergency medical responder stakeholder communities. Speed management is 

essential for State and local agencies to meet their safety goals. 

While this report provides practical guidance on how State and local agencies can enhance their speed 

management programs, policies, and strategies, some critical gaps in our understanding of the problem 

exist, and additional initiatives are needed in order to more effectively manage speeds to improve 

roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. A list of identified gaps and needs 

are included in Appendix D.

44 In order to promote, disseminate, and expand on the guidance presented in this report, FHWA is developing a National Highway Institute (NHI) training 

course on integrating speed management within the three safety focus areas, expected to be available in 2018.

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

A-i

Table of Contents

Appendix A– Evaluation of the Role of Speeding in Crashes and Safety-Critical Events.........................47

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................47

2. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES USING FARS AND GES DATA .............................49

2.1 DEFINITION OF SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES .....................................................................................................................49

2.2. SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL...............................................................................................50

2.3 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................................................................53

2.4 ROADWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... 54

2.5 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................................................57

3. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING-RELATED FATAL CRASHES AT INTERSECTIONS 

 USING FARS DATA............................................................................................................................................59

3.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................................................................59

3.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................................................................................................................62

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS.........................................................................................................................................63

3.4 VEHICLE TYPE...........................................................................................................................................................................................65

3.5 CRASH TYPE............................................................................................................................................................................................. 66

3.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF ANGLE CRASHES .................................................................................................................................67

3.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF REAR-END CRASHES...........................................................................................................................69

3.8 CHARACTERISTICS OF LEFT-TURN CRASHES..........................................................................................................................70

4. SPEEDING-RELATED FATAL ROADWAY DEPARTURE CRASHES..............................................................73

4.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................................................73

4.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................................................................................................... 76

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................................77

4.4 VEHICLE TYPE.....................................................................................................................................................................................78

4.5 CRASH TYPE........................................................................................................................................................................................79

4.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF ROLLOVER CRASHES .....................................................................................................................80

4.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF OPPOSING DIRECTION CRASHES ........................................................................................... 81

4.8 CHARACTERISTICS OF TREE CRASHES..................................................................................................................................83

5. SPEEDING-RELATED CRASH DATA FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYLISTS..................................................85

5.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................................................85

5.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS.........................................................................................................................................................87

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................................88

5.4 VEHICLE TYPE.....................................................................................................................................................................................89

6. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS USING SHRP 2 DATA.............91

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................................................. 91

6.2 COMPARISON OF SPEEDING FOR SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS TO BASELINE EVENTS ...................................92

6.3 TYPOLOGY OF SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS..........................................................................................................................96

6.4 STUDY LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................................................101

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.................................................................102

7. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................103

Appendix B – Safety Focus Groups ....................................................................................................................105

Appendix C – Additional Resources................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix D – Gaps and Needs in Research...................................................................................................... 113
APPENDICES

A-ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Variable Coding Used in FARS and GES Datasets.................................................................................................................................................................. 49

Table 2: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for All Safety-critical Events.............................................................................................. 92

Table 3: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for Roadway Departure Safety-critical Events.....................................................94

Table 4: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for Rear-End Safety-critical Events............................................................................... 95

Table 5: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Signalized Intersections by Roadway Type................................................................................................ 95

Table 6: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Stop-controlled Intersections by Roadway Type...................................................................................96

Table 7: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Yield-controlled Intersections by Roadway Type...................................................................................96

List of FIgures

Figure 1: Trend in Fatalities and Speeding-related Fatalities in the United States.............................................................................................................50

Figure 2: Percentage of Crashes by Injury Type that are Speeding-related .......................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3: Percentage of Crashes by Crash Category............................................................................................................................................................................. 51

Figure 4: Percentage of Speeding-related Crashes by Crash Category ................................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 5: Distribution of Fatal Speeding-related Crashes by Manner of Collision ............................................................................................................52

Figure 6: Distribution of Fatal Non-Speeding-related Crashes by Manner of Collision.................................................................................................52

Figure 7: Distribution of Driver Age Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Crashes ............................................................................................................52

Figure 8: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes by BAC..............................................................................................................................................53

Figure 9: Percentage of Drivers Involve in Fatal Crashes by Previous Convictions...........................................................................................................53

Figure 10: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Crashes.................................................................................................................54

Figure 11: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Non-Speeding-related Fatal Crashes......................................................................................................54

Figure 12: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Crashes by Roadway Function Class...............................................................................................54

Figure 13: Distribution of Non-Speeding-related Fatal Crashes by Roadway Function Class....................................................................................54

Figure 14: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Crashes that are Speeding-related by Speed Limit Category ................................................ 55

Figure 15: Percentage of Speeding-related Crashes by Work Zone Category .................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 16: Percentage of Speeding Drivers in Fatal Crashes, by Roadway Surface Condition..................................................................................56

Figure 17: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Fatal Speeding-related Crashes by Horizontal Alignment.......................................................56

Figure 18: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in All Speeding-related Crashes by Horizontal Alignment............................................................56

Figure 19: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Traffic Control............... 59

Figure 20: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Traffic Control................60

Figure 21: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Type....................................60

Figure 22: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway....................................60

Figure 23: Percentage of Vehicles Involved Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway............................................61

Figure 24: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) of 

Corresponding Approach......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61
A-iii

APPENDICES

Figure 25: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) of 

Corresponding Approach.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................62

Figure 26: Percentage of Drivers by Age and Gender Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes.........................................62

Figure 27: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Crashes by BAC..............................................................................................................................................63

Figure 28: Percentage of Drivers Involved in Fatal Intersection Crashes by BAC...............................................................................................................63

Figure 29: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Time of Day..............................................................................................63

Figure 30: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Time of Day ...............................................................................................64

Figure 31: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Hour of Day...............................................................................................64

Figure 32: Percentage of Fatal Intersection Crashes that are Speeding-related by Hour of Day ...........................................................................65

Figure 33: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition..........................................................65

Figure 34: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle ........................................65

Figure 35: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle .........................................66

Figure 36: Distribution of Speeding-related Intersection Fatal Crashes by Crash Type ...............................................................................................66

Figure 37: Distribution of Speeding-related Intersection Fatal Crashes by First Harmful Event...............................................................................67

Figure 38: Distribution of Vehicles Involved Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections by Speed Limit..............................67

Figure 39: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections by BAC..............................................68

Figure 40: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections by 

Roadway Surface Condition................................................................................................................................................................................................................................68

Figure 41: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections by Vehicle Type.......................68

Figure 42: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit........................69

Figure 43: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Fatal Rear-End Intersection Crashes that are Speeding-related by BAC ...........................69

Figure 44: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes by Roadway Surface.............69

Figure 45: Distribution of Vehicles Types Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes ..............................................70

Figure 46: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Left-turn Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit..........................70

Figure 47: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Left-turn Intersection Crashes by BAC ............................................... 71

Figure 48: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Fatal Rear-End Intersection Crashes that are Speeding-related by BAC ........................... 71

Figure 49: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Left-turn Intersection Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type........................72

Figure 50: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway................73

Figure 51: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway...................73

Figure 52: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) 

of Corresponding Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................74

Figure 53: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) 

of Corresponding Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................74

Figure 54: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Single-vehicle Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by 

Speed Limit (mph) of Corresponding Approach...................................................................................................................................................................................75

Figure 55: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Curve Type...............................75

Figure 56: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Horizontal Alignment........75

Figure 57: Percentage of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatalities by Driver Age and Gender................. 76
APPENDICES

Figure 58: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by BAC.................................................. 76

Figure 59: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Road Departure Crashes by Time of Day.....................................................................................77

Figure 60: Distribution of Speeding-related Road Departure Fatal Crashes by Hour of Day.....................................................................................77 

Figure 61: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Hour of Day .............................................................................77

Figure 62: Distribution Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition.......................78

Figure 63: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Vehicle......................78

FIgure 64: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Vehicle.......................78

Figure 65: Distribution of Fatal Speeding-related Roadway Departure Crashes by Crash Type..............................................................................79

Figure 66: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by First Harmful Event...........................................................79

Figure 67: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit..................................80

Figure 68: Distribution of Drivers Involved in of Speeding-related Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by BAC.................................................80

Figure 69: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by 

Roadway Surface Condition.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................80

Figure 70: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type................................. 81

Figure 71: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by Speed Limit.............................. 81

Figure 72: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by BAC .............................................. 81

Figure 73: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by Roadway Surface.................82

Figure 74: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related, Fatal, Opposing-Direction Crashes by Vehicle Type..........................82

Figure 75: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related, Tree-Impact, Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit.............................................83

Figure 76: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Tree Impact Fatal Crashes by BAC.....................................................................83

Figure 77: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Tree Impact Fatal Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition ...........83

Figure 78: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in of Speeding-related, Tree-impact, Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type......................................84

Figure 79: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Location............................................................................85

Figure 80: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Type of Roadway..........................................................86

Figure 81: Distribution of Vehicles Involved of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by 

Posted Speed Limit....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................86

Figure 82: Percentage of Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes that are Speeding-related by Posted Speed Limit...................................86

Figure 83: Distribution of Drivers Involved in All Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Age and Gender..................................................87

Figure 84: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Age and Gender...............87

Figure 85: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Driver BAC..........................................................................88

Figure 86: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Time of Day......................................................................88

Figure 87: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Hour of Day......................................................................88

Figure 88: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Vehicle Type .....................................................................89

A-iv
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

47

 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes several different analyses which the research team used to evaluate the role of speeding 

in crashes or safety-critical events.

The first analysis (Section 2) summarized characteristics of speeding-related crashes using crash data from the 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimation System (GES). As noted in Section 2, around 

31 percent of fatal crashes annually are speeding related, and this trend has been consistent from 2003 to 2012. 

Around 20.2 percent of injury crashes are speeding related and around 16.2 percent of property damage only 

crashes are speeding-related.

The research team also summarized characteristics of crashes by crash type, driver characteristics, vehicle 

characteristics, and roadway/environmental characteristics.

Section 3 further explores characteristics of speeding-related fatal crashes at intersections. Summaries were 

developed using FARS data from 2010 to 2012. The research team evaluated fatal intersection crashes by type of 

roadway characteristics, driver characteristics, environmental characteristics, and crash types.

Section 4 evaluates characteristics of speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes. Summaries were 

developed using FARS data from 2010 to 2012. The research team evaluated roadway departure crashes by type 

of roadway, driver, and environmental characteristics as well as by crash types.

Section 5 compares the characteristics of speeding-related fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Summaries were 

developed using FARS data from 2010 to 2012. The research team evaluated pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 

type of roadway, driver, and environmental characteristics as well as by crash types.

Section 6 utilized existing summarized data from the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) large-scale 

naturalistic driving study (NDS). The research team queried or extracted baseline and safety critical (crash, nearcrash, crash relevant) events from the InSight Data Access Website. The evaluation compares safety-critical events 

(crash and near-crash) to baseline events to assess the role of speed. Additionally, the research team conducted a 

typology of characteristics for safety-critical events. 
48
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

49

2. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES USING FARS 

AND GES DATA 

The objective of this section of the report is to summarize characteristics of speeding-related crashes. The 

research team used crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and General Estimation System 

(GES). FARS includes all fatal motor vehicle crashes since 1975. A fatal crash is defined as the death of an occupant 

or a non-occupant within 30 days of the crash (NHTSA, 2012a). More than 100 data elements were coded in FARS 

including accident, vehicle, driver, occupant, non-occupant, and pre-crash information. 

The most recent crash data in FARS was from 2012. The coding structure has gone through many changes over 

time; in particular, a major change was made in 2009 to address the data consistency between FARS and GES. As 

a result, the research team primarily used the most recent 3 years of crash data since the changes were made in 

2009 (2010 to 2012) for this report.

GES, on the other hand, includes all types of injury severities from minor to fatal and has data available as early as 

1988. Non-injury crashes are also included. The research team collected GES data from a nationally representative 

sample of motor vehicle crashes as reported by police (NHTSA, 2012b). 

GES randomly sampled 50,000 police accident reports each year from more than 400 police agencies in the 

United States. The crashes included in GES must involve at least one motor vehicle traveling on a roadway and 

must result in property damage, injury, or death. Each crash in the dataset is also assigned with a weight that can 

be used to estimate the total number of crashes in the United States. 

This report included both FARS and GES datasets to estimate the scope of the speeding-related crash problem in 

the United States.

The raw datasets were downloaded from FARS and GES ftp website. The data manipulation was conducted using 

R software. The categories used in the charts and figures are based on FARS definitions.

2.1 DEFINITION OF SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES

The following summarizes the various definitions used to summarize crash information.

Definition of speeding-related crashes: “NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if the driver was 

charged with a speeding-related offense or if an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or 

exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash (Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA).”

The coding system in FARS and GES contains a set of auxiliary data files which indicate whether a crash was 

speeding related based on the codes as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Variable Coding Used in FARS and GES Datasets

Variables

FARS/GES

Auxiliary File Name Field Name

Speeding-related Crashes ACC_AUX A_SCRA

The research team used these variables to identify what are termed “speeding-related” crashes in this report.

Definition of Intersection Crashes: The definition was based on the most recent definition provided by FHWA 

and incorporates intersection and intersection related crashes. An internal memo was the source for this information. 

Intersection crashes in 2010 or later FARS data are selected to include the following within the “Relation to Junction” 

field: (2) intersection; (3) intersection-related; (4) driveway access; and (8) driveways access related. 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

50

Definition of Roadway Departure Crashes: The definition was based on the most recent provided by 

FHWA for roadway departure crashes: “A crash in which a vehicle crosses an edge line, a center line, or leaves 

the traveled way.” The research team queried roadway departure crashes in 2010 or later FARS data within the 

first event for any vehicle to include: (63) Ran Off Road – Right; (64) Ran Off Road – Left); (65) Cross Median; and 

(68) Cross centerline or include the following within the fixed object codes: 17, 19-43, 46, 52, 53, 57, and 59. The 

following are also included: (67) Vehicle Went Airborne and (69) Re-entering Roadway.

Definition of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes: The definition was based on the most recent provided by 

FHWA for pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Using 2010 or later FARS data this includes persons who were coded as: 

(5) Pedestrian; (6) Bicyclist; (7) Other Cyclist; or (8) Person on Personal Conveyance.

2.2. SPEEDING-RELATED CRASHES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

This section focuses on the breakdown of speeding-related crashes by crash type, driver characteristics, vehicle 

characteristics, and roadway environments at the national level. Unless otherwise noted, the information utilizes 

the most recent three years of data (2010 to 2012).

In most cases data are shown aggregated the crash level. In some cases data are presented at the vehicle or 

driver level (i.e. age or vehicle type), and this is indicated as such.

2.2.1 General Crash Trends

The trend of speeding-related fatalities in the past 10 years is shown in Figure 1. The number of fatalities has 

declined over the past 10 years from around 42,000 from 2003 to 2007 to around 33,000 from 2010 to 2012. The 

percent of fatalities that are speeding related has remained relatively constant at around 31 percent over the past 

10 years. NHTSA estimated the annual cost of speeding-related crashes was $40.4 billion (NHTSA, 2012c).

Figure 1: Trend in Fatalities and Speeding-related Fatalities in the United States (Source: FARS, 2003 to 2012)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

0

5%

10%

15%

30%

20%

25%

35%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Total FATALITIES Percent SPEEDING-RELATED

31.5% 31% 31.2% 31.9% 31.8% 31.4% 31.5% 31.8%

30.8%30.4%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

51

Injury

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

Property Damage 

Only

79.8% 83.8%

20.2% 16.2%

Figure 2: Percentage of Crashes by 

Injury Type that are Speeding-related 

(Source: GES, 2010 – 2012)

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Roadway

departure

55.8%

21.8%

26.4%

17.3%

50.7%

1.8% 2.4% 0.5%

Work

zone

Intersection Pedestrian/

bicycle

FATAL ALL

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Roadway

departure

72.8%

36.8%

18.3%

4.7%

37.6%

2.0% 0.5% 0.4%

Work

zone

Intersection Pedestrian/

bicycle

FATAL ALL

Figure 3: Percentage of Crashes by Crash Category 

(Source: FARS and GES, 2010 – 2012)

Figure 4: Percentage of Speeding-related Crashes by 

Crash Category (Source: FARS and GES, 2010 – 2012) 

The number of speeding-related crashes are summarized by injury type as 

shown in Figure 2. Around 20 percent of injury crashes were speeding related 

in comparison to around 31 percent of fatal crashes. Speeding-related crashes 

make up around 16 percent of property damage only crashes. 

The percentage of different crash categories of interest are summarized in 

Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of roadway, intersection, 

work zone, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes overall. Roadway departures 

make up 55.8 percent of fatal crashes in general but only 21.8 percent of all 

crashes. As a result, roadway departure crashes are more disproportionately 

likely to be fatal. Work zone crashes make up 1.8 percent of fatal crashes 

in general and only 0.5 percent of all crashes. Intersection crashes account 

for 26.4 percent of fatal crashes in general and 50.7 percent of all crashes. 

Pedestrian and bicycle crashes account for 17.3 percent of fatal crashes in 

general but account for only 2.4 percent of all crashes. This suggests that 

intersection crashes are less likely to be fatal than roadway departures, work 

zones, or pedestrian and bicycle crashes. This also indicates that pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes are much more likely to result in a fatal crash.

Figure 4 provides similar information for crashes that were coded as speeding-related. As noted roadway 

departure crashes account for the majority of speeding-related fatal crashes (72.8 percent). In contrast they 

make up 36.8 percent of all speeding-related crashes. Work zones account for 2.0 percent of speeding-related 

fatal crashes and 0.5 percent of all speeding-related crashes. Intersections account for less than 20 percent of 

speeding-related fatal crashes while making up over one-third (37.6 percent) of all speeding-related crashes. 

Finally, pedestrian and bicycle crashes are 4.7 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes and less than one percent 

(0.4 percent) of all speeding-related.

It should be noted that the categories in Figures 3 and 4 are not mutually exclusive. A crash coded as a roadway 

departure could also be a work zone crash, an intersection crash could also be a pedestrian and bicycle crash, etc.
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

52

2.2.2 Manner of Collision

Figures 5 and 6 shows fatal crashes by manner of collision. The predominant crash type for both speeding- and nonspeeding-related crashes is non-vehicle collisions, which include roadway departures (this is typically single vehicle 

roadway departure crashes). Manner of collision was similar for speeding versus non-speeding related crashes.

2.2.3 Driver Characteristics

Driver characteristics including driver age, gender, alcohol test results, and previous convictions are summarized in 

the following sections.

Age and Gender

Figure 7 shows the distribution of drivers involved in speeding-related fatal crashes as a function of age group. 

The sum of the columns equals 100 

percent. For instance 13.5 percent of 

drivers involved in fatal speedingrelated crashes were aged 15 to 20 

years old. The largest percentage 

of drivers involved were aged 21 to 

25. Drivers aged 71 to 75 accounted 

for the fewest number of speedingrelated crashes.

Males accounted for 78.2 percent of 

drivers involved in speeding-related 

fatal crashes with females making 

up 22.8 percent. Males make up 73.7 

percent of non-speeding-related fatal 

crashes and females make up 26.3 percent.

Other/unknown 0.5%

Non-vehicle 

collision 70.3%

Head-on 5.2%

Angle 12.5%

Rear-end 9.1%

Sideswipe 2.5%

Other/unknown 0.5%

Non-vehicle 

collision 60.9%

Head-on 11.1%

Angle 20.3%

Rear-end 4.4%

Sideswipe 2.8%

Figure 5: Distribution of Fatal Speeding-related 

Crashes by Manner of Collision 

(Source: FARS, 2003 to 2012)

Figure 6: Distribution of Fatal Non-Speeding-related 

Crashes by Manner of Collision 

(Source: FARS, 2003 to 2012)

Figure 7: Distribution of Driver Age Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Crashes 

(Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012) 

0 5 10 15 20

15-20

21-25

46-50

41-45

36-40

31-35

26-30

51-55

71-75

66-70

61-65

56-60

76+

13.5%

9.8%

8.2%

7.0%

4.0%

1.6%

17.1%

12.2%

8.7%

8.1%

5.2%

2.3%

2.4%

Percent
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

53

Blood Alcohol Concentration

Figure 8 shows the distribution of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for 

drivers in fatal crashes. Only situations where BAC was reported were 

included. The left column show the distribution of drivers involved 

in speeding-related fatal crashes. Each column equals 100 percent. 

As noted, drivers with BAC of 0.08 or greater made up almost half of 

drivers involved in speeding-related fatal crashes while those with a BAC 

between 0.01 to 0.07 made up around 8 percent of all speeding-related 

crashes. In contrast, only 29 percent of drivers in non-speeding-related 

fatal crashes had a BAC of 0.08 and higher and 6 percent had a BAC 

between 0.01 and 0.07.

Convictions

Figure 9 shows speed convictions. The bars show percentage of drivers 

involved in all fatal crashes by number of convictions. The sum of all 

columns equals 100 percent. The percentage of drivers for each 

conviction category which are speeding-related are shown using 

the trend line. 

Drivers with no previous convictions make up almost 80 

percent of fatal crashes, around 20 percent of crashes for those 

crashes were coded as speeding related. In contrast, drivers 

with one previous conviction make up 12.6 percent of fatal 

crashes but 26.0 percent of those crashes are speeding related. 

Drivers with five or more convictions account for 0.2 percent 

of fatal but 41.1 percent of those crashes are speeding related. 

Although drivers with more convictions made up only a small 

share of fatal crashes, when they were involved in a fatal crash, it 

was much more likely to be coded as being speeding related.

2.3 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

Figures 10 and 11 show the type of vehicles involved in 

speeding-related and non-speeding-related fatal crashes. 

Passenger cars make up around 40 percent of both speedingand non-speeding-related crashes. Slightly more light trucks are 

involved in non-speeding related (34.8 percent versus 32.3 

percent). Similarly, large trucks and buses were more likely to 

be involved in non-speeding-related fatal crashes compared 

to those that are speeding-related (9.7 percent versus 6.5 percent). As shown, motorcycle fatalities were much 

more likely to be speeding-related. Motorcycles only account for 9.1 percent of non-speeding-related fatal 

crashes but they account for 17.4 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes.

Figure 9. Percentage of Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes 

by Previous Convictions (Source: FARS) 

Speeding

BAC=0.00 BAC=0.01-0.07 BAC=0.08+

Not speeding

43.8% 28.7%

8%

6%

48% 65%

Figure 8: Distribution of Drivers Involved in 

Fatal Crashes by BAC 

(Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012) 

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

ALL SPEEDING-RELATED

19.8%

26% 29.2%

30.5%

33.5%

41.1%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

54

2.4 ROADWAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

This section summarizes the roadway and environmental characteristics of speeding-related crashes.

2.4.1 Roadway Type

Figures 12 and 13 illustrate fatal crashes by roadway type. As the charts indicate, more speeding-related fatal 

crashes occur on local streets and minor arterials, but more fatal non-speeding-related crashes occur on 

interstates and principal arterials.

Interstate/freeway 11.2%

Principal 

arterial 18.9%

Minor arterial 22.2%

Collector 8.2%

Local road or 

street 24.8%

Interstate/freeway 28.6%

Principal 

Minor arterial 22% arterial 24.8%

Collector 6.2%

Local road or 

street 18.5%

Figure 10: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Crashes (Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012)

Figure 12. Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Crashes 

by Roadway Function Class (Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012)

Figure 11: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Non-Speedingrelated Fatal Crashes (Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012)

Figure 13. Distribution of Non-Speeding-related Fatal Crashes 

by Roadway Function Class (Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 6.5%

Light truck 32.3%

Motorcycle 17.4%

Passenger cars 42.1%

Other 1.8% Large truck/buses 9.7%

Light truck 34.8%

Motorcycle 9.1%

Passenger cars 39.9%

Bus 0.7%

Van 05.8%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

55

2.4.2 Speed Limit

Figure 14 shows the percentage of vehicles involved in speeding-related crashes by speed limit of the 

corresponding roadway. Almost 37 percent of vehicles involved in fatal crashes on roadways posted at 25 mph 

and lower were coded as speeding-related. Correspondingly, 63.4 percent of crashes on roadways posted 25 

mph or lower were non-speeding-related. Only 8.6 percent of vehicles involved in all crashes on roadways in the 

same speed limit range are speeding-related. As a result, fatal crashes were much more likely to be speedingrelated for this roadway category.

In all cases, the percentage of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related crashes for a particular speed limit range 

is higher than the number of all crashes that are speeding-related. 

In addition, lower speed limit ranges have a higher percentage of vehicles involved in crashes that are coded as 

speeding-related. For instance, 27.9 percent of vehicles involved in fatal crashes on roadway posted at 60 or more 

mph were speeding-related while 34.1 percent were coded for roadways posted at 30 to 35 mph. This is likely 

due to the fact that it is easier to be coded as speeding for lower speed limits.

Figure 14: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Crashes that are Speeding-related by Speed Limit Category 

(Source: FARS and GES, 2010 – 2012) 

2.4.3 Work Zone

Figure 15 summarized the 

percentage of speeding-related 

crashes in work zones. Speedingrelated crashes account for 35 

to 42 percent of fatal work zone 

crashes, depending on the type of 

work zone. The percentage of all 

speeding-related crashes in work 

zones range from 15 to 27 percent. 

For instance, 42.4 percent of fatal 

crashes in utility type work zones 

were speeding-related while only 14.8 

percent of all crashes in utility work 

zones were speeding-related. 

25 mph <=

50 to 55 mph

40 to 45 mph

30 to 35 mph

65 mph>=

Percent

8.6%

9.7%

9.9%

13.3%

18.7%

36.6%

34.1%

29.7%

28.7%

27.9%

ALL FATAL

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Construction

Maintenance

Utility

None

Percent

14.8%

27.5%

18.5%

19.5%

42.4%

34.8%

37%

30.3%

ALL FATAL

0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 15: Percentage of Speeding-related Crashes by Work Zone Category

(Source: FARS and GES, 2010 – 2012) 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

56

2.4.4 Surface Condition

Figure 16 show the percentage of vehicles involved in crashes that were speeding-related by surface condition. 

As noted, fatal crashes were more likely to be speeding-related for all roadway surface categories. Crashes on 

roadways where ice, frost, or slush was listed as the surface condition were the most likely to be speeding-related 

for both fatal and total crashes (41.6 percent and 32.7 percent), respectively.

Crashes on dry roads were the least likely to be coded as speeding-related, with 8.6 percent of all crashes and 

20.0 percent of fatal crashes coded as having vehicles on dry roads.

Figure 16: Percentage of Speeding Drivers in Fatal Crashes, by Roadway Surface Condition (2010 – 2012) 

(Source: FARS and GES)

2.4.5 Horizontal Alignment

Figure 17 showed the distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related crashes by type of horizontal 

alignment. As noted, around 60 percent of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related crashes were on a straight 

section of roadway while around 40 percent were on some type of horizontal curve. Figure 18 shows the 

distribution of vehicles involved in all crashes. As indicated, vehicles in all crashes were most likely to be on a 

straight section (78.7 percent) with around 21 percent occurring on some type of horizontal curves. 

Straight 59.8%

Curve left 19.3%

Curve right 17.6%

Curve - unknown direction 3.3%

Straight 78.7%

Curve left 9.5%

Curve right 8.7%

Curve - unknown direction 3.1%

Figure 17: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Fatal 

Speeding-related Crashes by Horizontal Alignment 

(Source: FARS, 2010 – 2012)

Figure 18: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in All 

Speeding-related Crashes by Horizontal Alignment 

(Source: GES, 2010 – 2012)

Dry

Ice/frost/slush

Snow

Wet

Other

Percent

8.6%

14%

27.5%

32.7%

23.2%

20%

23.2%

34.7%

41.6%

37.1%

ALL FATAL

0 10 20 30 40 50
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

57

2.5 SUMMARY

• The percentage of fatalities that are speeding-related has remained relatively constant at around 31 percent 

over the past 10 years.

• Drivers with a BAC of 0.08 or higher make up almost 44 percent of all fatal speeding-related crashes.

• The percentage of fatal crashes that are speeding-related increases as the number of convictions increase.

• Motorcycle fatalities are more likely to be speeding-related than for other vehicle types. Motorcycle crashes 

make up 17.4 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes compared to 9.1 percent of non-speeding-related 

fatal crashes.

• More speeding-related fatal crashes occur on local streets and minor arterials than other roadway types.

• Snow or ice/frost/slush roadway conditions account for more speeding-related fatal crashes than other 

roadway conditions. 

• The majority of speeding-related fatal crashes at intersections occurred in rural areas (67 percent).

• From 35 to 42 percent of work zone fatal crashes are speeding-related depending on the type of work zone.

EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

59

3. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING-RELATED FATAL CRASHES 

AT INTERSECTIONS USING FARS DATA

This chapter describes characteristics for fatal speeding-related intersection crashes. Crashes in the FARS 

databases were extracted based on the most recent definition utilized by FHWA as described in Chapter 2. 

Intersection crashes were extracted from the FARS data for 2010 to 2012. 

The majority of fatal crashes at intersections occurred in rural areas (38 percent) while 35 percent of speedingrelated fatal crashes occurred in rural areas. 

3.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

Many roadway characteristics within FARS are reported at the vehicle level. Since roadway characteristics were 

coded at the vehicle level and more than one vehicle may be involved in a crash, more than one roadway 

characteristic may be reported for each crash. For instance a crash between a vehicle at a major and minor 

approach for a two-way stop would be reported as “no control” and “stop sign.”

3.1.1 Traffic Control

Figure 19 shows the distribution of all vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes by type of intersection 

traffic control. Percentages for the pie chart add up to 100 percent. As indicated, 28 percent of all vehicles 

involved in fatal speeding-related intersection crashes were at an intersection with a traffic signal, 15 percent 

occurred at stop-controlled intersections, and 51 percent occurred at intersections with no stop control. 

 Figure 19: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Traffic Control 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 20 shows the percentage of vehicles involved in fatal intersection crashes that were coded as speedingrelated by type of intersection traffic control where the crash occurred. Each bar shows the total percentage 

of vehicles for that category (i.e. each bar equals 100 percent). As shown, 11.4 percent of vehicles involved in 

fatal crashes that occurred on an intersection approach with a traffic signal were coded as being speedingrelated while 88.6 percent were not speeding-related. The type of intersection traffic control with the highest 

percentage of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes was yield signs, with 13.1 percent. The lowest 

percentage of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes was at stop signs, with 10.3 percent.

No control 50.8%

Stop sign 15.2%

Trac signal 28.2%

Other 5.0%

Yield sign 0.7%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

60

Figure 20: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Traffic Control 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.1.2 Intersection Type

Figure 21 shows the distribution of all vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal crashes by type of intersection. 

The majority of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related intersection crashes occurred at intersections with 

four approaches (45.1 percent). Roundabouts and traffic circles made up less than 1 percent and T-intersections 

accounted for 34.2 percent of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related crashes at intersections. 

3.1.3 Roadway Type

Figure 22 shows the distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by type of 

roadway. As the chart shows, the majority of vehicles involved in speeding-related intersection crashes were 

coded as being on principal arterials (30.1 percent), which excludes freeway, expressways, and interstates. A large 

percentage of vehicles were coded as being on minor arterials and local roads—22.8 percent and 26.9 percent, 

respectively. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Trac signal

Stop sign

Yield sign

No control

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

11.4%

10.3%

13.1%

12.9%

88.6%

89.7%

86.9%

87.1%

Four-way 45.1%

Y 4.1%

T 34.2%

Roundabout 0.3%

Trac circle 0.1%

Five-point 0.4%

Other 15.7%

Figure 22: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 21: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Intersection Crashes by Intersection Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Interstate 1.1%

Freeway/expressway 2.2 %

Other principal 

arterial 30.1%

Collector 15.8% Minor arterial 22.8%

Local 26.9%

Unknown 1.1%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

61

Figure 23 shows the percentage of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by type of 

roadway. The percentages for each bar equal 100 percent. 

As shown, the highest percentage of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes was for 

interstates, at 28.9 percent. Other principal arterials had the lowest percentage of vehicles coded as speedingrelated intersection crashes (17.8 percent). The remaining roadway types had similar fractions of vehicles involved 

in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes with 20.5 and 26.3 percent.

Figure 23: Percentage of Vehicles Involved Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Roadway

 (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.1.4 Speed Limit

Figure 24 shows the distribution of all vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by speed 

limit. It should be noted that speed limit is correlated to roadway type. The largest share of vehicles involved in 

speeding-related intersection crashes, 30.1 percent, occur on roadways with speed limits of 40 or 45 miles per 

hour (mph). This is followed by roadways posted at 30 to 35 mph, with 27.9 percent.

Figure 24: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) of 

Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Local

Collector

Minor arterial

Other principal 

arterial

Freeway/

expressway

Interstate

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

26.3%

21.7%

20.6%

17.8%

20.5%

28.9%

73.7%

78.3%

79.4%

82.2%

79.5%

71.1%

<=25 mph 11%

30 to 35 27.9%

40 to 45 30.1%

50 to 55 20.3%

60+ 5.4%

Unknown 5.2%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

62

Figure 25 shows the percentages of vehicles involved in fatal intersection fatal intersection crashes for each 

speed limit category. Each bar shows the percentage of fatal crashes for that category (speeding and nonspeeding related for each bar equals 100 percent). 

As noted, almost 30 percent of vehicles involved in fatal intersection crashes at approaches which were signed 

at 25 mph or less were coded as speeding related. Only 17.3 percent of vehicles involved in fatal crashes at 

intersections/interchanges on approach roadways posted at 60 mph or higher were coded as speeding-related.

Figure 25: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) of 

Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

Males made up 71.2 percent of drivers 

involved in fatal crashes at intersections. 

They accounted for 76.6 percent of 

speeding-related fatalities at intersections.

3.2.1 Age and Gender

Figure 26 shows the percentage of 

drivers by age and gender who were 

involved in fatal intersection crashes 

which were coded as speeding-related. 

Each bar shows the percentage of 

speeding-related fatal crashes for that 

category. As the chart indicates, 20.8 

percent of female drivers aged 15 to 20 

who were involved in a fatal crash were 

coded as speeding-related. Conversely 

79.2 percent of female drivers in that age group were not coded as speeding-related.

The age group 21 to 24 years had the highest fraction of speeding-related crashes for both male and females. 

As illustrated, almost 36 percent of male drivers aged 21 to 24 involved in intersection fatalities were coded as 

speeding-related while 24.3 percent of female drivers aged 21 to 24 were coded as speeding-related. Older drivers 

had the lowest fraction with around 10 percent for both female and males being coded as speeding-related.

0 20 40 60 80 100

<=25 mph

30 to 35

40 to 45

50 to 55

60+

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

29.3%

26.6%

21.9%

16.0%

17.3%

70.7%

73.4%

78.1%

84.0%

82.7%

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

Percent

20.8%

31.6%

24.3%

19.4%

20.4%

17.3%

15.5%

12.0%

9.5%

35.6%

29.4%

23.9%

20.7%

14.8%

13.6%

10.3%

FEMALE MALE

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 26: Percentage of Drivers by Age and Gender Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Intersection Crashes (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

63

3.2.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Figure 27 shows the distribution of drivers who were involved speeding-related intersection fatal crashes by 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC). As noted, BAC was not known for the majority of crashes (48.1 percent). 

Around one-third of drivers had a positive BAC while no BAC was noted in around 17.0 percent of fatal crashes.

The percentage of drivers involved in fatal intersection crashes by BAC is provided in Figure 28. Each column 

shows the distribution for that particular category and the column totals to 100 percent.

The data show that drivers involved in fatal intersection crashes with positive BAC were more likely to be 

speeding-related than those with zero or unknown BAC. Around 41 percent of fatal intersection crashes where 

the driver had a positive BAC were speeding-related. Only 18 percent of fatal intersection crashes where the 

driver had zero BAC were speeding-related.

 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

Fatal crashes by at intersections by time of day 

were summarized. 

3.3.1 Time of Day

Figure 29 shows the distribution of speedingrelated intersection fatal crashes by time of 

day. As noted, around half of crashes occurred 

during the daytime with the remaining 

occurring during nighttime or dawn/dusk. 

Thirty-two percent of fatal intersection crashes 

occurred during nighttime at intersections 

with lighting and 15 percent occurred at 

intersections with no lighting. 

Positive BAC 34.8%

Unknown BAC 48.1%

Zero BAC 17.0%

Figure 28: Percentage of Drivers Involved in Fatal 

Intersection Crashes by BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

Figure 29: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes 

by Time of Day (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 27: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Crashes by 

BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Positive BAC Zero BAC

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

Unknown BAC

81.7% 83.7%

18.3% 16.3%

59.3%

40.7%

Day 48.6%

Night with 

lighting 32.1%

Night no 

lighting 15.2%

Dawn/dusk 4.1%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

64

Figure 30 shows the percentage of speeding-related fatal crashes by time of day (each bar equal 100 percent). As 

shown, 21 percent of fatal intersection crashes that occurred during dawn/dusk were speeding-related. Around 

24 percent of fatal intersection crashes that occurred during the nighttime with no lighting were speedingrelated, and speeding-related crashes accounted for 28 percent of crashes that occurred during the night with 

lighting. Only 17 percent of fatal crashes that occurred during the daytime at intersections were speeding-related.

Figure 30: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Time of Day (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.3.2 Hour of Day

Figure 31 shows the distribution of speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by hour of the day. As noted, the 

majority of speeding-related crashes occurred from 6 p.m. to midnight (31.3 percent) followed by mid-day (10 

a.m. to 4 p.m.) at 23.2 percent.

Figure 31: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Hour of Day (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 32 illustrates the percentage of speeding-related fatal intersection crashes by hour of day (each bar equals 

100 percent). More than 22 percent of fatal intersection crashes that occurred from 6 p.m. to midnight were 

speeding-related. The percentage of speeding-related crashes was highest during the early hours of the day 

(midnight to 5 a.m.) at 41.4 percent. The percentage of speeding-related intersection crashes were much lower 

during daytime periods with 15.4 to 19.2 percent between 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. A higher percentage (22.8 percent) of 

speeding-related crashes accounted for fatal crashes during the 6 p.m. to midnight period. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Dawn/dusk

Night with 

lighting

Night no 

lighting

Day

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

63.7%

20.7%

28.3%

24.4%

17.4%

79.3%

71.7%

75.6%

82.6%

Midnight to 5 a.m. 21.3%

5 to 8 a.m. 7.2%

6 p.m. to midnight 31.3%

4 to 6 p.m. 11.9%

10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 23.2%

8 to 10 a.m. 5.1%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

65

Figure 32: Percentage of Fatal Intersection Crashes that are Speeding-related by Hour of Day (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.3.3 Surface Condition

Figure 33 shows the distribution of surface 

conditions for speeding-related fatal 

intersection crashes. Surface conditions are 

reported by vehicle. The majority of vehicles 

involved in speeding-related fatal crashes at 

intersections were on dry roads (89 percent) 

with 8 percent being on a wet roadway 

surface.

3.4 VEHICLE TYPE

The distribution of vehicles involved in fatal 

intersection crashes by vehicle type is shown 

in Figure 34. Passenger vehicles were the 

most likely to be involved in speeding-related 

intersection crashes, making up 42.1 percent of 

all vehicles involved in these types of crashes. 

At 6.5 percent, large trucks represented the 

smallest share of vehicles involved in speedingrelated intersection crashes.

Large truck/buses 6.5%

Light truck 32.3%

Motorcycle 17.4%

Passenger cars 42.1%

Other 1.8%

Unknown 1.3%

Dry 89.3%

Snow/slush 0.6%

Wet/water 8.2%

Ice/frost 0.5%

Mud/dirt/gravel/sand 0.2%

0 20 40 60 80 100

6 p.m. to midnight

4 to 6 p.m.

10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

8 to 10 a.m.

5 to 8 a.m.

Midnight to 5 a.m.

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

22.8%

19.2%

15.4%

15.5%

17.1%

41.4%

77.2%

80.8%

84.6%

84.5%

82.9%

58.6%

Figure 34: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 33: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes 

by Roadway Surface Condition (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

66

 The fraction of fatal intersection crashes by vehicle types that were speeding-related is shown in Figure 35. Each 

bar shows the distribution for that vehicle type. 

Over 22 percent of passenger cars involved in fatal crashes at intersections were coded as being speeding-related 

(conversely 78 percent were not speeding-related). Motorcycles ranked highest, with 28.6 percent of motorcycles 

involved in fatal intersection crashes being coded as speeding-related. Large trucks were the least likely to be 

coded as speeding-related at 19.1 percent.

Figure 35: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Intersection Crashes by Type of Vehicle 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

3.5 CRASH TYPE

Fatal intersection crashes were disaggregated by crash type as shown in Figure 36. As noted, angle crashes made 

up the highest percentage of speeding-related intersection fatal crashes (41.3 percent). Collisions with nonvehicle objects accounted for 39.4 percent of speeding-related fatal crashes at intersections. 

Figure 36: Distribution of Speeding-related Intersection Fatal Crashes by Crash Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Passenger cars

Motorcycle

Light truck

Large truck/buses

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

22.2%

28.6%

19.1%

16.1%

77.8%

71.4%

80.9%

83.9%

Other/unknown 0.7%

Non-vehicle 

collision 39.4%

Front-to-front 3.5%

Angle 41.3%

Front-to-rear 13.3%

Sideswipe 1.9%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

67

The distribution of first harmful event for speeding-related fatal intersection crashes is shown in Figure 37. As 

noted, the majority of crashes involve a collision with another vehicle (60.1 percent). Collision with a pedestrian 

or bicyclist make up 5.5 percent of speeding-related intersection fatal crashes. Collisions with traffic signals, signs, 

utility poles, light posts, and trees collectively account for 4.5 percent.

Figure 37: Distribution of Speeding-related Intersection Fatal Crashes by First Harmful Event (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

3.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF ANGLE CRASHES

This section summarizes characteristics of angle crashes. Type of crash was determined from manner of collision. 

Due to the manner in which this field is coded in FARS, right angle crashes could not be differentiated. As a result, 

this section summarizes characteristics of all angle crashes. Left-turn crashes were included in angle crashes. Since 

left-turn crashes could be inferred from a vehicle’s pre-event movement, a separate summary for left turn crashes 

is also provided in Section 3.8.

Data for the analyses in this section were reduced at the vehicle level. Notably, 30 percent of fatal intersection 

angle crashes occurred in rural areas. 

3.6.1 Speed Limit

Figure 38 shows the distribution 

of vehicles involved in fatal angle 

crashes by the posted speed limit 

of the corresponding roadway. 

Around 72 percent of vehicles 

involved in speeding-related fatal 

broadside intersection crashes were 

on roadways posted lower than 50 

mph and around 23 percent were on 

facilities signed at 50 mph or higher.

Pedestrian/bicyclist 5.5%

Motor vehicle 60.6%

Curb/ditch/

embankment 10.6%

Utility pole/light 

pole/tree 2.2%

Other 14.7%

Parked vehicle 0.8%

Tree 3.4%

Trac signal or 

sign support 2.3%

<50 mph 72.1%

Unknown 4.5%

>=50 mph 23.4%

Figure 38: Distribution of Vehicles Involved Speeding-related Fatal Angle 

Crashes at Intersections by Speed Limit (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

68

3.6.2 BAC

Driver alcohol involvement in fatal angle crashes at 

intersections that are speeding-related are shown in 

Figure 39. Blood alcohol concentrations was not known 

in the majority of crashes (57.3 percent) while 28.1 percent 

had a positive BAC.

3.6.3 Surface Condition

Roadway surface for speeding-related fatal angle crashes at intersections is shown in Figure 40. As noted, the 

majority of vehicles involved were coded as being on dry roads (90.9 percent).

3.6.4 Vehicle Type

Vehicle involvement in fatal angle crashes at intersections that are speeding-related is shown in Figure 41. As 

noted motorcycles make up the majority of fatal speeding-related broadside crashes (36.8 percent) followed by 

passenger vehicles (33.8 percent).

Positive BAC 28.1%

Unknown BAC 57.3%

Zero BAC 14.7%

Figure 39: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Angle Crashes at Intersections by BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 40: Distribution of Vehicles Involved 

in Speeding-related Fatal Angle Crashes at 

Intersections by Roadway Surface Condition 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 41: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Angle Crashes at Intersections by Vehicle 

Type (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Other 0.8%

Dry 90.9%

Snow 0.5%

Wet 7.2%

Ice/frost 0.6% Large truck/buses 3.1%

Light truck 25.0%

Passenger cars 33.8%

Motorcycle 36.8%

Other 1.3%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

69

3.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF REAR-END CRASHES

Rear-end crashes make up 6.4 percent of 

all fatal crashes at intersections but make 

up 13.3 percent of speed-related fatal 

crashes at intersections. Around 44 percent 

of rear-end fatal intersection crashes were 

in rural areas. This section summarizes 

characteristics of fatal rear-end intersection 

crashes. Data were summarized at the 

vehicle level. 

3.7.1 Speed Limit

Figure 42 shows the distribution of vehicles 

involved in fatal rear-end crashes at intersections that 

were speeding-related. As shown, approximately 55 

percent were on roadways posted lower than 50 mph 

and around 43 percent were on facilities signed at 50 mph or higher.

3.7.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

The distribution of drivers involved in fatal rear-end intersection crashes that are speeding-related broken out 

by BAC are shown in Figure 43. Blood alcohol concentrations were not known in the majority of crashes (67.7 

percent) while 23.2 percent had a positive BAC. Drivers with zero BAC accounted for less than 10 percent of 

drivers involved.

3.7.3 Surface Condition

Roadway surface for vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal rear-end intersection crashes is shown in 

Figure 44. As noted, the majority of vehicles involved in fatal rear-end crashes that were speeding-related 

occurred under dry road conditions (91.8 percent). Slightly more than 7 percent occurred on wet roads and less 

than 1 percent occurred on other surface conditions.

Positive BAC 23.2%

Unknown BAC 67.7%

Zero BAC 9.2%

Figure 43: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Fatal RearEnd Intersection Crashes that are Speeding-related by 

BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 44: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes by Roadway 

Surface (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 42: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes by Speed Limit 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Other 0.1%

Dry 91.8%

Snow 0.1%

Wet 7.4%

Ice/frost 0.6%

<50 mph 55.3%

Unknown 1.7%

>=50 mph 42.9%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

70

3.7.4 Vehicle Type

The distribution of vehicles involved in 

fatal rear-end crashes at intersections 

that are speeding-related is shown in 

Figure 45. As noted light trucks make up 

the majority of fatal involvement (38.0 

percent) followed by passenger vehicles 

at 33.4 percent. Motorcycles accounted 

for 18.8 percent of speeding-related fatal 

rear-end crashes, and large truck/buses 

made up 9.1 percent.

3.8 CHARACTERISTICS OF LEFT-TURN CRASHES

This section summarizes characteristics of left-turn crashes. Data for analysis in this section were reduced at the 

vehicle level. Left-turn crashes could be inferred from a vehicle’s pre-event movement. Left-turn crashes were also 

included in angle crashes, which were summarized in Section 3.6. Notably, 31 percent of fatal intersection angle 

crashes occurred in rural areas.

3.8.1 Posted Speed Limit

Figure 46 shows the distribution of vehicles involved in left-turn crashes by the posted speed limit of the 

corresponding roadway. Around 67 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal left-turn intersection 

crashes were on roadways posted lower than 50 mph and around 25 percent were on facilities signed at 50 mph 

or higher.

Figure 45: Distribution of Vehicles Types Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Rear-end Intersection Crashes (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 46: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Left-turn Intersection 

Crashes by Speed Limit (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 9.1%

Light truck 38.0%

Motorcycle 18.8%

Passenger cars 33.4%

Other 0.7%

<50 mph 67.0%

Unknown 7.7%

>=50 mph 25.3%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

71

3.8.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

The distribution of drivers involved in fatal left-turn intersection crashes that are speeding-related by blood 

alcohol concentration is shown in Figure 47. Blood alcohol concentration was not known in the majority of 

crashes (56.9 percent), while 17.2 percent had a positive BAC.

3.8.3 Surface Condition

Roadway surface for speeding-related fatal left-turn intersection crashes is shown in Figure 48. As noted, the 

majority of vehicles involved were coded as being on dry roads (88.5 percent). Almost 9 percent of vehicles 

involved in fatal speeding-related left turn crashes were on wet roads, with less than 1 percent on roads coded as 

ice/frost or snow.

Figure 47: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Left-turn Intersection Crashes by BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Positive BAC 25.9%

Unknown BAC 56.9%

Zero BAC 17.2%

Figure 48: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Intersection 

Left-turn Fatal Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Other 2.2%

Dry 88.5%

Snow 0.5%

Wet 8.8%

Ice/frost 0.0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

72

3.8.4 Vehicle Type

The distribution of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related left-turn crashes at intersections is shown in Figure 

49. As noted, passenger vehicles make up the majority of fatal speeding-related left-turn crashes (46.7 percent) 

followed by light trucks (33.0 percent). Motorcycles make up 6.0 percent and large trucks/buses make up only 

2.7 percent.

 Figure 49: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Left-turn 

Intersection Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 2.7%

Light truck 33.0%

Passenger cars 46.7%

Motorcycle 6.0%

Other 11.5%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

73

4. SPEEDING-RELATED FATAL ROADWAY DEPARTURE CRASHES

This chapter describes speeding-related crash characteristics for roadway departures. Roadway departure crashes 

were extracted from the FARS database using FHWA definition as described in Chapter 2. Roadway crashes were 

extracted from the FARS data for 2010 to 2012. 

Around 40 percent of fatal roadway departure crashes are speeding-related. Sixty-five percent of fatal roadway 

departure crashes occur in rural areas. 

4.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

4.1.1 Roadway Type

Figure 50 shows the distribution of vehicles 

involved in fatal speeding-related roadway 

departure crashes by type of roadway. 

As noted, 27.2 percent of vehicles were 

on local roads followed by collectors, 

which account for 25.1 percent. Minor and 

other principal arterials accounted for 16.7 

percent and 16.0 percent, respectively. 

Figure 51 shows percentage of vehicles 

involved in roadway departure crashes 

by roadway type that were speedingrelated. As can be seen, local roads had 

the highest percentage of vehicles 

involved in speeding-related crashes, 

and almost half of all vehicles involved 

in fatal roadway departure crashes on 

local roads are speeding-related. Other 

principal arterials ranked lowest at 

32.4 percent.

Interstate 10.4 %

Freeway/expressway 3.2 %

Other principal arterial 16%

Collector 25.1% Minor arterial 16.7%

Local 27.2%

Unknown 1.5%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Local

Collector

Minor arterial

Other principal 

arterial

Freeway/

expressway

Interstate

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

49.4%

40.8%

37.3%

32.4%

40.8%

33.8%

50.6%

59.2%

62.7%

67.6%

59.2%

66.2%

Figure 50: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 51: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Roadway (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

74

4.1.2 Speed Limit

The distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated roadway departure fatal crashes by speed 

limit is shown in Figure 52. It should be noted that 

speed limit is correlated to roadway type. At 35.0 

percent, the largest share of vehicles involved in 

speeding-related roadway departure fatal crashes 

were on roadways with speed limits of 50 or 55 

mph. The second largest share was for vehicles 

on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 

mph (21.4 percent). 

Note that type of roadway (e.g., local, collector) 

does not necessarily correspond to a specific 

speed-limit range. As a result, information in 

Figure 51 does not necessarily correlate to that in 

Figure 53. For instance, local roads made up 27.2 

percent of speeding-related fatal crashes as noted 

in Figure 51. The local roads category includes roadways other than residential and other low-speed roadways.

Figure 53 provides the speeding-related roadway departure fatal crashes for each speed limit category. Almost 

54 percent of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure crashes on roadways signed at 25 mph or less were 

speeding-related. Only 29.4 percent of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure crashes on roadways signed 

at 60 mph or more were speeding-related. 

Figure 53: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Speed Limit (MPH) of Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

<=25 mph 5.9%

30 to 35 18%

40 to 45 21.4%

50 to 55 35%

60+ 17.3%

Unknown 2.3%

0 20 40 60 80 100

<=25 mph

30 to 35

40 to 45

50 to 55

60+

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

53.7%

49.4%

40.8%

32.4%

29.4%

46.3%

50.6%

59.2%

67.6%

70.6%

Figure 52: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit (MPH) of 

Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

75

4.1.3 Speed Limit for Single Vehicle Roadway 

Departure Crashes

Figure 54 shows the distribution of vehicles involved 

in speeding-related fatal crashes by speed limit for 

single vehicle roadway departure crashes. Singlevehicle roadway departures are non-vehicle collisions. 

As can be seen, the majority of the vehicles involved 

in speeding-related single-vehicle roadway departure 

fatal crashes occur on roadways posted at 50 to 55 

mph (35.0 percent), with 15.8 percent occurring on 

roadways posted 60 mph and higher. Around 20 

percent were on roadways posted 30 to 35 mph. 

The distribution is similar to that presented for all 

speeding-related roadway departure crashes, as 

shown in Figure 53.

4.1.4 Horizontal Alignment

Figure 55 illustrates the distribution of vehicles involved in fatal speeding-related roadway departure crashes by 

horizontal alignment. Almost 38 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes 

are on curves, with just over 62 percent being on straight 

sections, as shown. 

The percentage of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure crashes for curve and tangent sections are provided 

in Figure 56. The left bar shows the fatal roadway departure on tangent sections. More than 30 percent of vehicles 

involved in fatal roadway departure crashes on straight sections were speeding-related,and around 70 percent 

coded as being not speeding-related. The right bar shows fatal roadway departure crashes on curves. As shown, 

47.3 percent of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure crashes on curves were coded as speeding-related.

Figure 54: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Single-vehicle Roadway Departure Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit (mph) 

of Corresponding Approach (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 55: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Curve Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Straight

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

Curve

69.6% 52.7%

30.4% 47.3%

<=25 mph 7.0%

30 to 35 20.1%

40 to 45 22.1%

50 to 55 35%

60+ 15.8%

Straight 62.2%

Curve right 16.1%

Curve left 18%

Curve -unknown direction 3.7%

Figure 56: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by Horizontal Alignment 

(Source: FARS 2010-2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

76

4.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

Males made up 75.3 percent of roadway departure fatalities. They also accounted for 78.9 percent of speedingrelated roadway departure fatalities.

4.2.1 Age and Gender

Figure 57 shows the distribution of drivers involved in speeding-related roadway departure crashes by age and 

gender. Each set of bars shows the percentage of drivers that were involved in speeding-related crashes for that 

age group by gender. As a result, 29.9 percent of female drivers aged 45 to 54 who were involved in fatal roadway 

departure crashes were coded as speeding related, while 70.1 percent were non-speeding related.

The 15 to 20 age group had the highest fraction of speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes for both 

male and females. As shown, 42.7 percent of fatal roadway departure crashes for females in that age group were 

speeding-related while 52.6 percent of fatal roadway departure crashes for males in that same age group were 

speeding-related. Drivers aged 75 and older had the lowest fraction of speeding-related roadway departure crashes.

Figure 57: Percentage of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Roadway Departure Fatalities by Driver Age and Gender 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

4.2.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Figure 58 shows the distribution of drivers involved in 

fatal speeding-related roadway departure crashes by 

blood alcohol concentration (BAC). As noted 45.4 percent 

of drivers involved in speeding-related fatal roadway 

departure crashes had a positive BAC, while no BAC was 

noted in nearly a quarter of drivers involved in speedingrelated fatal roadway departure crashes. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

42.7%

52.6%

37.4%

34.9%

32.5%

29.9%

22.1%

18.9%

14.5%

51.8%

45.4%

37.7%

32.8%

26.8%

22.2%

16.9%

FEMALE MALE

Percent

Positive BAC 45.4%

Unknown BAC 29.6%

Zero BAC 24.9%

Figure 58: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Roadway Departure Crashes by BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

77

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

4.3.1 Time of Day

Figure 59 illustrates the distribution of speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes by time of day. As noted, 

38.3 percent of roadway departure crashes occurred during the daytime, with 35.5 percent occurring during 

the night-time with no lights. Almost 19 percent of fatal road departure crashes occurred during nighttime with 

lighting and 7.3 percent occurred during dawn or dusk.

4.3.2 Hour of Day

Figure 60 shows the distribution of speeding-related roadway departure fatal crashes by hour of the day. As 

noted, the majority of speeding-related crashes occurred from 6 p.m. to midnight (31.0 percent) followed by 

midnight to 5 a.m. at 29.3 percent.

Figure 61 illustrates the percentage of 

speeding-related fatal roadway departure 

crashes by hour of the day. Each bar shows 

the percentage of speeding versus nonspeeding related fatal roadway departure 

crashes for a specific time period. For 

instance, 27.1 percent of vehicles involved in 

fatal roadway departure crashes between 

10 a.m. and 4 p.m. were speeding-related while 

72.9 percent were not speeding-related.

The data show that the percentage of 

speeding-related fatal roadway departure 

crashes was highest during the early hours of 

the day (midnight to 5 a.m.) at 49.2 percent. 

During the time period from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

only 27.1 percent of fatal roadway departure 

crashes were speeding-related.

 Figure 60: Distribution of Speeding-related Road 

Departure Fatal Crashes by Hour of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 61: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes 

by Hour of Day (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

Midnight to 5 a.m. 29.3%

5 to 8 a.m. 8.2%

6 p.m. to midnight 31.0%

4 to 6 p.m. 8.9%

10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 18.3%

8 to 10 a.m. 4.4%

Figure 59: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Road 

Departure Crashes by Time of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Day 38.3%

Night with 

lighting 18.9%

Night no 

lighting 35.5%

Dawn/dusk 7.3%

0 20 40 60 80 100

6 p.m. to midnight

4 to 6 p.m.

10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

8 to 10 a.m.

5 to 8 a.m.

Midnight to 5 a.m.

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

41.5%

30.6%

27.1%

27.0%

30.1%

49.2%

58.5%

69.4%

72.9%

73.0%

69.9%

50.8%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

78

4.3.3 Surface Condition

The distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related 

fatal roadway departure crashes by surface condition is 

shown in Figure 62. The majority of vehicles involved in 

speeding-related fatal roadway departure crashes were 

on dry roads (76.3 percent), with 15.0 percent occurring 

on a wet roadway surface, as illustrated.

4.4 VEHICLE TYPE

The distribution of vehicles involved in fatal speedingrelated roadway departure crashes is provided in 

Figure 63. Passenger vehicles were the most likely to be 

involved in speeding-related roadway departure crashes 

making up 44.7 percent of vehicles involved in these 

types of crashes. Large trucks represented the smallest 

share (3.8 percent) of vehicles involved in speedingrelated intersection crashes. Motorcycles made up 12.6 

percent of speeding-related roadway departure crashes.

The fraction of speeding-related fatal roadway 

departure crashes by vehicle type is shown in Figure 

64. As shown, for motorcycles that were involved in 

fatal roadway departure crashes, 45.4 percent were 

speeding-related, while only 21.0 percent of large 

trucks/buses involved in fatal roadway departure 

crashes were speeding-related. Of the passengers cars 

involved in fatal roadway departure crashes, around 

40 percent were speeding-related.

Figure 62: Distribution Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Fatal Roadway Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Unknown 0.7%

Dry 76.3%

Snow/slush 3.6%

Wet/water 15.0%

Ice/frost 3.8%

Mud/dirt/gravel/sand 0.6%

Figure 64: Percentage of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure 

Crashes by Type of Vehicle (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

Figure 63: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal 

Roadway Departure Crashes by Type of Vehicle 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 3.8%

Light truck 37.4%

Passenger cars 44.7%

Motorcycle 12.6%

Other 1.4%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Passenger cars

Motorcycle

Light truck

Large truck/buses

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

40.3%

45.4%

33.7%

21.0%

59.7%

54.6%

66.3%

79.0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

79

4.5 CRASH TYPE

Roadway departure fatal crashes were disaggregated by crash type as shown in Figure 65. As can be seen, nonvehicle collisions made up the highest percentage of speeding-related roadway departure fatal crashes (92.9 

percent). Head-on (front-to-front) crashes made up 3.0 percent, while sideswipe accounted for around 1 percent. 

Figure 65: Distribution of Fatal Speeding-related Roadway Departure Crashes by Crash Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

A distribution of crashes by first harmful event for speeding-related roadway departure crashes is shown in Figure 

66. Striking a tree accounted for the largest percentage of speeding-related roadway departure crashes (18.0 

percent) followed by striking some type of embankment (17.6 percent). Roll-over/overturn crashes account for 

15.8 percent.

Figure 66: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Roadway Departure Crashes by First Harmful Event 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

Characteristics of crashes for several types of crashes are summarized in the following sections.

Non-Vehicle collision 92.9%

Sideswipe 0.8%

Front-to-front 3.0%

Other/unknown 0.1%

Front-to-rear 0.3%

Angle 2.9%

0 5 10 15 20

Culvert/ditch/embankment

Rollover/overturn

Guardrail

Other/unknown

Other post/pole/structure

Collision with moving vehicle

Curb

Utility pole/light support

Boulder

Concrete trac barrier

Other xed object

Fence/wall

Bridge pier or support

Percent

17.6%

Standing tree 18.0%

7.6%

6.4%

5.6%

1.9%

0.6%

15.8%

7.6%

6.7%

6.0%

3.9%

1.7%

0.6%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

80

4.6 CHARACTERISTICS OF ROLLOVER CRASHES

Rollover/overturn crashes make up about 14 percent of all fatal roadway departure crashes and account for 

16 percent of those that are speeding-related. Rollover/overturn crashes are predominantly rural crashes (72 

percent). Information in the following sections was extracted at the vehicle level.

4.6.1 Speed Limit

As shown in Figure 67, around 59.0 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal rollover/overturn crashes 

were on roadways posted 50 mph or higher. Facilities signed lower than 50 mph accounted for 38.6 percent of 

these crashes.

4.6.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Driver alcohol involvement in fatal rollover/overturn crashes that are speeding-related are shown in Figure 68. A 

positive BAC was present for 50.4 percent of drivers involved in fatal speeding-related roadway departure crashes, 

and BAC was unknown about a quarter of these crashes. 

4.6.3 Surface Condition

The distribution of vehicles involved in speedingrelated fatal roadway departure crashes which were 

coded as rollover/overturn by roadway surface 

condition is shown in Figure 69. As can be seen, the 

majority of vehicles were on roadways with dry road 

conditions (80.6 percent) and 11.4 percent of vehicles 

were on wet roads.

<50 mph 39.0%

Unknown 2.0%

>=50 mph 59.0%

Positive BAC 50.4%

Unknown BAC 24.5%

Zero BAC 25.0%

Figure 68: Distribution of Drivers Involved in of Speedingrelated Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by BAC 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 67: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Other 2.8%

Dry 80.6%

Snow 1.4%

Wet11.4%

Ice/frost 3.7%

Figure 69: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related 

Rollover/Overturn Fatal Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

81

4.6.4 Vehicle Type

Vehicle involvement in fatal roadway rollover/

overturn crashes that are speeding-related are 

shown in Figure 70. Light trucks are involved 

in the majority of speeding-related rollover/

overturn fatal crashes (51.4 percent) followed 

by passenger vehicles, which are involved in 

43.5 percent of these crashes.

4.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF OPPOSING DIRECTION CRASHES

Opposing direction crashes make up 3.6 percent of all fatal crashes, but make up 14.5 percent of speedingrelated fatal roadway departure crashes. Around 67 percent of opposing direction crashes were in rural areas.

4.7.1 Speed Limit

Around 58.4 percent of vehicles involved in speeding-related, fatal, opposing-direction crashes were on 

roadways posted 50 mph and higher as shown in Figure 71. More than 40 percent were on facilities signed 

lower than 50 mph.

4.7.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Driver alcohol involvement in fatal opposing-direction crashes that are speeding related are shown in Figure 72. 

Blood alcohol concentration was not known in the majority of crashes (56.9 percent) while 24.0 percent had a 

positive BAC. 

<50 mph 40.4%

Unknown 1.2%

>=50 mph 58.4%

Positive BAC 24.0%

Unknown BAC 56.9%

Zero BAC 19.1%

Figure 72: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by BAC 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 71: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by Speed Limit 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012

Figure 70: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Rollover/

Overturn Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 3.8%

Light truck 51.4%

Passenger cars 43.5%

Motorcycle 0.0%

Other 2.8%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

82

4.7.3 Surface Condition

Roadway surface condition for speeding-related, fatal, opposing-direction crashes is shown in Figure 73. As 

noted, the majority of vehicles were traveling on dry road conditions (56.1 percent). A large number of vehicles 

involved in opposing-direction crashes were also on wet (23.8 percent), snow-covered (8.6 percent), or ice/frostcovered (7.7 percent) roadway surfaces.

Figure 73: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Opposing Direction Crashes by Roadway Surface 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

4.7.4 Vehicle Type

Vehicle involvement in fatal opposing-direction crashes that are speeding related is shown in Figure 74. As noted, 

light trucks make up the majority of fatal-involvement crashes (81.8 percent) followed by passenger vehicles at 

14.5 percent.

Figure 74: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related, Fatal, Opposing-Direction Crashes by Vehicle Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Other 3.9%

Dry 56.1%

Snow 8.6%

Wet 23.8%

Ice/frost 7.7%

Large truck/buses 0.8%

Light truck 81.8%

Passenger cars 14.5%

Motorcycle 2.9%

Other 0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

83

4.8 CHARACTERISTICS OF TREE CRASHES

Crashes involving trees as the first harmful event make up 14.1 percent of all fatal roadway departure crashes and 

account for 18.0 percent of those that are speeding related. Tree crashes occur predominantly on rural roadways 

(68.8 percent), with 31 percent occurring in urban areas.

4.8.1 Speed Limit

Figure 75 shows the distribution of vehicles involved in fatal roadway departure crashes that were coded with 

hitting a tree as the first harmful event by speed limit. As shown, around 43 percent of vehicles involved in 

speeding-related tree-impact crashes were on roadways posted 50 mph or higher. Fifty-four percent of vehicles 

were on facilities signed lower than 50 mph.

4.8.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Driver alcohol involvement in fatal tree-impact crashes that are speeding-related are shown in Figure 76. Around 

49 percent of drivers involved in fatal speeding-related roadway departure crashes had a positive BAC while 

almost 30 percent had no BAC. BAC was unknown for 22.7 percent of crashes. 

4.8.3 Surface Condition

Roadway surface condition for speedingrelated, fatal, rollover/overturn crashes is 

shown in Figure 77. As noted, the majority of 

vehicles involved in these crashes were on dry 

roads (77.7 percent) and 16.3 percent were on 

wet roads.

Other 2.1%

Dry 77.7%

Snow 1.9%

Wet 16.3%

Ice/frost 2.0%

<50 mph 54.3%

Unknown 2.7%

>=50 mph 43.1%

Positive BAC 49.4%

Unknown BAC 22.7%

Zero BAC 27.9%

Figure 76: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speedingrelated Tree Impact Fatal Crashes by BAC 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 77: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speeding-related Tree Impact 

Fatal Crashes by Roadway Surface Condition (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 75: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in Speedingrelated, Tree-Impact, Fatal Crashes by Speed Limit 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

84

4.8.4 Vehicle Type

Vehicle involvement in fatal tree-impact crashes that are speeding related are shown in Figure 78. Passenger cars 

are involved in the majority of tree-impact, speeding-related, fatal crashes (57.6 percent) followed by light trucks 

at 32.1 percent.

Figure 78: Distribution of Vehicles Involved in of Speeding-related, Tree-impact, Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 0.4%

Light truck 32.1%

Passenger cars 57.6%

Motorcycle 6.8%

Other 3.0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

85

5. SPEEDING-RELATED CRASH DATA FOR PEDESTRIAN AND 

BICYCLISTS

This section describes speeding-related crash characteristics for pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Crashes were 

extracted for 2010 to 2012 in the FARS database as described in Chapter 2.

Only 8.3 percent of fatal crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist were speeding related. Pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes were predominantly urban (73 percent). Around 16.9 percent of all fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes 

were coded as hit and run, while 30.4 percent of all speeding-related crashes were coded as such. As a result, 

speeding-related crashes were almost twice as likely to be hit and run. 

5.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

Roadway characteristics for fatal crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians are summarized in the following 

sections.

5.1.1 Location

Location for speeding-related, pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes is provided in Figure 79. The sum of all bars 

equals 100 percent. As noted, 46.4 percent of fatal speeding-related pedestrian and bicycle crashes were nonintersection crashes and did not occur in a crosswalk. A small number (1.2 percent) occurred at a non-intersection 

location within a marked crosswalk and 6.8 percent were at an unknown location away from an intersection. 

These locations may indicate mid-block crossings and, together, make up 54.4 percent of fatal speeding-related 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes.

Around 2.5 percent were located within a marked crosswalk at an intersection, 1.5 percent were at an intersection 

but in an unmarked crosswalk, and 3.3 percent were at an intersection within an unmarked crosswalk. A small 

share were at an unknown location within an intersection. 

Shoulders, roadsides, or parking lanes accounted for 14.3 percent of fatal, speeding-related, pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes. Non-trafficways made up 4.8 percent and the remainder were in various other facilities.

Figure 79: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Location 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Should/roadside/parking lane

Occupant of a motor vehicle

Intersection: marked crosswalk

Intersection: unmarked crosswalk

Non-tracway or other

Non-intersection: unknown location

Sidewalk

Intersection: not in crosswalk

Median/crossing island

Bicycle lane

Non-intersection: marked crosswalk

Intersection: unknown location

Shared-use path/trail

Percent

14.3%

Non-intersection: not in crosswalk 46.4%

6.8%

3.3%

1.5%

1.2%

0.6%

8.7%

7.0%

4.8%

2.5%

1.5%

1.0%

0.4%

Driveway access 0.0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

86

5.1.2 Roadway Type

Figure 80 shows pedestrian and bicycle fatal 

crashes that were speeding-related by roadway 

type. As noted, other principal arterials which 

excludes freeways/expressways and interstates 

accounted for 24 percent of pedestrian and 

bicycle fatal crashes.

5.1.3 Speed Limit

The distribution of vehicles involved in 

pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes by 

posted speed limit that were speedingrelated are shown in Figure 81. Vehicles on 

roadways posted 30 to 35 mph had the 

highest share of pedestrian and bicycle 

fatal crashes that were speeding-related 

(31.1 percent) followed by roadways 

posted 40 to 45 (20.5 percent).

Figure 82 shows the percentage of vehicles 

involved in fatal bike/ped crashes by speed 

limit category that were speeding-related. 

Each bar shows the percentage that were 

speeding and non-speeding related for a 

particular speed limit category. 

As shown, the category of 25 mph or less 

had the highest percentage with 

11.2 percent of vehicles involved having 

been coded as speeding-related.

Vehicles traveling on roadways posted 

40 to 55 mph were the least likely to be 

coded as speeding-related for pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes while almost 

8 percent of vehicles involved that 

were on roadways posted 60 mph 

or higher were speeding-related.

Interstate 13%

Freeway/expressway 5%

Other principal arterial 24%

Minor arterial 20%

Collector 14%

Local 23%

Unknown 1%

0 20 40 60 80 100

<=25 mph

30 to 35 mph

40 to 45 mph

50 to 55 mph

60 mph >=

Percent

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

11.2%

9.2%

5.5%

6.1%

7.7%

88.8%

90.8%

94.5%

93.9%

92.3%

<=25 mph 13.9%

30 to 35 mph 

31.1%

40 to 45 mph

20.5%

50 to 55 mph

15.2%

>=60 mph 19.2%

Figure 80: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Crashes by Type of Roadway (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 81: Distribution of Vehicles Involved of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Crashes by Posted Speed Limit (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 82: Percentage of Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes that are 

Speeding-related by Posted Speed Limit (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

87

5.2 DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS

Males made up 72.3 percent of drivers in all pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes and 72.5 percent of drivers in 

speeding related pedestrian and bicycle fatal crashes. 

5.2.1 Age and Gender

The distribution of drivers involved in all fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes is illustrated in Figure 83. This includes 

both speeding and non-speeding and the sum of all bars equals 100 percent. Males accounted for more fatal 

bike/ped crashes than females for all categories. As noted, males aged 45 to 54 made up 16.0 percent of all fatal 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes while females in that same age category accounted for 5.2 percent of crashes.

Male drivers aged 55 to 64 

accounted for the next highest 

number of fatal pedestrian and 

bicycle crashes. They accounted 

for 12.1 percent of these crashes. 

Females aged 21 to 24 accounted 

for the lowest amount of crashes 

(1.8 percent).

Figure 84 shows the distribution 

of drivers involved in speedingrelated fatal bike/ped crashes. All 

the bars summed would equal 

100 percent. Female drivers of 

all ages were less likely to have 

been involved in speeding-related 

crashes than males. The highest 

category for females was ages 45 to 

54 which accounted for 5.5 percent 

of speeding-related fatal bike/ped 

crashes. Female drivers aged 65 to 

74 were the least likely to have been 

involved accounting for 1.8 percent 

of speeding-related crashes.

Males in all age groups made up 

a higher percentage of speedingrelated crashes than females. Male 

drivers aged 45 to 54 accounted for 

15.9 percent of speeding-related 

bike/ped crashes and male drivers 

aged 55 to 64 made up 11.8 percent.

Figure 83: Distribution of Drivers Involved in All Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes 

by Age and Gender (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Figure 84: Distribution of Drivers Involved in Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Crashes by Age and Gender (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

Percent

2.0%

5.6%

1.9%

3.9%

3.7%

5.2%

4.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.3%

10.5%

9.6%

15.9%

12.2%

6.6%

6.5%

FEMALE MALE

0 5 10 15 20

15-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

65-74

55-64

45-54

75+

Percent

2.8%

7.6%

2.1%

4.9%

3.5%

5.5%

3.8%

1.8%

3.1%

6.2%

10.7%

10.3%

15.9%

11.8%

6.1%

4.0%

FEMALE MALE

0 5 10 15 20
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

88

5.2.2 Blood Alcohol Concentration

Figure 85 provides blood alcohol concentration for 

drivers involved in pedestrian and bicycle crashes. The 

left column shows fatal crashes for positive BAC. As noted 

22.5 percent of pedestrian and bicycle crashes where BAC 

was positive were speeding-related. The center column 

shows the percentage of drivers with zero BAC involved 

in pedestrian/bicycle crashes. 

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

5.3.1 Time of Day

Fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes that were speeding-related by time of day were summarized in Figure 86. As 

noted, around 37.6 percent of speeding-related crashes occurred during the nighttime with roadway lighting and 

22.3 percent occurred at nighttime with no roadway lighting. Daytime crashes represented 35.0 percent with the 

remaining crashes occurring during nighttime or at dawn or dusk (5.0 percent).

5.3.2 Hour of Day

Figure 87 shows the distribution of fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes by hour of the day that were speedingrelated. The most problematic time period was 6 pm to midnight which accounted for 39.5 percent of speedingrelated fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Midnight to 5 am accounted for 19.8 percent of these crashes. The 

next highest period was 10 am to 4 pm with 15.0 percent of fatal speeding-related bike/ped crashes.

Figure 85: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Crashes by Driver BAC (Source: FARS 2010 – 2012) 

Positive BAC Zero BAC

SPEEDING NON-SPEEDING

Unknown BAC

93.5% 92.4%

6.5% 7.6%

77.5%

22.5%

 Figure 87: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Hour of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Midnight to 5 a.m. 19.8%

5 to 8 a.m. 13.1%

6 p.m. to midnight 39.5%

4 to 6 p.m. 7.0% 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 15.0%

8 to 10 a.m. 5.6%

Figure 86: Distribution of Speeding-related Fatal 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Time of Day 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Day 35.0%

Night with 

lighting 37.6%

Night no 

lighting 22.3%

Dawn/dusk 5.0%
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

89

5.4 VEHICLE TYPE

The distribution of vehicles involved in speeding-related fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes is provided in 

Figure 88. Passenger vehicles were the most likely to be involved in speeding-related pedestrian and bicycle 

fatal crashes making up 46.7 percent of vehicles involved in these types of crashes. Large trucks represented 

4.8 percent and motorcycles made up the smallest share (1.7 percent).

Figure 88: Percentage of Speeding-related Fatal Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Vehicle Type 

(Source: FARS 2010 – 2012)

Large truck/buses 4.8%

Light truck 39.4%

Passenger cars 46.7%

Motorcycle 1.7%

Other 7.4%

EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

91

6. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

USING SHRP 2 DATA

The following summarizes two different types of analyses which were used to assess speeding characteristics of 

roadway departure, intersection, and bicycle and pedestrian events using the the Strategic Highway Research 

Program (SHRP) 2 naturalistic driving study (NDS). Baseline and safety critical (crash, near-crash, crash relevant) 

events were queried or extracted from the InSight Data Access Website (insight.shrp2nds.us). 

In the first analysis, the rate of speeding in safety-critical events was compared to speeding in baseline events. In 

the second analysis, safety-critical events were further evaluated and characteristics of those events summarized.

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF DEFINITIONS

Event characteristics were determined by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), which reduced events 

from the NDS data which was collected by SHRP 2. Reduced events are available on the InSight web site which 

can be accessed by qualified researchers. A set of driver, roadway, and environmental characteristics was reduced 

for crashes, near-crashes, and crash-relevant events. Hereafter, these events are termed “safety-critical events.” 

Data were also reduced for a set of baseline events. A video clip of the forward roadway view and a narrative 

description is provided for safety-critical events, and as a result, some additional information can be extracted. 

Video is not provided for baseline events, and a narrative is only provided for a limited number of baseline events. 

As a result, additional information could not be extracted for baseline events.

Relevant definitions for the analyses presented in this memo are provided below in italics as described on the 

InSight web site (insight.shpr2nds.us).

Currently, the posted or advisory speed is not provided for each event. The posted or advisory speed could be 

determined from the forward road view clip for some safety-critical events and was described in the narrative for 

others but was not consistently provided. Speed limit was not identified at all for baseline events. As a result, the 

definition of “speed-related” is based on VTTI’s definitions for driver behavior. Advisory speed is not provided and 

the definition for exceeded speed limit does not account for drivers traveling over the curve advisory speed.

Exceeded speed limit: Subject vehicle traveling at a speed greater than the posted speed limit (not in a work 

zone). In Variable Speed Zones, this is relative to the speed limit in effect at the time of the event. Coded when 

more than 10 mph above posted speed limit.

Exceeded safe speed but not speed limit: Subject vehicle traveling at a speed close to or under the posted 

speed limit, but still too fast to maintain a safe driving environment given current environmental conditions (e.g., 

weather, traffic, lighting). (Not in a work zone.)

Ex. during conditions that may require slower speeds such as weather, traffic situation, etc.

Roadway characteristics are derived from several different fields rather than using a common definition such as 

rural 2-lane arterial or 4-lane urban collector. For instance the field “locality” provides some indication of location 

(urban versus rural) as well as roadway type using definitions such as open residential or interstate/bypass/

divided highway with no traffic signals. Other roadway characteristics such as number of lanes or presence of 

median, curve, intersection etc. have to be determined using a range of fields. This makes it difficult to compare 

by roadway types which are more familiar to traffic engineers (e.g. 4-lane arterial). 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

92

Open county: other than the roadway, there is nothing but vegetation visible, road is not an interstate or bypass/

divided road with traffic signals.

Open residential: rural to semi-rural areas with just a few houses.

Moderate residential: area with multiple homes/apartment buildings present. 

Business/industrial: any type of business or industrial structure is present but is not as dense as urban.

Urban: higher density where blocks are shorter, streets are a mix of one and two-way, and traffic can include 

buses and trams.

Interstate/bypass/divided highway with no traffic signals: interstate, bypass, or divided highway where no 

traffic signals are present.

Bypass/divided highway with traffic signals: bypass or divided highway with traffic signals and no other 

category description is visible.

Three other types of localities were coded including “church”, “playground”, and “school”, which indicated a 

church, playground, or school was present. Since this definition is very vague, events coded with these localities 

were not included in the comparison described in Section 2. The appropriate corresponding locality (i.e. open 

residential) was extracted for Section 3 to ensure consistency between the types of locations where events took 

place.

Driver distractions were coded and drivers may have included more than distraction. The definitions provided in 

Section 3 are general but are similar to the language used for coded events.

Impairment was coded and was an assessment of why drivers engaged in a particular behavior. The terms used 

in Section 3 include:

Drowsy, sleepy, asleep, fatigued: driver exhibits obvious signs of being asleep or tired or is asleep.

Angry: driver exhibits obvious signs of anger.

6.2 COMPARISON OF SPEEDING FOR SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS TO BASELINE 

EVENTS

In the analysis described in this section, the rate of speeding in safety-critical events was compared to speeding 

in baseline events. This was obtained by querying the number of events that met a particular set of filters (i.e. 

baseline events on moderate residential roads coded as exceeded speed limit). The following tables compare 

crash, near-crash, and crash relevant (safety critical) events to baseline events. Both types of events were queried 

for specific roadway types as defined below. Safety-critical events were also disaggregated by crash type (i.e. 

roadway departure). 

The definition of “exceeded safe speed” was relatively subjective and was highly correlated to roadway surface 

condition. As a result, for this analysis, events were defined as speeding if they met the criteria of “exceeded 

speed limit.” Additionally only events coded as having dry or wet surface conditions were included.

Speeding versus not speeding is compared for various roadway types (non-intersection) and for intersections. 

Presence of pedestrians and bicyclists are not indicated in baseline events and are not included in this analysis 

(see Section 3).
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

93

Table 2 shows speeding versus not speeding by various roadway categories. Data are provided for nonintersection baseline and safety-critical events. Safety-critical events may have included rear-ends, near rear-ends, 

roadway departures, loss of control, etc. Information is compared by roadway types. VTTI defined roadway types. 

In most cases, these did not correspond to commonly understand roadway types (e.g. rural 2-lane arterial). As a 

result, roadway types which seemed to be similar were combined. 

The percentage of speeding related events is provided next to the number of speeding related events and was 

calculated as (speeding related events/all events) for a particular category. 

The odds of a driver having “exceeded the speed limit” for safety-critical events compared to baselines events for 

the same roadway type were compared. The 95 percent confidence interval (CI) for the odds are also provided. 

When the confidence interval contains 1.0, the odds are not statistically significant. 

As noted in Table 2, safety-critical events were more likely to be speeding related than for corresponding baseline 

events. For instance, safety-critical events in general that occurred on two-lane roadways where a curve is 

present were 6.6 times more likely to be speeding related than baseline events on similar roadways. Around 

14 percent of safety-critical events were speeding related while 2.4 percent of baseline events were speeding 

related.

Table 2: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for All Safety-critical Events

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

2-lane (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

curve (left or right)

not speeding 486 61

6.64 (2.75, 16.01) speeding 12 (2.4%) 10 (14.1%)

tangent

not speeding 2768 351

2.67 (1.64, 4.34)

speeding 68 (2.4%) 23 (6.1%)

Divided and one way (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

curve (left or right)

not speeding 97 26

NA

speeding 2 (2.0%) 0 (0%)

tangent

not speeding 880 154

3.05 (1.27, 7.31) speeding 15 (1.7%) 8 (4.9%)

Inte Interstate/bypass/divided no signal

curve (left or right)

not speeding 353 11

6.02 (1.53, 23.71) speeding 16 (4.3%) 3 (21.4%)

tangent

not speeding 2032 152

1.24 (0.67, 2.30) speeding 129 (6.0%) 12 (7.3%)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

94

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

Bypass/divided with signal

curve (left or right)

not speeding 56 4

NA

speeding 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

tangent

not speeding 342 27

3.45 (0.91, 13.13) speeding 11 (3.1%) 3 (10.0%)

Entrance exit ramps

not speeding 260 54

1.60 (0.16, 15.72)

speeding 3 (1.1%) 1 (1.8%)

Table 3 evaluates the types of safety-critical events that are typically roadway departures (roadway departure, 

sideswipe, opposite direction, animal). Information is shown for curves and tangents separately for two-lane 

roadways, but were combined for other roadway types due to the small sample size. 

As noted, roadway departure safety-critical events were more likely to be speeding than baselines events 

on similar roadways for two-lane curves and interstate/bypass/divided with no signal. The results were not 

statistically significant for the remaining roadway types.

Table 3: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for Roadway Departure Safety-critical Events

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

2-lane (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

curve (left or right)

not speeding 486 37

7.67 (2.85, 20.63 speeding 12 (2.4%) 7 (15.9%)

tangent

not speeding 2768 147

1.66 (0.71, 3.89)

speeding 68 (2.4%) 6 (3.9%)

Divided and one way (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

not speeding 977 51

1.13 (0.15, 8.64) speeding 17 (1.7%) 1 (1.9%)

Inte Interstate/bypass/divided no signal

not speeding 2385 38

3.03 (1.33, 6.90) speeding 145 (5.7%) 7 (15.6%)

Bypass/divided with signal

not speeding 56 9

NA

speeding 0 (0%) 2 (18.2%)

Entrance exit ramps

not speeding 260 21

4.13 (0.41, 41.43)

speeding 3 (1.1%) 1 (4.5%)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

95

Table 4 evaluates the types of rear-end safety-critical events. Information was combined for curves and tangents 

due to the small sample size. Rear-end safety-critical events were more likely to be speeding-related than baseline 

events for two-lane roadways, and results were not statistically significant for the other roadway types.

Table 4: Speeding versus Not Speeding by Roadway Type for Rear-End Safety-critical Events

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

2-lane (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

curve (left or right)

not speeding 3254 166

3.43 (1.90, 6.18) speeding 80 (2.4%) 14 (7.8%)

Divided and one way (open county, open residential, moderate residential, business/industrial)

not speeding 977 108

1.60 (0.46, 5.54) speeding 17 (1.7%) 3 (2.7%)

Inte Interstate/bypass/divided no signal

not speeding 2385 119

0.97 (0.44, 2.11) speeding 145 (5.7%) 7 (5.6%)

Bypass/divided with signal

not speeding 56 17

NA

speeding 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Entrance exit ramps

not speeding 260 30

NA

speeding 3 (1.1%) 0 (0%)

Table 5 shows events which occurred at an intersection or were intersection-related where the traffic control 

type was a signal. They are additionally broken down by roadway type. As noted, safety-critical events at 

signalized intersections were more likely to be speeding-related than baseline events for signalized intersections 

on business/industrial/urban roadways and when all roadways were combined. 

Table 5: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Signalized Intersections by Roadway Type

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

Business/industrial/urban

not speeding 747 332

6.75 (1.36, 33.62) speeding 2 (0.3%) 6 (1.8%)

Moderate residential/ open country/open residential

not speeding 142 40

NA

speeding 0 (0%) 3 (7.0%)

Inte Divided hwy with traffic signal

not speeding 38 15

NA

speeding 1 (2.6%) 0 (0%)

All

not speeding 927 384

7.24 (1.95,26.90) speeding 3 (0.3%) 9 (2.3%)
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

96

Table 6 shows events which occurred at an intersection or were intersection-related where the traffic control was 

a stop sign. They are additionally broken down by roadway type. It is unknown whether events which occurred 

on the major approach for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection were coded with traffic control as being 

“stop sign” or “no-control.” Safety-critical events at stop signs on business/industrial/urban roadways and for all 

roadways combined were more likely to be speed-related.

Table 6: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Stop-controlled Intersections by Roadway Type

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

Business/industrial/urban

not speeding 105 41

2.56 (0.16, 41.92) speeding 1 (0.9%) 1 (2.4%)

Moderate residential/ open country/open residential

not speeding 225 42

NA

speeding 0 (%) 2 (4.5%)

Inte Divided hwy with traffic signal

not speeding 0 0

NA

speeding 0 0

All

not speeding 330 83

11.93 (1.22, 116.14) speeding 1 (0.3%) 3 (3.5%)

Table 7 shows events which occurred at an intersection or were intersection-related where the traffic control was 

a yield sign. They are additionally broken down by roadway type. No safety-critical events were speeding-related, 

so the odds could not be calculated. 

Table 7: Speeding versus Not Speeding at Yield-controlled Intersections by Roadway Type

Baseline Crash/near crash Odds (CI)

All

not speeding 16 14

NA

speeding 2 (11.1%) 0 (0%)

6.3 TYPOLOGY OF SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

In the analysis described in this section, each crash and near-crash were reviewed. Characteristics such as 

roadway type, crash type, etc. were compared against what was coded, and adjustments were made when a 

different set of characteristics seemed more appropriate. 

Time series data are provided and speed before the beginning of each event was coded. As noted in section 2, 

speed limit was not provided as an attribute. In some cases speed limit or advisory speed was available from the 

narrative and in some cases it could be viewed from the forward view. However, it could not be determined in 

a sufficient sample size to conduct additional analyses. Although the posted/advisory speed was not universally 

available, the actual speed of the vehicle just prior to the safety-critical event was extracted from the time 

series data. 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

97

The sections below summarize safety-critical events by roadway type.

6.3.1 Non-intersection

Rear-end or near rear-end

Thirteen coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open country, open residential:

• Six coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Seven coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Majority were daytime (92 percent) and all were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 18 mph to 61 mph (38 percent were traveling ≤45 mph)

Twenty-two coded as bypass/divided highway with traffic signal or interstate/bypass/divided no signals:

• Thirteen coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Nine coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Majority were daytime (82 percent) and all were under dry/wet roadway conditions (100 percent)

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 29 mph to 101 mph (27 percent were traveling ≤70 mph before the incident)

Roadway Departure (includes typical ROR, animal in roadway, head-on, sideswipe)

Seventy-five coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open country, open residential:

• Thirty-four coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Forty-one coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Fifty-three percent were daytime and 82 percent were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 14 mph to 100 mph (24 percent were traveling ≤50 mph; 3 percent were 

traveling ≤70 mph)

Sixteen coded as bypass/divided highway with traffic signal or interstate/bypass/divided no signals:

• Nine coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Seven coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Eighty-one percent were daytime and 88 percent were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 37 mph to 84 mph (53 percent were traveling ≤70 mph)

Eleven coded as exit/entrance ramp:

• Three coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Eight coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Fifty-five percent were daytime and 55 percent were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 27 mph to 70 mph (36 percent were traveling ≤ 50 mph)

6.3.2 Signalized Intersection

Rear-end or near rear-end

Fourteen coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open residential, bypass/divided hwy
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

98

• Five coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Nine coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Majority were daytime (71 percent) and most (93 percent) were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 19 mph to 55 mph (57 percent were traveling ≤ 45 mph)

Roadway Departure (includes typical ROR, loses control, sideswipe)

Twenty-two coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open residential, bypass/divided hwy

• Six coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Sixteen coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Fifty-nine percent were daytime and 77 percent were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 8 mph to 67 mph (33 percent were traveling ≤ 45 mph)

6.3.3 Stop or Yield Controlled Intersection

Rear-end or near rear-end

None were coded as rear-end or near rear-end.

Roadway Departure (includes typical ROR, loses control, sideswipe)

Four coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open residential, bypass/divided hwy

• Two coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Two coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Twenty-five percent were daytime and 75 percent were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 17 mph to 40 mph 

Broadside

One coded as near-broadside (nighttime, dry), where speed just before the event was 44 mph.

6.3.4 Roundabout/Traffic Circle

Rear-end or near rear-end

One coded as moderate residential (exceeded speed limit, dry roadway, daytime) at 19 mph before incident.

Roadway Departure (includes typical ROR, loses control, sideswipe)

Six coded as business/industrial, moderate residential, open residential

• One coded as “exceeded speed limit”

• Seven coded as “exceeded safe speed but not speed limit”

• Sixty-seven percent were daytime and all were under dry/wet roadway conditions

• Pre-incident speeds ranged from 20 mph to 38 mph 
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

99

6.3.5 Pedestrian 

No speeding or speed-related events that involved pedestrians were reported. Since pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety is of particular concern, all pedestrian crashes and near crashes involving a subject driver were assessed 

and relevant characteristics summarized below.

Midblock Crosswalks

Six events involved pedestrians crossing in a midblock cross walk. The subject driver went around vehicles 

stopped at the cross walk and nearly struck pedestrians in two instances. Both were during the day, one on 

wet roads and one on dry. One driver was moving or reaching for an object and the other driver had no coded 

distractions. Both were traveling almost 20 mph. 

Three of the six events involved drivers nearly striking pedestrians in midblock crosswalks (speeds were 23 to 

34 mph). All three occurred during the day on dry roads. One driver was interacting with a passenger and one 

driver was looking down or engaged in an external distraction. One event occurred during the nighttime with 

the driver traveling at 27 mph along a business/industrial road. The crosswalk is midblock, has on pavement 

“Ped Xing” markings, flashing beacons, and a painted crosswalk. The driver was engaging with a passenger and 

engaged in an external distraction. The driver failed to noticed the pedestrian and braked hard to avoid striking 

the person.

Midblock but not Crosswalk Crossings

Eleven events involved a pedestrian crossing midblock but not in a cross walk. A child darted into the street in 

three of those events. All were residential/moderate residential with driver speeds between 17 and 19 mph. It 

was daytime for two events and dawn/dusk for one. The roads are dry for two events and wet for one. All three 

drivers were engaged in a distraction (personal hygiene, interacting with rear seat passenger, and using cell). 

Eight of the 11 events involve a pedestrian crossing the street or entering the street in front of the driver and 

nearly being struck. In all cases the roads were dry or wet. Two drivers were texting, one was interacting with 

a passenger, and one driver was coded as drowsy. The roadways are urban, moderate residential, or business/

industrial. 

Intersection Straight

Four pedestrians crossed perpendicular to the driver who was traveling straight during the green phase at a 

signal. In these cases, the driver had the right of way. Driver speeds just prior to the event ranged from 7 to 32 

mph, and roadways were urban or business/residential. Two occurred at night with lighting and two occurred 

during the day with three coded as having dry roads and one with wet roads. One driver was engaged in 

personal hygiene and an external distraction, and one driver was talking or browsing on a cell phone.

Three events occurred at a stop-controlled intersection or driveway with the pedestrian crossing in front of the 

driver on the roadways in areas coded as being moderate residential. Speeds just before the event were 0 to 12 

mph. Two events occurred during the day with one occurring at night with lights, and all were on dry roads. One 

driver was texting and another driver was talking on a cell phone.
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

100

Intersection Left Turning

Nine events involved a driver nearly striking a pedestrian while turning left, with the pedestrian crossing being 

parallel to the driver’s original travel path. Five were at signals, two were at locations with stop control, and one 

occurred at the entry to a driveway. Two drivers were interacting with front seat passengers, one was dialing a cell 

phone, and one was looking down at a cell phone. The roadways were moderate resident, urban, or business/

industrial and speeds just prior to the event ranged from 6 to 18 mph. In six cases the roadways were mostly dry 

and in two they were wet.

Intersection Right Turning

Drivers were turning right and nearly struck a pedestrian in seven cases that occurred at urban, moderate 

residential, or business/industrial roadways. Four were at signals, two at stop controlled approaches, and one was 

turning into a driveway. The majority (6 cases) occurred during the day on dry roads with one event occurring 

at night with wet roads. One driver was talking/singing to self and engaged in an external distraction while the 

remaining drivers were not coded as having distractions.

6.3.6 Bicyclist

Only two speed-related events were reported. Since pedestrian and bicycle safety is of particular concern, all 

bicycle crashes/near crashes involving a subject driver were assessed and relevant characteristics summarized 

below.

Twenty safety-critical events involving bicyclists were reported. 

Midblock but not Crosswalk Crossings

In one near crash, the subject driver exceeded the posted speed limit by 5 to 10 mph along an urban roadway. A 

bicyclist crossed the roadway midblock in an area with a cross-walk and railroad crossing. The driver nearly struck 

the bicyclist. Just prior to the event, the driver was traveling 39 mph. The driver was listed as “dancing.”

Edge of Roadway

In another scenario the driver is listed as exceeding a safe speed but not the speed limit, driving 39 mph during 

the daytime. The driver nearly struck a bicyclist traveling along the edge of the roadway (listed as business/

industrial). One other event listed the driver nearly striking a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder along a rural 

roadway while traveling at 40 mph. In both situations, it was dark and bicyclist was difficult to see. In one event 

the driver was talking/singing to self, but no distraction is listed for the other event.

Intersection Straight

The remaining bicycle-related events occurred at intersections. Six of the events occurred at a signalized 

intersection when the bicyclist crossed the road perpendicular to the driver, who was traveling straight during 

the green phase with the driver nearly striking the bicyclist. In these cases, the driver had the right of way. Driver 

speeds just prior to the event ranged from 4 to 30 mph. Five occurred during the day with one occuring at dawn/

dusk. All were on dry roads. One driver was interacting with a passenger, one was coded as having a cognitive 

distraction, and one was coded as having “internal eye glance.” No distractions are coded for the other events.

Two events occurred at stop-controlled intersections with the bicyclist crossing the road perpendicular to the 

driver, who had the stop sign. One occurred at night with lighting present (traveling 7 mph prior to event) and 

one occurred during the day (traveling 14 mph). One driver was listed as talking/singing to self while the other 

has not reported distraction. In both cases the driver appears to execute a rolling stop.
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

101

Intersection Left

Six drivers were turning left at a signal (5 cases) or stop sign (1 case) and nearly struck bicyclists who were crossing 

the adjacent roadway (parallel to the drivers’ original travel paths). Drivers were traveling 7 to 19 mph just prior 

to the event. Five occurred during the day, with one occurring at night with lighting. All were on dry roads. One 

driver was texting and one was looking at something outside the vehicle.

Intersection Right

Two drivers were turning right; one at a signal and one from a driveway, and nearly struck bicyclists who were 

crossing the adjacent roadway (parallel to the drivers’ original travel paths’). The drivers were traveling 4 to 7 mph 

just prior to the event. Five occurred during the day with one occurring at night with lighting. All are on dry roads. 

One driver was holding a cell phone and talking, the other had no distraction.

Red Light Running

One driver ran a red light and nearly struck a bicyclist is in the intersection. The vehicle was traveling 58 mph prior 

to the event, which occurs in a business/industrial area during the daytime on dry roads. No driver distractions 

were coded.

6.4 STUDY LIMITATIONS

The analyses presented in the following sections were based on data from drivers observed in the SHRP 2 NDS 

and may not be representative of all drivers.

Data can only be queried on the InSight website unless a data-sharing agreement and additional resources 

are provided to download event information, which was beyond the scope of this project. As a result, analyses 

were based on those that could be obtained from manual reduction of information or by query of the available 

attributes.

The major limitation to the analyses is that speed limit was not available for individual events which limited 

the ability to assess speeding. With additional resources, speed limit could be obtained by requesting GPS 

coordinates for baselines and near-crash events.

Although there were some limitations due to project resources and the type of data there were available, these 

analysis provide valuable insight into the role of speeding in safety-critical events.
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS 

APPENDIX A

102

6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In order to fully utilize the SHPR 2 NDS data to investigate the relationship between speed and crash risk, several 

recommendations are offered. 

First, the major limitation to this study was the lack of speed limit information. As a result, it would be very helpful 

if speed limit and advisory speed (when present) were coded for all crashes and near-crashes and were provided 

as attributes in the event detail table. This would allow speeding to be determined.

Second, although baseline events were provided in the data available on the InSight website, speed limit data 

were not provided, and little information is available about where the event actually occurred. Additionally, as 

noted in Section 6.1, roadway types used in the InSight website do not correspond well to traditional definitions 

used by traffic engineers. Since a forward view was not provided, there was no manner in which roadway type 

could be coded. As a result, it is difficult to compare safety-critical events to normal events in a meaningful 

manner. Providing speed limits for the baseline and a forward snapshot showing roadway location would be very 

helpful in conducting speed related analyses.

The SHRP 2 NDS dataset does provide a unique way to evaluate the impact of speeding. If speed limit for 

safety-critical events could be obtained, a reasonably simple analysis could be conducted to identify the role of 

speeding in crashes and near crashes using the “Event Detail Table” in the InSight website.

If additional resources were available, an ideal research project would identify roadways where safety-critical 

events had occurred and then select normal driving events for the same roadways so that the relationship 

between speeding and crash risk could be determined.
EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF SPEEDING IN CRASHES AND SAFETY-CRITICAL EVENTS

APPENDIX A

103

7. REFERENCES

American National Standard (ANS, 2007). Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents. 7th Edition.

Council, F. M., Reurings, M., Srinivasan, R., Masten, S., and Carter, D. (April 2010). Development of a SpeedingRelated Crash Topology. 

Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Roadway Departure Safety. Retrieved from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

roadway_dept/

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 500. (NCHRP 500, 2009). CHRP Report 500: Guidance for 

Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 23: A Guide for Reducing SpeedingRelated Crashes. Transportation Research Board, 2009.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2012a). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

Analytical User’s Manual 1975 – 2012.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2012b). General Estimate System (GES) Analytical User’s 

Manual 1988 – 2012. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2012c). Traffic Safety Facts 2012 – Speeding. 

NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts 2011 data – Speeding. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT HS 811 751. 

April 2013.

105

SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX B

Appendix B – Safety Focus Groups

Pedestrian Focus Group

Peter Eun FHWA Resource Center Safety & Design Team – Pedestrian and Bicyclist expert

Lauren Blackburn North Carolina DOT TRB Standing Committee on Pedestrians

Trenda McPherson Florida DOT State Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program Manager

Luis Montoya City of San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

Joe Marek Clackamas County, OR Traffic Engineering Supervisor

George Branyan District of Columbia DOT TRB Standing Committee on Pedestrians

Dongho Chang City of Seattle, WA City Traffic Engineer

Cara Seiderman City of Cambridge, MA TRB Standing Committee on Pedestrians

Roadway Departure Focus Group

Dick Albin FHWA Resource Center AASHTO Technical committee on Roadside Safety

Jim Brewer Kansas DOT AASHTO Technical committee on Geometric Design

R. Scott Zeller Washington State DOT TRB Operational Effects of Geometrics

Darren McDaniel Texas DOT Focus State

David Brand Madison Co, OH National Association of County Engineers

Tim Barnett Alabama DOT Focus State

Intersections Focus Group

Tim Taylor FHWA Resource Center Safety & Design Team

 Mike Reese North Carolina DOT TRB Intersections Joint Subcommittee

Daniel Pass Georgia DOT TRB Intersections Joint Subcommittee

Jeff Wentz Maryland State Highway Admin. TRB Intersections Joint Subcommittee

Scott Davis Thurston Co, WA National Association of County Engineers

Ida Van Schalkwyk Washington State DOT TRB Traffic Speed and Safety Joint Subcommittee

Summaries of Interviews

Roadway Departure Summary

Has speeding been considered as an issue/challenge for Roadway Departure safety?

Yes.

What are the predominate characteristics of Roadway Departure crashes in your jurisdiction where speed 

management may be an issue? (road type, area type, etc.)

More in rural areas.

Multi-lane highways at intersections.

Blind spots (poor sight distance).

Two-lane rural roads.

Over-representation in curves.

Head-on crashes.

Hitting a tree.
SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS 

APPENDIX B

106

What are some speed management actions or measures your agency has implemented or is trying to 

implement to improve Roadway Departure safety? 

Use high friction surface treatment.

Curve warning & chevrons.

Dynamic curve signs.

Centerline and shoulder rumble strips (“noise” can be an issue).

Wide edge lines, speed feedback signs. 

Increased friction.

Provide shoulders.

Reduce edge drop off.

Clear zone.

Flatten slopes.

Widen roadways, rumble strips, high friction pavement, LED chevrons.

Intersections use transverse rumble strips.

Were they successful, unsuccessful or do you not yet know the outcome? Why do you think they succeed or 

failed? What problems or issues did you encounter?

Speed feedback signs only provided 1 or 2 mph decrease.

Lowering speed limit - 0 mph change.

Cable barrier on Interstate median (initially used 3-strand, but now use 4-strand cable).

Develop plans for Focus Area States.

What are some of the major knowledge gaps in engineering safer speeds to reduce Roadway Departure 

fatalities and injuries? 

Do not have funding for widening shoulders or changing superelevation.

Roadway inventory data not very good. 

Transition zones are a problem.

Need a tool box, such as Roundabouts or Chicanes.

Removing trees in clear zone or should trees be left in to slow traffic down?

Effectiveness of wide edge lines.

What is the right package of improvements for high-speed roundabout approaches?

What information, research, or other resources are needed to close the gaps? 

Downward grade on curves.

What is the correlation of reduction of speed to reducing crashes or the severity of crashes?

Understanding the effects speed reduction on crashes.

Engineering, enforcement, and judicial.

Driver attention and speed.

Surface condition, wet weather.

CRF.

What information, research, or other resources are needed to close the gaps? 

Lower noise patterns for rumble strips.

Money & funding.

Need systematic approach.

Data on variable speed limits.

No real time data on speed.
SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX B

107

What do you feel are the most significant challenges or issues to making speed management strategies and 

actions an integral part of improving Roadway Departure safety?

Cannot post a speed and expect people to obey it.

What is the speed of vehicles 5 mph, 10 mph over? Perception of speeding.

Need research to be able to determine speeds.

How do you address when a highway is designed for 70 mph and posted for 50 mph?

One of the largest challenges is to develop crash testing criteria for the higher speeds. Vehicle designs come 

into play and we as an agency cannot predict that development.

Intersection Summary 

Has your agency done any analysis of speeding related Intersection crashes?

No, we look at speeding as a contributing factor.

Has speeding been considered as an issue/challenge for Intersection safety?

Not a high percentage of crashes.

Not that much. Speeding is a cause.

Speed compounds another issue.

Is speeding a primary or just a contributing factor?

What are the predominant characteristics of Intersection crashes in your jurisdiction where speed 

management may be an issue? (road type, area type, etc.).

Two-lane rural roads.

Rural high speed with isolated intersections.

Urban arterials with coordinated signals. Do not have staff to maintain.

More in suburban areas, and higher severity in rural.

Rural 50 mph roadways

What are some speed management actions or measures your agency has implemented or is trying to 

implement to improve Intersection safety? 

Getting funding where the needs are which are on the local roads. Funds go to National Highway System 

(NHS).

HSIP funds for speed enforcement.

Speed management course for law enforcement, judges, etc.

“Super Street” J-turns.

Traffic calming.

Roundabouts.

Roundabouts with speed reduction.

Wide edge lines.

Rumble strips.

3D pavement markings.

Basic Human Factors Knowledge. Surprise driver crashes will happen.

Wide dash lines through intersections.

Lane narrowing.

LED stop signs.

USLIMITS2 as a guide.
SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS 

APPENDIX B

108

School zones with beacons.

Transverse rumble strips.

Targeted enforcement.

Speed trailer.

Set speed limit to 85th percentile as a policy.

Urban standards revised. Narrower streets.

Were they successful, unsuccessful or do you not yet know the outcome? Why do you think they succeed or 

failed? What problems or issues did you encounter?

Rumble strips get complaints of too much noise and little reduction of speed.

80 roundabouts, 1 fatal and 1 serious crash.

3D pavement markings are short-lived and costly to replace.

What are some of the major knowledge gaps in engineering safer speeds to reduce intersection fatalities 

and injuries? 

Not every jurisdiction has a traffic engineer.

Police do not ask the right questions.

Choosing design speed. Why 5-10 mph higher?

Uniformity and consistency of data.

Quantify features of roadway. A speed management factor similar to crash modification factor.

What information, research, or other resources are needed to close the gaps? 

Need more data on the effectiveness of wider edge lines and lane narrowing

The impact of speed on a crash (i.e., if they were going 5 mph less, would it have made a difference?)

Raising awareness for speed management similar to safety. There are tools for safety like Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM); need something similar for speed management.

Outreach tools for the public (i.e., video & handouts)

What is the proper speed?

Police training.

Information on teaching students the right way.

Policies dealing with perceptions instead of science.

What do you feel are the most significant challenges or issues to making speed management strategies and 

actions an integral part of improving Intersection safety?

How we communicate with the public.

Sharing data from other states. Having uniformity and consistency of data.

Law enforcement ticketing at 15 mph over speed limit. Difficult to have consistent speeds limits.

Over designing a highway; making the decision to construct a 20-year design now, or wait 

and utilize phase construction.

Pedestrian Summary 

Has your agency done any analysis of speeding related Pedestrian crashes?

Yes.

No, we need to.

Yes, pedestrian crashes occurring on roadways that are high speed.
SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX B

109

Has speeding been considered as an issue/challenge for Pedestrian safety?

Yes, the higher the speed, the higher the severity.

It is difficult to determine if a vehicle was speeding.

Enforcement on all speeding and aggressive driving.

What are the predominate characteristics of Pedestrian crashes in your jurisdiction where speed 

management may be an issue? (road type, area type, etc.).

High-speed ramps to arterial roads.

Intersections where there is a high volume of pedestrians.

High-speed to lower-speed transition areas.

Urban intersections.

Non-roadway (i.e., parking lots)

Midblock.

Major arterials with no medians.

Downtown arterials.

What are some speed management actions or measures your agency has implemented or is trying to 

implement to improve Pedestrian safety? 

Speed humps in residential areas.

Street redesign over last 20 years, traffic calming, reduced speeds, and narrow streets.

Signal timing to slow down traffic.

Bulb outs, lane narrowing, edge lines.

Road Diets.

Complete Streets.

Lane width reduction.

Retiming signals.

Revising speed limits 30mph to 25mph.

Rapid rectangular flashing beacons

Automated speed enforcement.

Education and Enforcement campaigns.

Were they successful, unsuccessful or do you not yet know the outcome? Why do you think they succeed or 

failed? What problems or issues did you encounter?

A lot of success in cities.

Before and after studies.

Fatal crashes down, but pedestrian crashes up.

What are some of the major knowledge gaps in engineering safer speeds to reduce Pedestrian fatalities and 

injuries? 

Why design for peak hour?

Countermeasures for high speed roadways.

Knowledge gap regarding countermeasures for arterial and commercial streets; there are more speed 

management countermeasures for residential streets.
SAFETY FOCUS GROUPS AND SUMMARIES OF INTERVIEWS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

APPENDIX B

110

What information, research, or other resources are needed to close the gaps? 

Automated speed enforcement is perceived as a revenue generating tool by the public. Need data and 

information showing safety benefits.

Toolbox for arterial streets. Need information showing effectiveness.

Find good data on speed humps and reduction of lane width 12’ to 11’.

Table intersection crossings.

How to choose between rapid rectangular flashing beacon or a signal for mainline.

Mid-block crossing toolbox.

More guidelines for arterials and countermeasure effectiveness.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

APPENDIX C

111

Appendix C – Additional Resources

• Bike Safe – Bike Smart, http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Bicycles/Bike+Safe+-+Bike+Smart+(25MB+and+

146MB,+WMV+format) 

• Context Sensitive Solutions website - http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/

• A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, 2014 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm, and

• A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Crashes, 2014 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_crashes.cfm

• Evaluation of Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs on Curves: A National Demonstration Project, FHWA-HRT-14-020, 

January 2015. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/14020/index.cfm

• Evaluation of Low Cost Traffic Calming for Rural Communities – Phase II [Updated], S. Hallmark, S. 

Knickerbocker, and N. Hawkins, 2013. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/intrans_reports/94/

• FHWA Road Diet website - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/

• FHWA Roundabouts website - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/

• FHWA Speed Management website - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/

• FHWA Traffic Calming website - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/traffic_calm.cfm

• High Friction Surface Treatments. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-2/hfst.cfm

• Jurisdiction Speed Management Action Plan Development Package, FHWA-SA-15-017, January 2015 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/docs/fhwa_speedmanagementpackage_final.pdf

• Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety, FHWA-SA-07-002, Dec 2006

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/horicurves/fhwasa07002/

• Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report, FHWA-SA-12-004, April 2012. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/

• Motorcycle Safety Training Program Examples:

- BikeSafe North Carolina - http://www.bikesafenc.com/

- BikeSafe UK - http://www.bikesafe.co.uk/

• NCHRP Report 500, Volume 23 – A Guide for Reducing Speeding-related Crashes

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v23.pdf

• NCHRP Report 504: Design speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf

• NCHRP Report 613: Guidelines for Selection Speed Reduction Treatments at High-Speed Intersections (2008). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_613.pdf

• NCHRP Report 650: Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_650.pdf

• NCHRP Report 737: Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones for Rural Highways (2012). 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_737.pdf
GAPS AND NEEDS IN RESEARCH ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

APPENDIX C

112

• NCHRP Synthesis 412: Speed Reduction Techniques for Rural High-to-Low Speed Transitions (2011)

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_412.pdf

• PEDBIKESAFE – Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guides and Countermeasure Selection Systems 

http://pedbikesafe.org/

• Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking and Biking, FHWA-SA-14-099, January 2015. http://

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/index.cfm

• Safety EdgeSM . http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/intro.cfm

• Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, FHWA-HEP-15-025, May 2015 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page00.cfm

• Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, DOT HS 810 916, March 2008. http://safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/5.htm

• USLIMITS2 - http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits
GAPS AND NEEDS IN RESEARCH

APPENDIX D

113

APPENDIX D

Appendix D – Gaps and Needs in Research

A list of gaps and needs relating to speed management, effectiveness of countermeasures, and speeding-related 

crash risks emerged during the comprehensive literature review, crash data analysis, and focus group interviews.

The following table lists some critical gaps in our understanding of the problem and initiatives needed to more 

effectively manage speed to improve roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Gaps/Needs

Overall Speed 

Management

Roadway 

Departure 

Focused

Intersection 

Focused

Pedestrian/ 

bicyclist 

Focused

A better understanding of the relationship between travel speed and crash risk 

is needed to better define unsafe travel speeds and estimate changes in safety 

due to changes in speed that are expected from implementing engineering 

countermeasures.

X

The long-term effects of many traffic engineering and design measures on reducing 

speed are not well defined or evaluated. X

NCHRP Report 613, Guidelines for Selection of Speed Reduction Treatments at High 

Speed Intersections, presents a wide variety of treatments for reducing speed at 

intersections, but insufficient data is published on the long-term speed and safety 

impacts. Rigorous evaluation is needed to better understand the safety effects of the 

following treatments:

• Dynamic warning signs

• Longitudinal rumble strips

• Wider longitudinal pavement markings

• Approach curvature

• Splitter islands

• Speed tables and raised intersections

• Reduced lane width

• Visible shoulder treatments

X

Current speed activated warning systems on curves do not take into account vehicle 

type or weather conditions X

The effects of variable speed limits on operating speeds, compliance, and safety are 

not well known and are needed to advance the concept, especially in work zones and 

for adverse weather conditions.

X

Develop strategies for the mitigation of crash risk of trees, utility poles, and other fixed 

objects in the clear zone X

Research is needed to determine the effects of wider edge lines or narrowing lane 

width X

The safety effectiveness of posting appropriate speed limits and advisory speeds 

on intersection approaches has not been quantified for signalized and unsignalized 

intersections

X

The effects of variable speed limits at intersections on operating speeds, compliance, 

and safety are not well known and are needed to advance the concept. X

The reduction of speed limits and use of advisory speeds at intersections have little 

effects on speed, and their impact on safety is not known X
GAPS AND NEEDS IN RESEARCH 

APPENDIX D

114

Gaps/Needs

Overall Speed 

Management

Roadway 

Departure 

Focused

Intersection 

Focused

Pedestrian/ 

bicyclist 

Focused

A rigorous evaluation of the safety effects of automated speed enforcement at 

intersection in the United States is needed to convince legislators and transportation 

officials of its efficacy. Also, a mechanism is needed to ensure engineering and 

traffic investigations are performed prior to implementation of automated speed 

enforcement.

X

The inferred design speed profile based on American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria and average driver, vehicle, and road 

friction characteristics should be developed and incorporated into the IHSDM and 

related training.

X

Operating speed estimation models based on roadway design characteristics are 

available for two-lane highways to assist designers in assessing design consistency 

based on the magnitude of speed reduction on curves relative to the approach 

road section. Similar operating speed estimation models need to be developed 

for rural multilane roadways and incorporated into the Interactive Highway Safety 

Design Model (IHSDM). In addition to assessing design consistency and potential 

safety problems on curves, the model would also be helpful in assessing the need for 

climbing lanes, justification of maximum grades, and evaluating proposed capacityexpansion projects.

X

National roadway design guidance does not provide criteria for design speeds above 

80 mph.

• Brake reaction time and deceleration rate for drivers and various vehicle types 

with initial speeds of 80 mph and higher are needed to verify whether current 

values used in road design are sufficient.

• Detection and recognition distance between a high speed vehicle and a slower 

moving vehicle are needed to assess whether they are sufficient to permit 

evasive maneuvers or stopping.

• Additional research is needed to determine the potential for rollover and 

skidding at the higher design speeds on curves, especially as applicable to ramp 

design.

• Research is needed to determine side friction demand on horizontal curves on 

high-speed roadways and how much, if any, drivers slow down.

• Evaluating the impacts from raising speed limits to 80 mph and higher on 

roadside safety features.

X X

Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP), an encroachment-based computer software 

tool for cost-effectiveness evaluation of roadside safety improvements, includes 

speed limit as variable affecting encroachment speed, angle and severity, but is 

largely based on data collected on roadways with speed limits of 70 mph or less. 

There is a need to develop encroachment speed or angle distributions for roadways 

with prevailing speeds of 75 mph and higher and identify roadside slopes and ditch 

configurations that are recoverable, traversable, and non-traversable at high speeds.

X

The safety impacts of speed limit changes based on USLIMITS2 need to be evaluated; 

providing before and after studies of corridors when agency used USLIMITS2 as basis 

for setting speed limit; success stories.

X

A national speed limit database and a curve geometry database are needed to 

support advanced safety applications such as in-vehicle speed monitoring and curve 

speed warning.

X X
GAPS AND NEEDS IN RESEARCH

APPENDIX D

115

Gaps/Needs

Overall Speed 

Management

Roadway 

Departure 

Focused

Intersection 

Focused

Pedestrian/ 

bicyclist 

Focused

As connected vehicle (CV), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and related technologies 

develop, researchers and developers need to consider integrating solutions for 

addressing speed and roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian and bicyclist 

crashes.

X X X X

NCHRP Report 731, Guidelines for Timing Yellow and All-Red Intervals at Signalized 

Intersections, and a draft ITE proposal recommended practice advises that yellow 

change intervals be timed using the speed limit + 7 mph to approximate the 85th 

percentile speed if speed data are not measured and that 1 second be subtracted 

from the calculated red clearance time to account for driver start-up delay in entering 

the intersection after green onset. The crash effects of retiming yellow change and 

red clearance intervals following the new guidelines need to be quantified and crash 

modification factors updated for inclusion in the HSM.

X

A much better understanding of perception-reaction, deceleration, red-light running 

behaviors, etc. at signalized intersections could be determined using the 2nd 

Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study (SHRP2 NDS) data.

X

More robust research on vehicle or speed activated devices is needed. X

There is a need for a toolbox of countermeasures and details of the effectiveness of 

each on speed management. X X X X

A better understanding of the relationship between travel speed and crash risk is 

needed in low and moderate speed environments to better define unsafe travel 

speeds and estimate changes in pedestrian safety, due to changes in speed that are 

expected from implementing engineering countermeasures.

X

Speed prediction models are needed for urban streets to assist designers in 

developing context-sensitive road designs and incorporating features that result in 

operating speeds that are consistent with the target speed environment.

X X

The engineering toolbox for managing speed is limited, except for residential streets. 

Cost-effective methods are needed to better manage speeds on urban arterial 

streets.

X

USLIMITS2 does not address school zones or provide guidance on actions to 

take if the recommended speed limit is higher than desired. There is a need to 

incorporate a countermeasure selection tool such as the Pedestrian Safety Guide 

and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) and speed prediction models that 

could assist users in reducing the road speed to a level that would support a lower 

speed limit.

X

Speed management needs to be integrated into current training courses on 

pedestrian safety in order to reach a broader audience and achieve positive 

outcomes.

X

Research recently recommended bicycle lane widths and parking lane widths for lowspeed streets. There is a need to develop guidance for bicycle lane widths for various 

roadway characteristics based on vehicle speeds and grade.

X

There needs to be more guidance on determining the best pedestrian safety tool or 

countermeasure for a specific condition X

There is a need for research to determine what countermeasures can be used to 

reduce pedestrian crashes cause by turning vehicles at intersections. X

Research is needed to determine if there is a correlation between the effect of signal 

timing and whether pedestrians choose to wait and cross at the intersection or 

instead, cross at midblock locations or illegally.

X




For more information:

Visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/

FHWA Office of Safety

Guan Xu

Guan.Xu@dot.gov

FHWA-SA-16-017 www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov