Evidence Based Government

Generally I support the idea that politics should stay out of science and vice-versa, but when talking about problems that can be accurately measured and quantified, I think science can lend a hand in providing solutions. Case in point: the new super speeder law that has become official on 1 January 2010. This law will tag on an additional two hundred dollars to a speeding ticket when the measured speed is thirty-five miles over the posted limit.

There are two stated reasons for this extra fine: the first is that Georgia lawmakers want to reduce the amount of speeding in the state. If you’ve ever been on any part of I-285 you know what I’m talking about; it’s a frakking racetrack. The second reason stated that this extra money will go fund trauma centers, but (fine print) the legislature can do whatever they want with it.

I don’t want to talk about Georgia politics, (but I will if given half a chance); instead I want to focus on the idea that higher fines will decrease speeding. Surely, other states have tried this approach. There should be a mountain of data out there confirming or unconfirming this idea. Can we move this from an idea to a testable hypothesis?

First:

• The data has shown that police presence does nothing to deter speeding outside of the immediate area.
• Automatic systems for red light enforcement and speed enforcement don’t generate self-sustaining revenue, meaning that they are a victim of their own success. They do their job so well at deterring drivers from running lights and speeding that the city is unable to cover the costs and require subsidies; the only other option is the discontinuation of the program
• Speed monitoring displays that show a driver’s current speed have been shown to reduce speeds, but this is not feasible for a highway.
• A number of overseas studies DO find that increased fines and the threat of losing a license ARE effective, but the fact that the number of licensed US drivers is many times that of most studied countries muddies the waters.
• Signs noting the threat of double fines at construction sites has increased awareness and decreased speeding, but only by a third.

While there is no direct evidence that points to whether or not higher fines do deter speeding, we may be able to infer some conclusions from a number of other psychological studies on deterrence by increased penalties. Georgia lawmakers are hoping that the fear of punishment will deter illegal behavior in potential offenders. Is this borne out in the research?

The short answer is that we just don’t know for sure; we know that a deterrence effect does exist but its significance and magnitude have been difficult to measure. What it boils down to is that lawmakers want to penalize unsafe driving. If this is all this is, then I suppose I can’t complain. But if this is being billed as a method of saving lives, it will fall flat on its face. The only real ways to reduce speeding, and ergo traffic deaths, is to either step up enforcement or find a way to get drivers off of the road. Maybe the legislature could spend that money on a better mass transit system?

I mean its 2010, why can’t we teleport? Or should we wait five years for hoverboards and flying cars?

Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads!