Traffic enforcement in the Netherlands; an inventory of knowledge and knowledge needs
The purpose of traffic enforcement is to ensure that road users behave safely, in accordance with the goals of traffic laws and rules.
This report describes the mechanisms by which traffic enforcement can contribute to behaviour changes and, with them, to road safety. It also presents an overview of some important traffic enforcement developments in the Netherlands. However, the core of the report is an inventory of recent knowledge and knowledge needs. What do we know of the quality and effectiveness of traffic enforcement, and what do we still need to know in order to deploy enforcement as efficiently and effectively possible? The emphasis in this literature study lies on Dutch publications and specific developments in the Netherlands. In addition, there is extra attention for speed enforcement because this has been studied and evaluated more often than other behaviour, such as: drink-driving, seatbelt and helmet use, and red light running.
How traffic enforcement mechanisms work
Traffic enforcement can be seen as a chain, beginning with laws and the conducting of enforcement activities, and ending with a change in traffic behaviour among some road users. Police controls along the road are the enforcement pressure, or 'objective chance' (of being caught). Based on this pressure, what they see in the media, and what they hear from friends and acquaintances, road users estimate what the chance is of being caught breaking the law: the 'subjective chance' (of being caught). If road users estimate this chance sufficiently large, they will avoid breaking the laws, and thus there is prevention. It is better for road safety to prevent traffic offences (general prevention) than actually catching offenders and punishing them (specific prevention). This means that traffic enforcement must especially succeed in turning the threat of punishment into a disciplining and norm establishing influence on the behaviour of several million motorists.
In general, the bigger the subjective chance (of being caught), and the greater the certainty of punishment, and the quicker the penalty follows the offence, the greater the general prevention effects of police surveillance. Each of these elements is a link in the chain of enforcement and, to continue using this metaphor, the complete chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If, for example, the subjective chance is small, the penalty size, punishment certainty and its speed will not make much difference in preventing offences. The subjective chance can be increased by: publicizing surveillance activities, very visible controls, an unpredictable series of random controls, controls at times and places in which there is a large chance of really catching offenders, and carrying out controls that are difficult to avoid.
Although fear of being caught is the central mechanism in how traffic enforcement works, public support for obeying traffic laws is also a significant success factor in traffic enforcement.
Traffic enforcement in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands in the past, traffic enforcement has demonstrably contributed to safer traffic. It has helped reduce the number of crashes through drink-driving and speeding. Lasting success requires continually striving to achieve further improvement in enforcement by means of new laws, new instruments, new insights, and new policy spearheads.
During the last 10 years, there have been a number of interesting developments in and around traffic enforcement that have positively influenced its effectiveness and efficiency: the Administrative Enforcement of Traffic Offences Act, regional enforcement plans, and (theoretically) the ideas for sustainable enforcement. Experiments with new types of sustainable enforcement should certainly be stimulated. It is from such a variety that we can learn.
A specific problem is the small but stubborn group of road users who are insufficiently influenced by the current traffic enforcement methods. Offender-directed deployment of inconspicuous video cars can affect this group, and it is certainly worth developing this approach further. Another specific, but also new, problem is driving under the influence of drugs and medicines. This, especially in combination with alcohol, leads to a very large crash rate. For the time being there is no legal limit for blood contents of drugs and/or medicines. Neither is there a valid method of measuring drugs and medicine use on the roadside. Various (international) studies are working on this.
Knowledge about the 'quality' of traffic enforcement
One can measure the 'quality' of traffic enforcement in many ways. This report chooses six approaches: 1) the legal framework, i.e. the law and Public Prosecutor's Office guidelines for tracing, catching, and prosecuting, 2) priorities at the national and regional levels, 3) the organization of cooperation between various bodies, 4) the choice of deploying (a combination of) enforcement methods, 5) the extent to which one learns from data, research, and public feedback during implementation, and 6) the way in which road users are informed of traffic controls.
The legal framework determines, among others, the nature and severity of penalties. When choosing the best workable penalties (leading to less recidivists), it is often a matter of being custom-made: different sorts of penalty affect different groups of offenders the best. What often works better than a single sanction is a combination of sanction components (temporary driving licence suspension, financial damage, free choice of a rehabilitation course for a quicker return of the driving licence).
For the priorities of police control, cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-benefit analyses can provide important information. These can lead to strategic decisions being taken about the priority of different sorts of traffic enforcement in comparison with each other, but also in comparison with other road safety measures.
With regard to the methods, the emphasis on speeding and red light running during the last 15 years has shifted from police stops to control using automatic or semi-automatic systems. This has been done to enlarge the objective chance, and with it the subjective chance (of being caught), and with that, increase the control efficiency. Various studies have shown that automatic or semi-automatic control systems have a positive road safety effect on speeding. Anyway, this shift has not had an adverse effect on the absolute number of police stops in traffic. On the contrary, this number has only increased.
According to experts, communication about speeding and speed enforcement must not only be aimed at increasing the subjective chance, but just as much at enlarging the support for traffic laws and for controls. Speeding is especially difficult to influence by communication alone. Although attitudes towards a safe speed often become more positive through a special campaign, behaviour changes often do not occur.
Knowledge needs
In our changing society, the traffic enforcement must be regularly critically examined. In order to continually improve traffic enforcement, more knowledge is needed. The knowledge needs about the design and implementation of traffic enforcement can be illustrated by using three main questions for the near future:
1. Which data can provide an indication of the return of traffic enforcement?
2. How can traffic enforcement strategies be best tuned to the local traffic situation?
3. How can speeding control be best combined with information and communication?
Besides answering these questions, good management of the current knowledge on police control is essential. This knowledge should be bundled and made better available. This means that we have to think about an information system in which project managers can quickly find information that is important to them.
What next with traffic enforcement?
In comparison with other EU countries, the quality of traffic enforcement in the Netherlands is certainly not bad. This is because of important characteristic elements such as random alcohol controls, a planned design of region-wide projects, reviewing control data for evaluation, the liability of the vehicle owner, and the maintaining of a limited number of policy spearheads.
The successes achieved in the past are, however, no guarantee for the future. Traffic enforcement is a field in which specialized, formal knowledge as well as informal rules of thumb from practice is needed to ensure traffic enforcement's quality. Additional systematic knowledge development, as well as distributing current knowledge certainly needs a fresh impulse.
During a workshop about traffic enforcement in 2002 with experts from police, research, and policy, some criticised the traffic enforcement in the Netherlands. In the discussion about effects of speed enforcement, the 'small' speed changes were often sneered at. A speed reduction along a few hundred metres road can indeed be called small, but it can be very effective in reducing speeds in certain situations, for example, in the vicinity of schools, dangerous crossroads, etc. New technological methods, such as road segment control, can also influence behaviour over much greater distances and time. In addition, a certain density of controls along a route can also have effects over longer distances.
Nearly all road safety experts agree that a better, more sustainable approach of speeding lies in the technological adaptations to the vehicle. Examples of this are vehicle recorders, adaptive cruise control (ACC), and intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) in which voluntary use can be stimulated. There are also technical solutions to seatbelt use and drink-driving that make offending physically impossible, e.g. the alcohol lock and the seatbelt lock. Regardless of the future developments of new technologies and any new limit systems, there will always be an important traffic surveillance, control, and enforcement task for the police. For this, it is important to apply new (digital) control techniques, and to combine them with stops and human contact.