PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Ann Epidemiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 February 6.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3915799
NIHMSID: NIHMS525545

Are Current Law Enforcement Strategies Associated with a Lower Risk of Repeat Speeding Citations and Crash Involvement? A Longitudinal Study of Speeding Maryland Drivers

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine whether traffic court appearances and different court verdicts were associated with risk of subsequent speeding citations and crashes.

METHODS

A cohort of 29,754 Maryland drivers ticketed for speeding who either went to court or paid fines by mail in May/June 2003 was followed for 3 years. Drivers appearing in court were categorized by verdicts: 1) not guilty, 2) suspension of prosecution/no prosecution (STET/NP), 3) case dismissed, 4) probation before judgment and fines (PBJ), or 5) fines and demerit points. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (AHR).

RESULTS

Court appearances were associated with lower risk of subsequent speeding citations (AHR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88-0.96), but higher risk of crashes (AHR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.16-1.35). PBJ was associated with significantly lower repeat speeding tickets (AHR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.75-0.91) and a non-significant decrease in crashes (AHR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.75-1.02). Both repeat speeding tickets and subsequent crashes were significantly lower in the STET/NP group.

CONCLUSIONS

PBJ and STET/NP may reduce speeding and crashes, but neither verdict eliminated excess crash risk among drivers who choose court appearances. Randomized controlled evaluations of speeding countermeasures are needed to inform traffic safety policies.

Keywords: traffic accidents, safety, risk factors, speeding, motor vehicle crashes, law enforcement

INTRODUCTION

Speeding threatens public health worldwide (1-3), by increasing both motor vehicle crash risk and likelihood of crash mortality and morbidity (4-19). In the United States, speeding contributes to a third of fatal crashes, an estimated 11,674 deaths in 2008 (20). A primary countermeasure for speeding is enforcing speed limits by punishing lawbreakers. License suspension/revocation significantly reduced subsequent traffic violations and crashes (21) and traffic convictions, especially speeding convictions that included points, reduced involvement in fatal crashes for several months after the conviction (22). Despite these measures, speeding remains widespread (23-25); active police enforcement reduces speeding around the targeted area for a limited period after it ends (26, 27). More severe penalties were not associated with fewer subsequent speeding citations (28).

It is unclear how to maximize the effectiveness of speeding enforcement. Law enforcement can be understood as a behavior modification system that includes negative feedback for undesirable behavior and attempts to modify individual attitudes. Individual perceptions, interpersonal influences, and community settings all affect behavior (29).

In Maryland, drivers who receive speeding tickets can elect to pay fines by mail or appear in traffic court, where cases can be upheld, dismissed or changed to less severe charges and penalties. In traffic court, communications between judges and ticketed drivers are analogous to tailored individual health communication between physicians and patients (30). Traffic court proceedings, coupled with other negative consequences of speeding citations, may provide a stronger deterrent to speeding violations than paying fines by mail. Relatively little is known about the impact of traffic court appearance and its differing verdicts on road safety among speeding drivers. In this study, we investigated the associations of court appearance and the different verdicts rendered for a speeding ticket with both subsequent speeding citations and police-reported crashes by following a cohort of licensed Maryland drivers ticketed for speeding from 2003 to 2006.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data sources

We used Maryland driver licensure data from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), traffic citation and court disposition data from Maryland District Court, and crash data from the Maryland Automated Accident Reporting System, and merged them using driver license numbers.

Study sample and design

We identified 30,603 individuals with a valid Maryland non-commercial driver license who settled a speeding citation in May/June 2003, and divided them into two groups: those who chose court appearances (54%; n=16,645) and those who paid fines by mail (43%; n=13,109). We excluded 549 (2%) drivers who had duplicate records and 301 (1%) drivers who failed to pay the fine or appear in court.

We further categorized those who went to court into 5 groups based on the verdicts they received: 1) not guilty (8%), 2) case dismissed (DMIS, 6%), 3) suspension of the prosecution and no prosecution (STET/NP, 5%), 4) probation before judgment (PBJ) and fines (48%), and 5) fines and demerit points (28%). We excluded 149 (1%) drivers who received PBJ alone and 531 (3%) records with missing case disposition information.

We followed this cohort of drivers from July 2003 through June 2006 to ascertain two separate outcomes: receipt of a subsequent speeding citation and involvement in a police-reported crash. Study subjects were censored after their first repeat speeding ticket and after their first police-reported crash.

Covariates

Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and race, driving history, and index speeding violation information were analyzed. We excluded groups whose race was coded as Asian, Native American, or Other/Unknown because each group was too small for meaningful analyses; the combined group was only 5% of the study cohort. The variable denoting Hispanic origin in motor vehicle administration records had a high percentage of missing data so it was not used. As a surrogate for socioeconomic status, we used the median annual household income of the driver’s residential zip code, as published in the 2000 US census. We then divided this variable into groups, ≤$30,000, $30,001-$50,000, $50,001-$70,000, and >$70,000, based on 1999 Federal Poverty Guidelines (31). Driving history encompassed speeding violations, alcohol-related violations, and crashes of each eligible driver during the 3 years before May 2003. From the index speeding violation, we extracted degree of speeding over the limit, amount of fines, and the county where the violation occurred.

Statistical analysis

Survival analyses, including Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank, and Wilcoxon tests, were used to evaluate the effect of court appearances versus paying fines by mail, and the effects of different court rulings versus not guilty verdicts. For the survival analyses, the time variable was days from the start of the follow-up (July 1, 2003) until the first speeding violation or involvement in a police-reported crash. Drivers who had no repeat offenses or crashes found in the databases were censored at 1,095 days (3 years).

We used Cox proportional hazards models for multivariable analysis to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The presence of effect modification was examined for each covariate. To build the model, each covariate was tested and included in the final model if the regression coefficient of the main effect varied by 10% or more. We also checked the proportionality assumption of the proportional hazards model by adding the interaction between log survival time and the main effect in the model. A non-significant interaction term (P > 0.05, 2-sided) supported the assumption that the hazard rates for the two study groups did not vary with time during follow-up. The final models were adjusted for age, gender, race, categories by which drivers exceeded the speed limit for the index violation, prior speeding tickets, prior alcohol traffic tickets, and prior police-reported crashes. SAS software (version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all data analyses.

RESULTS

Driver characteristics: court appearances and verdicts

Among drivers who dealt with a speeding citation in May/June 2003, more than 54% of them went to court. Compared with drivers who paid fines by mail, they were more likely to be younger than 25, African American, and to have been cited for traveling in excess of 20 mph above the speed limit (Table 1). Fewer drivers who went to court lived in zip codes with household incomes greater than $70,000. In addition, a higher proportion of drivers who went to court had a history of speeding, alcohol-related violations, and crashes.

TABLE 1
Characteristics and Driving Histories of Maryland Licensed Drivers Who Either Paid Fines by Mail or Appeared in Court in May/June 2003 Following a Speeding Citation

Once in court, drivers who were age 30 or older, female or with no more than one prior speeding violation were more likely to be placed on PBJ, whereas drivers who were younger than age 30, male, traveling more than 20 mph above the speed limit, or who had prior speeding violations or crashes were more likely to be fined and assigned points (Table 2). Neither race nor median household income of drivers’ zip codes appeared to be associated with receiving PBJ. Drivers, traveling less than 15 mph above the posted limit, were more likely to receive STET/NP. About half of drivers who had alcohol-related violations prior to May 2003 were given STET/NP for speeding compared with about 4% of drivers without alcohol violations.

TABLE 2
Characteristics and Driving Histories of Maryland Licensed Drivers by Verdicts After Appearing in Court to Settle a Speeding Citation in May/June 2003

Repeat speeding citations

The likelihood of repeat speeding tickets and subsequent crashes decreased with age (Table 3); drivers younger than 21 had risks at least twice those of drivers age 50 or older. Male gender, being African American, a history of speeding violations, and prior police-reported crashes were significantly associated with both subsequent speeding citations and crash involvement. Speeding more than 15 mph above the limit was associated with repeat speeding tickets, but not with an increased crash risk.

TABLE 3
Adjusted Proportional Hazard Ratios (AHR) of Independent Predictors for Receiving a Subsequent Speeding Citation or Being Involved in a Police Reported Crash Among Maryland Licensed Drivers During Three Years After Settling a Speeding Ticket in May/June ...

Between July 2003, and June 2006, 39.3% of drivers who went to court and 36.4% of drivers who paid fines by mail were cited at least once for speeding. After adjustment for potential confounders, the direction of the association changed such that court appearance was associated with significantly lower risk of being cited for speeding as compared with paying fines by mail (AHR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.96) (Table 3).

Compared with those who were found not guilty, drivers placed on PBJ had significantly lower risk of receiving a subsequent speeding ticket (AHR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.91). The lowest risk of being cited again for speeding was observed among drivers who received STET/NP (AHR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60-0.82). In contrast, the risk for receiving repeat speeding citations among drivers who were penalized with fines and points was not significantly different from those found not guilty. Those whose cases were dismissed had a borderline significant lower risk (AHR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-1.00) (Table 4).

TABLE 4
Adjusted Proportional Hazard Ratios (AHR) for Receiving a Subsequent Speeding Citation or Being Involved in a Police Reported Crash Among Maryland Licensed Drivers by Court Verdict During Three Years After Settling a Speeding Ticket in May/June 2003

Police-reported crashes

During follow-up, 11.6% of drivers who chose court appearance and 8.4% of drivers who paid fines by mail were involved in a road crash. The adjusted HR for involvement in a subsequent crash for court appearance versus paying fines by mail was 1.25 (95% CI: 1.16-1.35) (Table 3).

Compared with the verdict of not guilty, only STET/NP was associated with significantly lower crash risk (AHR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89) (Table 4). The lower crash risk for those placed on PBJ was nearly significant after adjustment for other predictors (AHR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75-1.02). Drivers who received fines and points had risk similar to those whose verdict was not guilty (AHR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.20).

DISCUSSION

Our study is one of the first to address court verdicts and associated outcomes among speeding drivers. Traffic courts exist in many jurisdictions in the United States but their impact on traffic safety is unclear. We found that compared with those who paid fines by mail, drivers who went to court to settle a speeding citation had a significantly higher risk of subsequent crash involvement despite having a significantly lower risk for a repeat speeding citation after adjustment for other independent risk factors. Among those who went to court, receiving any type of legal penalty was associated with a lower risk of subsequent speeding violations and crashes compared with a verdict of not guilty; however, only STET/NP’s associations with both outcomes were statistically significant. PBJ was associated with significantly fewer repeat speeding tickets and a non-significant decrease in crashes.

Some of the reduction in repeat speeding violations among drivers who went to court might have been attributable to decreased subsequent driving exposure in Maryland, particularly among younger drivers who attended colleges or joined the military; however, we adjusted for age and this condition would apply to both groups.

The majority of drivers traveling above the posted speed limit are not cited, and the use of speeding citations as an indicator for speeding behavior greatly underestimates its prevalence. However, this problem would affect all the study groups included in the analysis.

The current study analyzed a cohort of nearly 30,000 drivers, in which we were able to simultaneously adjust for many important covariates. Unlike most previous studies that examined driver behavior in a location with intensive speed enforcement (26, 27, 32-34), this study followed individuals over time to better understand how judicial measures affect people who violate the law. Moreover, we studied the association of traffic court and its verdicts with not only speeding behavior, but also with crash occurrence because preventing crashes is the main purpose of traffic law enforcement.

The increased risk of crashes associated with court appearance likely reflects the high-risk characteristics of drivers who chose this approach rather than being a true causal relationship. Those who chose to appear in court had more prior violations and crashes. Consistent with previous research, we found that prior speeding violations and crashes were independent predictors for repeat speeding tickets and subsequent crashes (28, 35-37). However, driving histories cannot fully capture risk-taking propensity because most moving violations, including alcohol-impaired driving, are not detected by police.

The two verdicts associated with significantly lower risk of speeding recidivism among drivers who went to court, STET/NP and PBJ, provide drivers with incentives to comply with speed limits because they both result in reinstatement of charges if the driver is given another ticket (38). However, the decreased risk of both repeat speeding tickets and subsequent crashes among drivers on STET/NP might have been due to license suspensions/revocations because many of these drivers had prior alcohol traffic violations for which suspension is the standard penalty (39). Suspended drivers may tend to reduce their driving or comply with speed limits to avoid drawing attention to their driving without a license. The finding of lower risk of recidivism among drivers with PBJ is consistent with previous research among Maryland drivers (28), however, this also could be due to judges deciding to give PBJ to people correctly perceived as less likely to commit another violation. PBJ also appears to have stronger deterrent effects relative to more serious consequences among first-time alcohol traffic offenders (40). Adjustment for demographic variables and driving history lessened the potential for confounding of verdicts with other driver characteristics.

Sending more drivers to traffic court does not appear to be an effective approach to reducing crash risk. Maryland speeders who choose to go to court are motivated by both the opportunity to receive the lesser penalty of PBJ and the chance of having charges dismissed should the ticketing officer fail to appear. More than half the drivers in our study who went to court were placed on PBJ. Programs that result in drivers being able to keep violations off their official records, such as traffic violator schools, have been associated with increases in crashes (21, 41, 42), but this study observed no increased crash risk among drivers placed on PBJ compared with those found not guilty. Like other drivers who went to court, drivers receiving PBJ had an elevated crash risk compared with drivers who paid fines by mail. Paying fines by mail, accompanied by points, is virtually identical to receiving a penalty of fines and points in court, yet the likelihood of crashing was more than twice as high among those who went to court. A randomized trial would provide more definitive answers about the effects of court appearances. Our study suggests that more severe penalties (i.e. fines and demerit points) have limited effectiveness in reducing speeding recidivism and preventing crashes among drivers ticketed for speeding in the current system of traffic law enforcement. Reviews of studies addressing the effectiveness of countermeasures on traffic violations have concluded that receiving an occasional fine for speeding is merely an inconvenience rather than an effective deterrent for some drivers (43). Some hard-core speeding drivers also may not be deterred by points until they have accumulated enough of them to be subject to license suspension (2, 43). Stepped-up enforcement appears to deter alcohol-impaired driving (44). Recent studies (32-34, 45, 46) have reported that speed cameras significantly reduce speeding violations and crash involvements due to higher detection and punishment rates, suggesting that the certainty of punishment may be more effective than severity of penalties in deterring speeding behavior and reducing crashes. Similarly, swiftness and certainty of punishment have been shown to be effective in reducing fatal crashes involving alcohol violations (47).

Traffic court serves important societal purposes. Findings of this evaluation bring into question whether or not traffic court hearings for speeding drivers are fulfilling those purposes adequately. Courts require substantial financial resources and infrastructure and often face a backlog of traffic violation cases (48, 49). Furthermore, it is difficult for law enforcement to provide sustained surveillance of all speeding motorists. Studies that measure speeding behavior directly through driver observations should be conducted to ascertain the relative effectiveness of court appearances, various court verdicts, traditional speeding tickets, and speed cameras. Future research is needed to determine the effects of speed cameras on driver behavior by following those who have received speed camera tickets over time, including observations in areas where speed cameras are not located. Intelligent speed adaptation, an advanced in-vehicle technology that receives information about speed limits and slippery road conditions (50), also is worthy of study.

Speeding is a serious problem that merits rigorous controlled intervention trials to determine which approaches are most effective in reducing its prevalence.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the Maryland Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES), the Society for Public Health Education, both the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and the National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Systems of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. The authors gratefully acknowledge assistance with the databases from Shiu Man Ho, Tim Kerns, Cynthia Burch, Jack Joyce, and Dr. Jon Mark Hirshorn.

Abbreviations

AHR
adjusted hazard ratio
DMIS
case dismissed
STET
suspension of prosecution
NP
no prosecution
PBJ
probation before judgment

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Jingyi Li, National Study Center for Trauma & EMS, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Sania Amr, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Elisa R. Braver, National Transportation Safety Board; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Patricia Langenberg, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Min Zhan, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Gordon S. Smith, National Study Center for Trauma & EMS, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Patricia C. Dischinger, National Study Center for Trauma & EMS, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E, et al., editors. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva, Swiss: WHO; 2004.
2. Sergerie D. Road speed: Health impact and counteractive measures -- scientific review. Québec, Canada: Institut national de santé publique du Québec; 2008.
3. Richter ED, Berman T, Friedman L, Ben-David G. Speed, road injury, and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:125–152. [PubMed]
4. Solomon D. Accidents on main rural highways related to speed, driver and vehicle. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads; 1964.
5. Cirillo JA. Interstate system accident research, study II. Public Roads. 1968;35(3)
6. Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, Ponte G. Traveling speed and the risk of crash involvement. Vol. 2. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety; 1997. CR 172.
7. Joksch HC. Velocity change and fatality risk in a crash--a rule of thumb. Accid Anal Prev. 1993;25:103–104. [PubMed]
8. Pasanen E, Salnivaara H. Driving speeds and pedestrian safety in the city of Helsinki. Traffic Eng Contr. 1993;34:308–310.
9. Pitt R, Guyer B, Hsieh C, Malek M. The severity of pedestrian injuries in children: An analysis of the pedestrian injury causation study. Accid Anal Prev. 1990;22:549–559. [PubMed]
10. Pasanen F. Driving speeds and pedestrian safety: A mathematical model. Finland: Helsinki University of Technology; 1992.
11. Anderson G, Nilsson G. Speed management in Sweden. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute; 1997.
12. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The effects of increased speed limits in the post-NMSL era. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 1998. DOT-HS-9-808-637. [PubMed]
13. Wazana A, Krueger P, Raina P, Chambers L. A review of risk factors for child pedestrian injuries: Are they modifiable? Inj Prev. 1997;3:295–304. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. O’Neill B. Experiences with speed limits in the USA. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 1990.
15. Lave C, Elias P. Did the 65 mph speed limit save lives? Washington DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 1992.
16. Baum H, Wells J, Lund A. Motor vehicle crash fatalities in the second year of 65 mph speed limits. J Safety Res. 1990;21:1–8.
17. Baum H, Wells J, Lund A. The fatality rate consequences of the 65 mph speed limit. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 1989.
18. Garber S, Graham J. The effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour speed limit on rural highway fatalities: A state-by-state analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 1990;22:137–149. [PubMed]
19. Finch D, Kompfner P, Lockwood C, Maycock G. Speed, speed limits and accidents. Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory; 1994. PR58.
20. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts 2008 data -- speeding. 2010 DOT HS 811 166.
21. Masten SV, Peck RC. Problem driver remediation: A meta-analysis of the driver improvement literature. J Saf Res. 2004;35:403–425. [PubMed]
22. Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ, Evans L. Traffic-law enforcement and risk of death from motor-vehicle crashes: case-crossover study. Lancet. 2003;361(9376):2177–82. [PubMed]
23. Harkey DL, Robertson HD, Davis SE. Assessment of current speed zoning criteria, research record 1281. Vol. 1281. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 1990. pp. 40–51.
24. Royal D. Findings, National survey of speeding and unsafe driving attitudes and behavior: 2002. II. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic safety Administration; 2004. DOT HS 809 730.
25. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. [February 14 2010];Speed and speed limits. 2009 http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html.
26. Holland CA, Conner MT. Exceeding the speed limit: An evaluation of the effectiveness of a police intervention. Accid Anal Prev. 1996;28:587–597. [PubMed]
27. Vaa T. Increased police enforcement: Effects on speed. Accid Anal Prev. 1997;29:373–385. [PubMed]
28. Lawpoolsri S, Li J, Braver ER. Do speeding tickets reduce the likelihood of receiving subsequent speeding tickets? A longitudinal study of speeding violators in Maryland. Traffic Inj Prev. 2007;8:26–34. [PubMed]
29. Sleet DA, Trifiletti LB, Gielen AC, Simons Morton B. Individual-level behavior change models: applications to injury prevention. In: Gielen AC, Sleet DA, DiClemente RJ, editors. Injury and Violence Prevention: Behavioral Science Theories, Methods, and Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2006.
30. Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.
31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation. [February 14 2010];The 1999 HHS poverty guidelines. 1999 http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/99poverty.htm.
32. Retting RA, Farmer CM, McCartt AT. Evaluation of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Traffic Inj Prev. 2008;9:440. [PubMed]
33. Novoa AM, Pérez K, Santamariña-Rubio E, Marí-Dell’Olmo M, Tobías A. Effectiveness of speed enforcement through fixed speed cameras: A time series study. Inj Prev. 2010;16:12–16. [PubMed]
34. Pérez K, Marí-Dell’Olmo M, Tobías A, Borrell Carme. Reducing road traffic injuries: Effectiveness of speed cameras in an urban setting. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:1632–1637. [PubMed]
35. Williams AF, Kyrychenko SY, Retting RA. Characteristics of speeders. J Saf Res. 2006;37:227–232. [PubMed]
36. Gebers MA, Peck RC. Using traffic conviction correlates to identify high accident-risk drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35:903–912. [PubMed]
37. Hauer E, Persaud BN, Smiley A, Duncan D. Estimating the accident potential of an Ontario driver. Accid Anal Prev. 1991;23:133–152. [PubMed]
38. District Court of Maryland. Traffic. [October 15 2009]; http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/selfhelp/traffic.html.
39. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. [August 4 2010];DUI/DWI Laws. 2010 http://www.iihs.org/laws/dui.aspx.
40. Taxman FS, Piquero A. On preventing drunk driving recidivism: An examination of rehabilitation and punishment approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1998;26:129–143.
41. Gebers MA, Peck RC, Janke MK, Hagge RA. Using traffic violator school citation dismissals in addition to convictions as the basis for applying post-license control actions. Sacramento, CA7: California Department of Motor Vehicles; 1993. p. 201.
42. Peck RC, Gebers MA. The traffic safety impact of TVS citation dismissals. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles; 1991. p. 133.
43. Zaal D. Traffic law enforcement: A review of the literature. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 1994. p. 53.
44. Tay R. General and specific deterrent effects of traffic enforcement. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 2005;39:209–223.
45. Pilkington P, Kinra S. Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties Systematic review. BMJ. 2005;330:331–334. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Wilson C, Willis C, Hendrikz JK, Bellamy N. Speed enforcement detection devices for preventing road traffic injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub2. Art no.: CD004607. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
47. Wagenaar AC, Maldonado-Molina MM. Effects of drivers’ license suspension policies on alcohol-related crash involvement: Long-term follow-up in forty-six states. Vol. 31. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research; 2007. pp. 1399–1406. [PubMed]
48. Editorial: Trial and error may help relieve court backlog. [November 18, 2009];StarNews online. 2009 http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090927/ARTICLES/909264000?Title=Editorial-Trial-and-error-may-help-relieve-court-backlog.
49. Thompson S. Dallas council committee gets recommendations to help the overwhelmed municipal courts. [November 18, 2009];Dallas News. 2009 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061709dnmetmunicourt.457ba03.html.
50. Carsten OM, Tate FN. Intelligent speed adaptation: accident savings and cost-benefit analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:407–416. [PubMed]