评估英国限速20英里的安全性和速度影响:证据和见解

IF 6.2 1区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS
Mohammed Quddus , Athanasios Theofilatos , Mingjie Feng , Rune Elvik
{"title":"评估英国限速20英里的安全性和速度影响:证据和见解","authors":"Mohammed Quddus ,&nbsp;Athanasios Theofilatos ,&nbsp;Mingjie Feng ,&nbsp;Rune Elvik","doi":"10.1016/j.aap.2025.108210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Studies on the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits in the UK vary due to differences in context, methods, data, environments, and schemes. Many of them do not account for confounding factors like regression-to-the-mean, long-term trends, or changes in traffic volume, making it difficult to generalise their overall impact. Moreover, there is a need to account for the different effects of physical measures (speed humps, cameras) and sign-only measures, when examining the benefits of 20mph limits. Hence, the present paper attempts to add to current knowledge in the field and address these issues by developing a methodology to assess and classify the quality and validity of existing studies on 20mph speed limits in the UK. In this research we reviewed 21 studies and more than 260 effect estimates in total, applying fixed-effects and random-effects analyses to evaluate the impact on crashes, personal injuries as well as speed changes. Our analyses show that 20mph speed limits reduced traffic crashes by an average of 26.45%, with a 21.64% reduction for schemes with signs only. Casualties decreased by 22.92% for all schemes, compared to 10.91% for sign-only schemes. Furthermore, the introduction of 20mph speed limits with physical measures resulted in greater reductions in crashes and casualties than sign-only schemes. Additionally, sign-only schemes reduced mean speed by 1.63 mph. These findings are expected to assist policymakers to make informed decisions on implementing 20mph speed limits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":6926,"journal":{"name":"Accident; analysis and prevention","volume":"221 ","pages":"Article 108210"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the safety and speed impacts of the 20mph speed limit in the UK: Evidence and insights\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Quddus ,&nbsp;Athanasios Theofilatos ,&nbsp;Mingjie Feng ,&nbsp;Rune Elvik\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aap.2025.108210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Studies on the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits in the UK vary due to differences in context, methods, data, environments, and schemes. Many of them do not account for confounding factors like regression-to-the-mean, long-term trends, or changes in traffic volume, making it difficult to generalise their overall impact. Moreover, there is a need to account for the different effects of physical measures (speed humps, cameras) and sign-only measures, when examining the benefits of 20mph limits. Hence, the present paper attempts to add to current knowledge in the field and address these issues by developing a methodology to assess and classify the quality and validity of existing studies on 20mph speed limits in the UK. In this research we reviewed 21 studies and more than 260 effect estimates in total, applying fixed-effects and random-effects analyses to evaluate the impact on crashes, personal injuries as well as speed changes. Our analyses show that 20mph speed limits reduced traffic crashes by an average of 26.45%, with a 21.64% reduction for schemes with signs only. Casualties decreased by 22.92% for all schemes, compared to 10.91% for sign-only schemes. Furthermore, the introduction of 20mph speed limits with physical measures resulted in greater reductions in crashes and casualties than sign-only schemes. Additionally, sign-only schemes reduced mean speed by 1.63 mph. These findings are expected to assist policymakers to make informed decisions on implementing 20mph speed limits.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accident; analysis and prevention\",\"volume\":\"221 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accident; analysis and prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457525002969\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ERGONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accident; analysis and prevention","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457525002969","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于背景、方法、数据、环境和方案的不同,对英国限速20英里有效性的研究有所不同。其中许多没有考虑到诸如回归均值、长期趋势或交通量变化等混杂因素,因此很难概括它们的总体影响。此外,在研究限速20英里的好处时,有必要考虑物理措施(减速带、摄像头)和仅限标志措施的不同影响。因此,本文试图增加该领域的现有知识,并通过开发一种方法来评估和分类英国20英里/小时限速的现有研究的质量和有效性,从而解决这些问题。在这项研究中,我们回顾了21项研究和260多个影响估计,应用固定效应和随机效应分析来评估对碰撞、人身伤害和速度变化的影响。我们的分析表明,20英里/小时的限速平均减少了26.45%的交通事故,而只有标志的限速则减少了21.64%。所有计划的伤亡人数减少了22.92%,而只有标志计划的伤亡人数减少了10.91%。此外,引入20英里/小时的物理限速措施,比仅限标志的方案更能减少撞车事故和伤亡。此外,仅标识方案将平均速度降低了1.63英里/小时。这些发现有望帮助决策者在实施每小时20英里的限速时做出明智的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the safety and speed impacts of the 20mph speed limit in the UK: Evidence and insights
Studies on the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits in the UK vary due to differences in context, methods, data, environments, and schemes. Many of them do not account for confounding factors like regression-to-the-mean, long-term trends, or changes in traffic volume, making it difficult to generalise their overall impact. Moreover, there is a need to account for the different effects of physical measures (speed humps, cameras) and sign-only measures, when examining the benefits of 20mph limits. Hence, the present paper attempts to add to current knowledge in the field and address these issues by developing a methodology to assess and classify the quality and validity of existing studies on 20mph speed limits in the UK. In this research we reviewed 21 studies and more than 260 effect estimates in total, applying fixed-effects and random-effects analyses to evaluate the impact on crashes, personal injuries as well as speed changes. Our analyses show that 20mph speed limits reduced traffic crashes by an average of 26.45%, with a 21.64% reduction for schemes with signs only. Casualties decreased by 22.92% for all schemes, compared to 10.91% for sign-only schemes. Furthermore, the introduction of 20mph speed limits with physical measures resulted in greater reductions in crashes and casualties than sign-only schemes. Additionally, sign-only schemes reduced mean speed by 1.63 mph. These findings are expected to assist policymakers to make informed decisions on implementing 20mph speed limits.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
16.90%
发文量
264
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Accident Analysis & Prevention provides wide coverage of the general areas relating to accidental injury and damage, including the pre-injury and immediate post-injury phases. Published papers deal with medical, legal, economic, educational, behavioral, theoretical or empirical aspects of transportation accidents, as well as with accidents at other sites. Selected topics within the scope of the Journal may include: studies of human, environmental and vehicular factors influencing the occurrence, type and severity of accidents and injury; the design, implementation and evaluation of countermeasures; biomechanics of impact and human tolerance limits to injury; modelling and statistical analysis of accident data; policy, planning and decision-making in safety.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信