CMF / CRF Details
CMF ID: 2194
Implement mobile automated speed enforcement system (highly enforced sites)
Description: Sites accounted for 90% of citations. Mobile unit vans with noticeable markings were parked close to the roadway. Police officers in vans operated laser guns and software. Signage and media campaigns informed drivers of enforcement.
Prior Condition: No automated speed enforcement
Category: Work zone
Study: An Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras in Charlotte, NC, Cunningham et al., 2008
Star Quality Rating: | [View score details] |
Rating Points Total: | 85 |
Crash Modification Factor (CMF) | |
---|---|
Value: | 0.863 |
Adjusted Standard Error: | |
Unadjusted Standard Error: | 0.026 |
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) | |
---|---|
Value: | 13.7 (This value indicates a decrease in crashes) |
Adjusted Standard Error: | |
Unadjusted Standard Error: | 2.6 |
Applicability | |
---|---|
Crash Type: | All |
Crash Severity: | All |
Roadway Types: | Not Specified |
Street Type: | |
Minimum Number of Lanes: | |
Maximum Number of Lanes: | |
Number of Lanes Direction: | |
Number of Lanes Comment: | |
Crash Weather: | Not specified |
Road Division Type: | |
Minimum Speed Limit: | |
Maximum Speed Limit: | |
Speed Unit: | |
Speed Limit Comment: | |
Area Type: | |
Traffic Volume: | |
Average Traffic Volume: | |
Time of Day: | All |
If countermeasure is intersection-based | |
Intersection Type: | |
Intersection Geometry: | |
Traffic Control: | |
Major Road Traffic Volume: | |
Minor Road Traffic Volume: | |
Average Major Road Volume : | |
Average Minor Road Volume : |
Development Details | |
---|---|
Date Range of Data Used: | 2000 to 2005 |
Municipality: | Charlotte |
State: | NC |
Country: | |
Type of Methodology Used: | Before/after using empirical Bayes or full Bayes |
Sample Size (site-years): | 84 site-years before, 84 site-years after |
Other Details | |
---|---|
Included in Highway Safety Manual? | No |
Date Added to Clearinghouse: | Dec 01, 2009 |
Comments: |