“War on roads” was one of the most important topics in media few months ago. Although, economic crisis and discussions about modern “art”, put out road safety from first pages, searching for effective measures to decrease number of road accidents is still one of the key policy issues.

Few measures were already taken. More severe punishments were set for traffic regulation offenders, especially those who try to combine drinking and driving. Prohibition to sell alcohol after 10 PM can also be called an attempt to limit drunk driving. Social campaigns to make drivers more attentive were started. Dealers of new cars tried to lobby politicians to encourage new car usage. Logic’s simple: better cars – better brakes.

Some of these measures are useless and some of them can have even an opposite effect. As John Adams in his book ‘Risk’ noted some of the means to make driving more safe have opposite effect (especially for pedestrians) because of psychological effect called Risk compensation. According to Risk compensation hypotheses the safer driver feels the more aggressive driving style he takes. As sharply noted Adams, it’s still not clear which measure can make roads safer – seat-belts, created to save driver during accident, or a dagger in the car wheel, created to kill driver if accident happens.

Speed limitation was one of the key elements of traffic regulation since 1861 when first speed limit of 10mph (16.1 km/h) was introduced by the Locomotive Act (or “Red Flag Act”) in the United Kingdom. Speed limitation is effective measure because it is essential element of aggressive driving and it is relatively easy to control. However, this measure, like most of others, lacks the key element of effectiveness – they don’t destroy drivers’ capability to offence rules.

So how can we make speed limitations more effective? The answer is simple – by technically destroying drivers’ capabilities of speeding. Technology is present – lots of super cars have speed limiting devices stopping acceleration when speed exceeds 250 km/h or more. But why such limit is needed in the country where the highest legal speed is 130 km/h. Why we can not place such device in every new car with limitation of 130 km/h?

Another tool to make speed control more effective is permanent speed monitoring device – the gadget, which allows permanently monitor car speed. Connected with transmitters by the road this device can transmit data about every violation to police server. Even more, it can be connected with speed limiting device, automatically adjusting top speed margin by the road’s limit set.

Those means can be effective not because drivers become more concerned about safety, but because they drastically transform risk compensation psychological model each driver has. However, they can hardly be ever implemented.

One of the first arguments against speed limiting devices is that they limit personal drivers will and his freedom. It’s true, but the only freedom they limit is freedom to offend against the law. We can only dream about such means in case of robbery or killing.

Other reason is that decision to create really effective system of speed control can hardly injure automobile industry. Almost all producers of super-cars would be kicked out off business. Who needs a car with 500 hp and max speed exceeding 300 km/h, when electronic device inside the car leaves no chance to use all this power? Having super car is always connected with speeding. Nobody buys a car which has 7 gears and reaches 150 km/h with the 4th one just to ride at 90 km/h in a common road.

To conclude, those who want to make roads really safer have to invest not in seat belts, brakes and airbags, but means which can transform mental risk compensation mechanisms. Other means are just waste of money and fight only symptoms.