How to Investigate a Resident Speeding Concern

A speeding concern should lead to a clear question, proportionate evidence and a documented response — not automatically to a traffic count, a new device or physical works. This template helps council officers and consultants work from the original concern to an evidence-backed decision that can be explained to the community.

It is intended for local-road concerns such as “cars are speeding on my street”, “drivers do not slow near the crossing”, or “we need traffic calming”. It is not a formal Road Safety Audit, a speed-limit-setting process, or a substitute for the relevant road authority's requirements.

Start here: route the concern

If the first check shows…	Route the request to…
The exact location, reported period and decision are clear, and suitable evidence exists	An officer or consultant recommendation using the existing record and its stated limits.
Historical speed, route or behaviour context is missing across a wider corridor	Connected-vehicle insights, where coverage is suitable for the question.
Relevant footage exists but has not been analysed	Existing-video analysis, subject to the data owner's access, retention and privacy conditions.
Location-specific movement, exposure, conflict or behaviour evidence is missing	Temporary XVision sensing for the named location and period, with scope set by the unanswered question.
The evidence is available but a formal or complex assessment is needed	Consultant interpretation and support.
Dangerous driving or hooning is reported in progress	The relevant police referral path, alongside—not instead of—the council investigation.

The decision is not whether to buy data; it is whether there is a material evidence gap, and which collection can resolve it without commissioning the wrong study.

1. Record the concern properly

A resident request is an important signal. It is not, by itself, proof of speeding or a particular treatment. Capture enough detail that the issue can be investigated without asking the resident to repeat the story.

Speeding concern request template

Copy this into your customer-request system, investigation register or location record.

Field	Record
Request reference	[Council request ID]
Date received	[Date]
Location	[Road, nearest property / cross street, suburb]
Location type	[Residential street / school approach / shopping strip / crossing / other]
Concern described	[Use the resident's words, then summarise plainly]
When it occurs	[Times, days, school peak, weekend, all day, unknown]
Who may be exposed	[People walking, children, cyclists, residents, people driving, other]
Reported behaviour	[Speeding / rat-running / failure to give way / hooning / other]
Existing request or project links	[Previous reference IDs, works, studies or consultation]
Authority and constraints	[Local road / state-managed road / shared responsibility / unknown]
Initial owner	[Officer or consultant]

For hooning, dangerous driving or other anti-social behaviour, make the relevant police referral clear. A traffic investigation and enforcement response may run alongside one another, but they are not the same task.

2. Start with the location record

Before commissioning new evidence, check whether this exact road segment or intersection has a history:

• Earlier requests, correspondence and officer responses.
• Previous traffic counts, speed surveys, video, connected-vehicle data or site observations.
• Reported crash history and relevant risk context.
• Existing road layout, speed environment, school-zone times, crossings, bus stops and planned works.
• Previous treatments and any before-and-after review.

This prevents a common failure mode: commissioning a new survey every time a similar concern arrives, while the decision history remains scattered across request systems, inboxes, spreadsheets and consultant reports.

3. Define the question before selecting a tool

The question determines the evidence. “Are cars speeding?” is usually too broad to guide a useful response.

If the concern is...	The investigation question may be...	Evidence that may help
“Cars speed on this street”	At what times, on which segment, and relative to the signed environment?	Existing speed data; a targeted speed survey; road layout and operating context
“It is unsafe to cross here”	When and where do people cross, what do approaching vehicles do, and what conditions create risk?	Site observation; video where appropriate; pedestrian activity; speeds; visibility and road-environment review
“We need traffic calming”	Is there a documented road-safety or operating issue, and which response is proportionate?	Combined evidence, design constraints, access needs and qualified engineering assessment
“Lower the speed limit”	Does the location meet the relevant road authority's criteria and approval pathway?	Authority guidance, road function, roadside development, crash and speed context, formal application requirements

Do not promise a treatment in the request acknowledgement. A speed hump, lowered speed limit or signal installation can require design work, funding, consultation and approval by another authority.

4. Assess whether existing evidence is enough

Use a short evidence check before commissioning new collection.

Evidence check	Yes / no / unknown	Notes
Is the location precise enough to investigate?
Is there relevant recent speed or movement evidence?
Does it cover the reported time and day?
Is there a prior investigation or decision to review?
Is the concern about people walking or cycling, not just vehicles?
Does the road environment need a site inspection?
Is an external road authority involved?
Is professional road-safety or traffic-engineering review required?

Existing connected-vehicle data can provide useful speed, travel-time or behaviour context, depending on the supplier, coverage and sample. It does not measure every vehicle and should not be treated as a substitute for pedestrian exposure, site observation or professional judgement. Footage or temporary sensing should be commissioned when the existing evidence cannot answer the actual question.

5. Choose a proportionate next step

Finding	Appropriate next step
The issue is outside council's remit or needs enforcement	Explain the referral path and record it.
A previous investigation still answers the question	Review the record, explain the prior decision and set a review trigger if conditions change.
Available evidence is sufficient	Prepare an officer or consultant recommendation and response.
The evidence gap is specific	Commission targeted collection for the relevant location and time period.
The issue may warrant design or treatment	Progress an engineering assessment, approvals, funding and consultation as required.
Conditions may have changed after works	Plan a before-and-after review at the same location.

The aim is not to close requests quickly regardless of substance. It is to make the next action clear, defensible and proportionate.

6. Document the decision

Investigation record template

Field	Record
Investigation question	[The specific question being answered]
Location	[Link to the persistent location record]
Evidence reviewed	[Data source, dates, coverage, limitations]
Site observations	[Date, observer, relevant conditions]
Key findings	[What the evidence does and does not show]
Professional review	[Officer / consultant / reviewer and role]
Decision	[No further action / monitoring / referral / further study / design assessment / other]
Rationale	[Why this is the proportionate response]
Follow-up trigger	[Date, changed conditions, new evidence, project milestone]
Community response sent	[Date and request reference]

Formal safety audits have their own requirements. Austroads publishes an editable audit brief, finding proforma and report template for that purpose; use those processes when the task is a Road Safety Audit. Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6

Completed form example

Form field	Fictional officer entry
Concern and location	CR-2048; fictional Fern Street, playground frontage; drivers “flying down” after 3 pm.
People exposed	Children and carers crossing informally between parking and the playground.
Existing evidence	Two-year-old count on another segment; no prior investigation at the playground approach.
Gap	No speed or observation evidence for the reported location and afternoon period.
Investigation question	What speeds and crossing conditions occur on the playground approach after 3 pm?
Route selected	Temporary XVision sensing and a time-bound site observation for the named approach; consultant interpretation if the result is to support a design assessment.
Record now	Link request, scope, sources and follow-up date to the same location record.

For a resident-facing response after the investigation, use the Community Response Template for Road-Safety Investigations.

Use this template as a living location record

The template is designed to work in the council's existing customer-request and records systems. XVision Command extends it into a shared location record: bring the request, evidence, consultant work, decision and any later outcome together around the same road location.

That is how a future concern can start with what the council already knows, rather than beginning again.

Sources and further guidance

1. Austroads, Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Road Safety Audit.
2. Main Roads Western Australia, Road Safety Auditing and Crash Investigation.
3. Illustrative process example only: City of South Perth, Report Traffic/Road Safety Issues. It is not a model, endorsement or source of XVision product availability.