1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182 
A greed for speed?
Page 30
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Speed cameras have become first choice for controlling dangerous driving, but is this too narrow a view? Dylan Gray checks out the DfT's latest report on the subject and talks to those who aren't convinced.
Traffic enforcement speed cameras have been the subject of fierce debate ever since they were introduced in 1992. A large proportion of the UK's road safety budget is spent on them, but this is based on the belief that speed is the most significant danger drivers can present.
The number of speed cameras has risen from just below 2,000 to over 6,000 in five years. Cameras cost £20,000 apiece, which means that more than fl 20m has already been spent on this form of enforcement. More than three million people are fined every year after being caught by a camera and at £60 a ticket that equates to £18rn in fixed penalty payments.
Over the past 10 years, after dropping significantly, death rates have evened out at around 3,500 a year, while injury rates have been falling steadily with the number of serious injuries down by 9,000 a year over the past 13 years.
However, it is important to set this stability against the growth in traffic density, and increase of some 50bn passenger kilometres in the past 10 years.
The DfT has published a favourable report based on a four-year evaluation of its national safety camera programme. It states that vehicle speeds at camera sites have dropped by around 6% and there is a 70% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. Most impressive is the 42% reduction of people killed or seriously injured. Fatalities at camera sites are said to have dropped by 100 per year, although this would mean one fewer death for every 60 cameras.
The report also postulates a saving of £258m from a reduction in injuries compared to enforcement costs of £96m.
Commenting on speed cameras, a spokesperson from the DiT says: "Speed cameras are there to save lives. The cameras are not placed at random. Roads that match a certain criteria will generally be fitted with one.
"This criteria may include a history of serious accidentsor evidence of a speeding problem based on surveys. Cameras must also be visible and signposted, as their primary function is to act as a deterrent."
Exceptions to the rules
There are exceptions to the rules:"If there is no direct evidence of speeding or major accidents, a camera may still be put up in places where there may be concern, for example on a road passing a school."
The Ian' insists that speed cameras are not a revenue generator for local police forces. It says that the bodies responsible for placing the cameras are able to claim back their costs, although any surplus cash does go straight to the Treasury.
April 2007 will see the introduction of a new 10m road safety grant. It will be divided up between local authorities and is to be spent purely on road safety, which may include cameras among other enforcement methods. This will make the Treasury solely responsible for paying for cameras, and the sole recipient of revenues from them.
However, not everyone is convinced that speed cameras are either the best use of public money or the hest way to achieve accident reductions.
The Safe Speed website founded by Paul Smith (ww w.safespeed.org.uk) is actively campaigning against the use of speed cameras. Smith is an engineer who has spent more than 5,000 hours finding out why, though the number of cameras has risen, there has been no corresponding reduction in traffic fatalities.
In a document named 'Speed Cameras—The CaseAgainsf,Smith notes that no proper trials were ever carried out to test their effectiveness as a blackspot treatment or to investigate possible side effects. He also highlights the high degree of emphasis on numerical speed, rather than safe driving behaviour.
Smith says:"Though lam anti-speed camera, I do believe that we need speed controls. The speed limits we have today are a blunt instrument, where no outside influences are taken into account. They remain the same whether it is wet or dry, dark or light, etc.
"The alternative to speed cameras is to find a method to distinguish between safe and unsafe driving. This can be done by employing more traffic police who are able to tell when somebody is driving dangerously."
Convictions for dangerous driving have stayed fairly constant at around 250 per year since 2003. This raises the issue of who is responsible for the other 3,250 deaths on the road. Smith says the number of traffic officers has dropped significantly, though the DfT says that this is not true, and points out that police from any department are able to intervene in a traffic offence.
Smith argues that cameras cannot determine driving conditions or the ability of drivers to observe the road conditions and select an appropriate speed'. He also disputes the statistic of 100 fewer deaths at camera sites. Certainly the correlation between the number of cameras and the reduction in deaths is weak, hut Smith says that there are also problems with the way the statistics are compared and other variables such as reductions in the density of traffic at specific sites.
There are certainly many factors which contribute to accidents with inappropriate speed (not necessarily in excess of ihe limit) being just one. Equally, there are many other safety initiatives which could have contributed to a reduction in deaths such as a higher awareness of driver fatigue, drink-driving issues. and use of mobile phones.
Traffic police
The reduction in dedicated traffic police which has gone hand in hand with the rise in speed cameras causes some commentators concern.
The DfT spokesperson added: "We expect the police to keep patrolling although it is important to have a human and technology balance. The simple fact remains that a vehicle travelling at high speeds is more likely to cause an accident than one travelling at low speeds.
"Though different vehicles are built for different speeds, it would be incredibly difficult to set different speeds for them.Some will argue that this is already in place with HG Vs, but their main speed enforcement comes from humans, as cameras are not set to pick up a truck doing over 40mph on a 60mph single-carriageway."
The argument that speed cameras cause sudden braking holds little water, as only those speeding in the first place would need to brake hard. A visible speed camera certainly slows most traffic, but it will certainly not eliminate accidents, as driver skill plays a huge part in road safety.
The question as to whether speed cameras save lives is complicated.The fact that our road death rate has remained constant despite a vast increase in traffic shows that many of our safety initiatives have paid dividends,as has the evolution of vehicle engineering.
It is not clear whether cameras simply shift accidents to different sections of road.but there is certainly no spike in accidents at camera sites suggesting that they do not make driving conditions more dangerous.
Speed cameras have a part to play in road safety enforcemen t, but whether they should be at the heart of it remains the real question facing policy makers. •