Safety Camera Partnership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Traffic enforcement camera

Safety Camera Partnerships (SCP) were Local Government-based organisations, set up in the United Kingdom as part of The National Safety Camera Scheme. This scheme officially ended in April 2007, when revenue from safety cameras began being distributed to local authorities instead of being reclaimed by the partnerships.

Such partnerships have now changed their names to either 'casualty reduction partnership', 'road awareness partnership', 'safer roads partnership', or similar.

Their main tool of enforcement was the traffic enforcement camera, erroneously known as the speed camera, as such cameras can also detect transgressions of red traffic lights, bus lanes etc.

Contents

[edit] Aims and objectives

Their stated objectives[1] were to reduce deaths and serious injury by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red-light running. The aim was to do this by preventing, detecting and enforcement of speed and red light offences using but not limited to camera technology and driver education programmes. Some also included the use of road safety engineering as a method of contributing to the aim.

The programme was part of the UK government's Road Safety Strategy that seeks a

  • 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2010 (compared to the average of 1994-8)
  • 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries of children.

[edit] Strategy

Speed cameras are used to detect and record speed limit contraventions (speeding), and red light cameras are used to record and detect traffic light offences. In an analysis of data recorded in the police STATS19 system, "exceeding speed limit" (the only accident contributory factor which speed cameras target) is recorded as one of the contributory factors in 5% of all road accidents and 12% of fatal accidents. The factor "disobeyed traffic signal" (the factor which red-light cameras target) is recorded as a factor in 2% of all road accidents.[2] The two factors targeted by the SCPs are both in the "Injudicious Action" category of the referenced report. In total, all the factors from that category (which also includes: "Disobeyed Give Way or Stop sign", "Disobeyed double white lines", "Disobeyed pedestrian crossing", "Illegal turn/direction", "Going too fast for conditions", "Following too close", "Vehicle travelling along pavement", and "Cyclist entering road from pavement") are listed as contributory factors in 32% of fatal accidents and 28% of all accidents.

[edit] History

The safety camera programme was announced with a press release in December 1999.[3] Eight trial areas were announced which would begin a roll-out of a number of Safety Cameras. These areas were Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames Valley.

The announcement was in part the result of a report commissioned by the UK Department for Transport (DfT)[4] to look at the differing effects of various strategies related to the deployment of speed cameras. The main finding of the report was that camera deployment can reduce drivers' speeds markedly and that cameras on the survey roads were perceived to be reasonably effective.

The eight initial implementations began on 1 April 2000. The cameras were mainly to be placed in locations where there had been a significant number of casualties as a result of road accidents. One novelty in the partnerships was that the revenue raised by the cameras would be ring-fenced for investment back into the running and maintenance of the original cameras and investment in more cameras. In part this was a response to allegations that such cameras were being placed for revenue generation and not for safety reasons. From the start the partnerships were controversial with strong opinions both for and against the cameras. In December 2001 new regulations enforced a code of visibility for the cameras in order that they were always clearly seen by motorists. As of April 2006 there were thirty eight Safety Camera Partnerships in England and Wales covering forty-one police force areas out of a total of forty-three.[5] (Durham and North Yorkshire are the exceptions). Similar arrangements exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As the cameras became more widespread the issue became more contentious politically. In particular motoring bodies began to question the effectiveness of speed cameras as a means for accident prevention. This created a demand for research showing whether or not the cameras were, in practice, effective at reducing deaths and injuries from road accidents. Four independent evaluation reports were commissioned by the DfT to address this.[6]

[edit] Funding

The income from camera fines is initially passed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department), who pass it on to the DfT. The Safety Camera Partnerships originally reclaimed money from the DfT which they then spent on the operating costs of the cameras, additional safety measures such as "speed awareness" courses, public relations, and staff expenses.

Since April 2007 however, an annual specific (although not ring fenced) 'Road Safety Grant' (not related to the number of fines issued locally) is instead given directly to those Local Authorities with a responsibility for road safety - regardless or not of whether they operate traffic enforcement cameras - who can choose whether or not to re-invest this in their partnership.[7]

[edit] Do cameras work?

Because of the history of the Safety Camera Partnerships, the issue of whether cameras were effective largely came to public attention after the implementation was in place.

Pilkington and Kinra (2005)[8] concluded: "Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future."

On 15 December 2005, the four year report into Safety Camera Partnerships was published by the UK government.[9] Its high level results were:

  • Vehicle speeds were down in the vicinity of the camera sites.
  • Both casualties and deaths were down near the camera sites.
  • There was a positive cost-benefit of around 2.7:1.
  • The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement.

Overall, the report concluded that safety cameras have continued to reduce collisions, casualties and deaths, even after allowing for the likely contribution of regression toward the mean to the observed casualty reductions at camera sites.

The results of a trial on the M42 motorway near Birmingham[10] suggest that speed cameras are not as effective as Vehicle activated signs (VAS) at enforcing speed limits in roadworks. The trial showed that half of the speeding traffic slowed down in response to a VAS, whereas less than a third responded to the presence of a speed camera. The trial also showed that the effect of a VAS was longer lasting than that of a speed camera, with drivers maintaining their lower speed rather than speeding up again, as many do shortly after passing a speed camera.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] From campaign groups

Safe Speed claim that speed cameras lead to more road deaths and injuries, and claim a variety of possible reasons for this. The claim has never been subjected to peer review, and is not backed by any peer-reviewed research.

[edit] From the ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against:

  • the West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership[11] that the claim "where you see one of these" (a speed camera) "there have been four of these" (a gravestone) was misleading, since the "four coffin rule" on fixed camera sites did not apply retrospectively to existing sites, and there were circumstances where local communities could request the installation of cameras at sites where there had been fewer than four KSI collisions.
  • the London Safety Camera Partnership.[12] A newspaper insert that "Speeding causes over a quarter of all deaths on London's roads" was judged to be misleading on the grounds that none of the factors identified by the advertisers necessarily involved a vehicle exceeding the speed limit and that the claim would be understood by readers to mean that vehicles that exceeded the speed limit had caused a quarter of all deaths on London's roads and not that speed was merely a contributory factor in a quarter of fatal accidents.
  • the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership.[13]

[edit] From police

The majority of police forces are active partners in safety camera partnerships, but there are notable dissenters:

In 2004 the then Chief Constable of Durham Police, Paul Garvin, is reported[14] to have said "The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position" and "I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets."

Northumbria Police's then Acting Chief Inspector of motor patrols is reported[15] to have said "Speed cameras don't reduce casualties - they are just for revenue generation", he also said "They don't engage and they aren't going to send you a message in the post telling you were driving badly".

[edit] In the national press

An undercover probe, reported in The Mail on Sunday, suggested that the Government's actual objectives for the partnerships may be to generate substantial revenues for the treasury, with little regard for the effects on road safety.[16]

[edit] From the Institute of Advanced Motorists

In a press release[17] the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) claim the damaging effect on relations between the driver and the police caused by a "plague" of speed cameras, coupled with the "robotic issue of tough penalties" has continued to damage road safety.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2005/2006 (PDF). Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on March 2, 2006.
  2. ^ David Robinson, Richard Campbell. Contributory factors to road accidents. Road Casualties Great Britain: 2005.
  3. ^ Press Release: Speed Camera Funding - eight pilot schemes announced. Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on August 29, 2007.
  4. ^ The effects of speed cameras: how drivers respond (No.11). Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on April 13, 2006.
  5. ^ Areas covered by the Safety Camera Funding Scheme. Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on April 13, 2006.
  6. ^ The National Safety Camera Programme - Evaluation reports. Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on April 13, 2006.
  7. ^ Safety cameras. Department for Transport (UK). Retrieved on March 26, 2007.
  8. ^ Paul Pilkington and Sanjay Kinra (2005). "Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review". British Medical Journal 330 (12 February): 331–334. doi:10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE. 
  9. ^ Department for Transport (2005). "The National Safety Camera Programme: Four Year Evaluation Report". 
  10. ^ Ben Webster. "Speed camera that tells you off but doesn't take away your cash", The Times, 2006-08-04. 
  11. ^ Non-broadcast Adjudication. ASA (2005). Retrieved on March 20, 2006.
  12. ^ Non-broadcast Adjudication. ASA (2004). Retrieved on March 20, 2006.
  13. ^ Non-broadcast Adjudication. ASA (2006). Retrieved on August 14, 2006.
  14. ^ Mckay, Neil. "Police chief's attack", The Journal, 2004-06-16. Retrieved on 2006-03-21. 
  15. ^ "Cameras are for cash", The Journal, 2003-10-25. Retrieved on 2006-03-21. 
  16. ^ Dennis Rice, Wayne Francis. "Undercover probe reveals the 'buckets of money' made from speed cameras", The Mail on Sunday, 2006-10-15. 
  17. ^ IAM (2005-12-07). "SPEED CAMERA “PLAGUE” STILL ERODING DRIVER CONFIDENCE, SAYS IAM CHIEF". Press release.