The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71%

“Up to 10 people are killed on our roads each day. We owe it to them and their families to do everything we can to improve road safety even further”

The key findings of the report, produced by University College London and PA Consulting Group on behalf of the Department for Transport are:

• There was a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or serious injured at sites where safety cameras are in use, equating to 870 fewer crash victims a year
• There was a 33% fall in injury accidents – 4,030 fewer per year
• There was a 35% reduction in pedestrians killed or seriously injured
• Average speeds at new sites fell by around 7%, or 2.4 mph
• Average speed at urban sites fell by around 8%
• The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71%
• 79% of people asked support the use of cameras to reduce casualties
• The benefit to society through casualties saved is about £221m a year

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling says: “These figures prove that cameras save lives. The number of people speeding has come down and there has been a significant reduction in deaths and injuries at camera sites. Up to 10 people are killed on our roads each day. We owe it to them and their families to do everything we can to improve road safety even further.” While most camera sites have achieved “good results”, Mr Darling says he has asked the Partnerships to see what more could be done to achieve greater casualty reductions in areas where results were not as good as other sites. He adds: “It is for them to ensure that the cameras which have had less impact on reducing casualties are needed and are still the best road safety solution.”

The report and data on individual camera sites (available at www.dft.gov.uk) has been published as the public debate around the increase in speed camera sites intensifies. Over the next eight pages we examine the arguments for and against speed cameras; the London Safety Camera Partnership explains its role in saving lives on the capital’s roads; and, below, the influential Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) and the Slower Speeds Initiative (SSI) review 10 of the major criticisms of speed cameras and why the criticisms are flawed.

1. Cameras cost lives

Claim: Autocar and others have claimed that “speed cameras cost lives”, by pointing to the declining rate of reducing fatalities on the roads in the past 10 years, compared to the previous 10 years. The Association of British Drivers has claimed that 5,500 lives have been lost as a result of speed cameras in the past decade.

Reality: There is no evidence and no logical reason to suggest a correlation between the advent of speed cameras and the declining rate of road casualty reduction. Research has consistently shown that speed cameras have a major impact in reducing casualties. A major, two-year Department for Transport study of speed cameras across six areas found a 35% reduction in people killed and seriously injured at camera sites, compared to long-term trends. This finding repeats results of previous studies. In addition, a study by Imperial College of the impacts of speed cameras over a 12-year period in Cambridgeshire concluded that cameras could reduce collisions involving injury by “an astounding 45.74%” with “lower but still significant decreases” within a two-kilometre radius of a camera. The results also demonstrated that speed cameras do not increase crashes by leading to abrupt braking in the vicinity of cameras.

However, despite the positive impact of speed cameras on road casualty figures, the steep decline in road fatalities in the 1980s – attributed to the compulsory wearing of front seatbelts, better car design and major reductions in drink-driving fatalities – has not been matched by the more gradual drop in fatalities in recent years. This is a concern for everyone involved in road safety and further action should be taken to reduce the number of road fatalities.

2. Speed is not a major factor in road casualties

Claim: The ABD and other opponents of speed cameras claim that “speed doesn’t kill” and reject the relationship between speed and the frequency of road crashes.

Reality: Crash investigations have established that excessive or inappropriate speed is a major contributory factor in at least one-third of all road crashes, making it the single most important contributory factor to casualties on the UK’s roads.

Studies based on the crash history of 300 sections of road, two million measurements of speed and the self-reported crash history of 10,000 drivers conclusively demonstrated the correlation between speed and crash frequency. In a given situation, as speed increases, the risk that a crash will occur also increases. The findings reflect the importance of drivers having time to respond to the unexpected. At higher speeds there is less time to react appropriately. Crash frequency is related to average speed, the spread of speeds and the percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit. Research by TRL has indicated that reducing the speeds of the fastest drivers would yield the greatest benefits in reducing death and injury on the roads.

3. Raising speed limits in the US made no difference to casualties

“Excessive or inappropriate speed is the single most important contributory factor to casualties on the UK’s roads”

Claim: In an article entitled “Motorists cry foul at rise in speed cameras”, the Daily Telegraph (28 November 2003) argued that speed “does not of itself cause accidents” and that “when the 50 mph national speed limit was lifted in America, there was no noticeable increase in accidents caused by speed”.

Reality: This would be very interesting if true. In 1987 the national speed limit in the US rose from 55 mph to 65 mph. In 1995, individual states were allowed to set their own limits. A recent report found that the post-1995 rise in speed limits in many American states had triggered a 35% increase in death rates. The report compared 22 states that raised interstate highway speed limits to 70 or 75 mph when the federal speed limit was abolished in 1995 to 12 states where the limit stayed at 65 mph, and found that there were 1,880 more deaths on interstates between 1996 and 1999 in states with higher speed limits.

The reverse effect is also evident: in 1974, when the national speed limit was lowered to 55 mph, fatality rates dropped by 50% on the interstate highways and by 70% on other four-lane rural highways. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now advocating the adoption of speed camera laws similar to those in the UK to help counteract the rising death toll.

4. Cameras are not sited on the most dangerous roads

Claim: Autocar in association with the RAC Foundation has claimed that speed cameras are not sited on the most dangerous roads and “the most lethal 10 roads in the country (as designated by Euro RAP) are covered by just four speed cameras”.

Reality: The European Road Assessment Programme (Euro RAP) is a system to compare the relative statistical risk of death and serious injury on European roads (Roadsafe: Winter 2003). An assessment of risk on Britain’s primary road network was published in September 2003. The data used to assess the roads, however, covers the period from 1997-2001, when only one of the police force areas covering the list of 10 most dangerous roads was involved in a pilot safety camera partnership.

Until the netting off scheme was available, speed cameras were only infrequently used because of the costs involved in installing and servicing them.

5. Cameras don’t catch the most dangerous drivers

Claim: The RAC Foundation has claimed that speed cameras tend to catch the safest drivers, rather than the most dangerous. According to its research, the drivers most likely to be caught by speed cameras are middle-aged male company car drivers who cover large mileage, rather than young drivers, despite the fact that young drivers are involved in more crashes when licence holding is taken into account.

Reality: The profile identified by the RAC Foundation – company car drivers and drivers with high mileage – are not only more likely to have a speeding conviction, they are also more likely to be involved in crashes than other drivers.

Reports have consistently found that company car drivers and high-mileage drivers who drive for work are 50% more likely to be involved in injury accidents than other drivers, even after differences in exposure due to miles driven have been taken into account. Pressure to speed has been identified as a contributing factor to this figure, along with fatigue and in-car distractions. Research also shows that “those drivers who had been stopped by the police for speeding or had been flashed by a speed camera had double the incidence of recent crash involvement”.

6. Cameras are not popular

Claim: Opponents of speed cameras claim that they are “deeply unpopular”. The Daily Telegraph concluded from a 2003 opinion poll that “seven in 10 motorists think speed cameras are mainly revenue-raising devices that do little to reduce car accidents”.

Reality: Opinion polls generally indicate widespread public support for speed cameras, although some polls do not. A November 2003 “poll of polls” by Transport 2000 – based on six different surveys – showed that support for the use of speed cameras averaged 74%. Similarly, during trials of speed cameras, a 2003 Department for Transport survey found that more than 80% of people living in pilot areas agreed that “cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the speed limit, not to punish them”.

7. Cameras are a waste of money

Claim: Some critics of speed cameras argue that “cameras are a waste of money”.

Support for the use of speed cameras averages 74%

“Strict Treasury rules mean that any money from fines that is returned to the safety camera partnerships can only be spent on the operational costs of their camera network”

Reality: Speed cameras are cost-effective. In the two-year pilot study of cameras in six counties, there were 280 fewer people killed or seriously injured at camera sites than would otherwise be expected. This means that the total cost savings of casualties at speed camera sites over two years was around £58m, calculated on the basis of lost output, medical and ambulance costs and human costs, based on DfT values for the prevention of road fatalities and serious injuries. This figure is several times higher than both the amount spent on camera enforcement (£21m) and the amount raised in fixed penalty income (£27m). When the reduction in casualties across the pilot area (4% reduction in people killed and seriously injured) is taken into account, it is estimated that the total benefit to society over two years is approximately £112m. A previous Home Office Police Research Group cost benefit analysis of speed cameras found that cameras generate a return of five times the investment after one year and 25 times the amount after five years.

8. Cameras raise revenue for police and local authorities

Claim: A Daily Telegraph article on speed cameras claimed: “The cameras generate around £80m a year in income. Much of this money is retained by the police, something that critics believe merely encourages the proliferation of the cameras”.

Reality: Neither the police nor local authorities retain income from speed cameras. Strict Treasury rules mean that any money from fines that is returned to the safety camera partnerships can only be spent on the operational costs of their camera network, including new cameras where the need can be identified. All remaining money goes to the Treasury. Of the £27m raised in fines during the DfT’s two-year camera pilot project, £21m went to the safety camera partnerships to cover the costs of camera enforcement; the remaining £6m went to the Treasury.

9. Cameras have contributed to a fall in traffic policing

Claim: A 2003 article in Autocar claimed that speed cameras were a waste of police time and that the police have been directed “by authorities to abandon their duties in favour of flash-equipped grey boxes”.

Reality: There has been a gradual decline in the number of designated traffic police officers, from 15-20% of constable strength in 1966 to approximately 7% of force strength in 1998, and this trend has continued. This is a worry for everyone concerned about road safety. There is little evidence, however, to suggest that speed cameras are responsible for this decline. Instead of speed cameras occupying police time, a Home Office Police Research Group paper (1996) noted that “many forces had found that the use of camera technology released traffic officers for other duties”.

Fixed speed cameras reduce the speed limit enforcement burden on traffic officers, while speed limit enforcement reduces the time spent in dealing with collisions and their aftermath. Traffic policing and camera enforcement are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. However, road traffic enforcement is excluded from the list of “key priorities” in the Home Office’s National Policing Plan 2004-07, instead appearing under “other areas of police work”. PACTS and SSI believe that identifying road traffic enforcement and casualty reduction as a key policing priority would have a major effect in reversing the decline of traffic policing.

10. The number of traffic offences detected has fallen

Claim: Autocar, in association with the RAC Foundation, has claimed that speed cameras remove police from the roads, “so thousands of serious driving offences now go undetected”.

“Fixed speed cameras reduce the speed limit enforcement burden on traffic officers, while speed limit enforcement reduces the time spent in dealing with collisions”

Reality: Recorded incidence of many serious driving offences has risen in recent years, in contrast to these claims.

Contrary to the figure of “a fall of 50,000 in the number of dangerous driving offences detected”, the Home Office statistical report Crime in England and Wales 2002/3 indicates an increase of 65% (from 4,589 to 7,551) in the number of dangerous driving offences recorded between 1998/9 and 2002/3. Contrary to claims that fraudsters are not detected, the same report shows recorded vehicle/driver forgery incidents increased from 6,028 to 8,553 – an increase of 42% over the same period. While the number of recorded dangerous driving incidents has risen, the number of successful prosecutions for dangerous driving has fallen – 3,898 findings of guilt in 2001 compared to 6,849 in 1993. This may be partially explained by an earlier reluctance to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. This is an area of particular concern for road safety organisations.

Conclusion
As this review of research evidence indicates, excessive and inappropriate speed is a major contributing factor to road crashes and casualties. A comprehensive approach to speed management remains central to the continuing drive to reduce death and injury on the UK’s roads. Speed cameras have proven to be an extremely successful element of an integrated speed management strategy, and studies have consistently shown that deaths and serious injuries have been reduced by over a third at speed camera sites. Rather than “punishing motorists”, speed cameras may instead save the lives of motorists and other road users.