| Camera shy? |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
This rift is particularly alarming when we consider that, despite Britain’s success in achieving continuing improvements in road safety, deaths on UK roads are running at an average of 10 per day. As a nation, we still kill roughly as many people on our roads each year as the number of people who died in the September 11 terrorist attack on New York’s Twin Towers. This shocking statistic highlights the need to do better. I believe that the time has come for a new evaluation by government, motoring organisations, car manufacturers, and engineers of possible fresh approaches and the application of widely available and proven technologies. Fortunately, it should not be too difficult to establish some agreed points of departure for such a debate. First, it is now generally accepted that inappropriate speed is a major contributor to accidents, and to their severity. And, as few nowadays would seriously suggest that drivers should be allowed to decide their speed untrammelled, there is an effective consensus that some arrangements for controlling speed are necessary. Finally, all of us would agree that there is a particular need for tight control of speed in the vicinity of schools, residential, and other sensitive sites. There can be little doubt that the increasingly widespread use of speed cameras has led to a reduction of overall speeds. A friend who now lives abroad tells me that whenever he drives in Britain now, he pays much closer attention to speed limits than he did five years ago, and that other drivers seem to do the same. In that sense, the programme has therefore been a success.
The economic argument for such an approach appears beguilingly straightforward: it is the speeding motorist that should pay for such speed control systems, not the law-abiding taxpayer. But, in reality, things are less straightforward. Those with local knowledge or a quick eye for a camera can slow down at the right moment. There are more general difficulties too. Giving finance such a direct and tangible profile in this way detracts from the real objectives of cutting collisions, saving lives, and reducing injuries. Arguably, a more appropriate economic model would take into account the wider benefits in reduced public service costs, delays and other social factors so that there is a real case for public finance, or some element of it. And, albeit that the scheme has delivered expanded coverage and improved casualty reductions, the price, in terms of antagonising the motorist, has been very high rendering the current arrangements unsustainable. If we are to continue to improve road safety, the motorist must feel a valued contributor to the solution. Until recently, the approach to speed management systems, and the motorist’s reaction to them, have been largely influenced by technology, by the “single shot” camera. This focuses attention on a snapshot of point speed, which as I have said, will probably remain appropriate for particularly sensitive individual locations, but elsewhere the opportunity to use technology to support a more sophisticated approach is now available, and its potential benefits deserve greater exploration among the stakeholders in road safety. There are already examples of good practice based on a more flexible approach. The M25 Controlled Motorway project around Heathrow has improved the driving experience and efficiency, and gets generally good support from motorists. This indicates that schemes whose primary objective is to control speed can attract support – and hence more general compliance – from motoring users. A further example is the refreshingly innovative approach adopted by the Nottingham Road Casualty Reduction Partnership for the Nottingham ring road, that on such roads it is average speed that is the principal concern, and so speed is measured on a point-to-point basis between a network of cameras located around the ring road.
Because drivers can see that it takes account of their interests, this approach shares the agenda of speed reduction – and hence accident reduction – between road users and those responsible for speed management. The results from Nottingham over the past two years speak for themselves, with the elimination of fatalities, a fall of 40% in serious injuries, and a 6mph reduction in average speeds between camera locations. This is an achievement that matches any Safety Camera Partnership. The economic benefits of casualty reduction offer a very high return, offsetting the “disadvantage” that the higher level of compliance reduces fine revenue. Nottingham is not alone. Similar methods have been deployed by the Northampton partnership, demonstrating an emerging maturity in the approach to road safety, and a welcome departure from the foundation of fine revenue funding for speed camera systems. Time will tell whether it is possible to shake off the poor image of speed management. It is also clear that in-car systems will play a major role in the future, not only for navigation, but also for general safety and casualty reduction. Given a more flexible approach by law enforcement agencies, speed cameras of the future should advise in-car systems that they are entering a controlled zone. This will reduce fine revenue, but assist the primary objective of achieving compliance and reducing speed. Insurance companies may have a role to play, with some form of technology-based auditing enabling a driver’s compliance with speed management systems to be reflected in the level of premium he or she pays. What is clear is that the present regime must change, and be seen to change. The technologies now exist to measure average speed, to issue warning notices and advice prior to enforcement notices, and to gain real time data for management information and feedback to drivers. It is feasible to have intelligent in-car systems linked to roadside equipment that positively contribute to casualty reduction and road safety generally, rather than to focus simply on protecting drivers from prosecution. Despite such misgivings, the Government has met its casualty reduction targets to date, and Britain is among the best in Europe in this respect, but the easy wins have now been had. To deliver benefits beyond this point requires a fresh and more inclusive approach that I am confident can be embraced by all those associated with the motoring industry and road safety, given the right lead from government. David Robertson is a Director of Speed Check Services Limited, a company that has developed “SPECS” – a new generation speed management tool that is based on average speed measurement. The SPECS system has been operating in Nottingham, where it was winner of the Roadsafe Prince Michael of Kent International Road Safety Award for Technology in 2002. For more on Speed Check Services, see www.speedcheck.co.uk |
|||||||||||
