| |
| British government again reviews safety cameras as academics underscore their effectiveness.
|
09/12/04 |
|
The British government has ordered the third review in two years of the siting of automatic 'safety' cameras in the UK. The news comes as the DfT (Department for Transport) has indicated that it will not authorise any new camera-based route enforcements over the next two years.
Public opposition to what was widely regarded as inappropriately sited cameras has already led to two earlier surveys designed to answer the criticism that the cameras were being used to generate revenue rather than reduce accidents. This was despite the fact that all new cameras sited since April 2000 have been required to satisfy a strict accident-related criteria as part of a national safety camera partnership programme.
Responding to criticism that the earlier surveys ignored cameras installed prior to April 2000, the new survey will now look at the remaining 250 legacy sites. Any found not to comply with the Partnership programme criteria are expected to be removed.
At the same time, the DfT has published a handbook of rules and guidance relating to safety cameras in which it has made clear that no new enforcement routes will be approved over the coming two years while the new review is being carried out. The review is expected to cover all aspects of camera-based speed enforcement including their effectiveness.
"My feeling," said Kevin Delaney of the RAC Foundation, "is that all the government's road safety eggs are in one basket. There are very few other campaigns designed to improve safety and reliance is being put on the cameras. This review will, I think, be broad-based and will look at what is trying to be achieved with the cameras and whether or not they are effective in reducing accidents."
The handbook identifies three types of approved camera site. These are 'core', 'exceptional' and those used at road works. Core sites must have an accident record of at least four killed/seriously injured collisions per kilometre in the last three years AND at least 20% of drivers exceeding the speed limit. Exceptional sites are those of special concern to local communities where there are a high number of collisions and the potential for further collisions. Enforcement time at 'exceptional' sites must not exceed 15% of the total enforcement effort.
A November seminar in London organised by the Royal Statistical Society found that there was clear evidence of a link between reduced speed and reduced casualty rates. What was less clear was the extent to which cameras were effective in achieving this reduction. According to Prof. Benjamin Heydecker of university College London's Centre for Transport Studies, cameras could, subject to one or two caveats, be shown to have resulted in a 40% reduction in the KSI rate at the sites monitored by his team. His comments were largely supported by Dr Rune Elvik of the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics who argued that the link between speed and accidents had been proved and the effect of cameras in reducing speed should therefore be seen as an endorsement of their worth.
"There is a very strong statistical relationship between speed and road safety," said Elvik. "It is difficult to think of any other risk factor that has a more powerful impact on accidents or injuries than speed."
|
| Further information, visit www.landor.co.uk where a copy of the review 'Handbook of rules and guidance for the national safety camera programme for England and Wales for 2005/06', is available.
|
|
