Navigation |
|
Road Articles |
|
Community |
|
The violation of speed limits, or speeding, is one of the most common driving behaviours, with it estimated that almost all motorists at one stage in a driving career will exceed the posted speed limit. As such, numerous strategies have been developed to recognise and reduce the level of speeding behaviour. The use of automated speed detection devices, or speed cameras have been subjected to much controversy since their introduction into Australia in 1989, and Queensland in 1997.
The criticism has not questioned just their effectiveness, but their use as revenue raising devices and not the intended purpose, that is, to promote safe and responsible road use. This paper will discuss the methods of speed enforcement used within Australia, the effectiveness of these strategies with specific relation to speed cameras, the criticism received and the recommendations to improve public perception of their operation.
It will, however, be determined that much criticism is one of misperception and speed cameras are indeed effective enforcement tools with the power to influence speeding behaviours and reduce the incidence of road accidents around enforcement sites.
Methods of Speed Enforcement
Due to the frequency and prevalence of speeding behaviour, a large array of methods, strategies and operations have been developed by law enforcement agencies to combat this issue. A majority of these strategies however, rely on enforcement and legislative responses to produce behavioural changes. It is important to understand though, that a large majority of traffic enforcement is underpinned by deterrence theory. Corbett and Simon explain that speed enforcement strategies are based on the principles of deterrence, and designed to increase the risk of apprehension and punishment so as to outweigh the advantages of speeding. In assessing the costs and benefits of speeding, a would-be offender would consider the perceived risk of being caught, the fear of being caught and the fear of likely punishment. It is, however, the perceived risk of being caught that is the critical determinant in the decision to speed.
Traditional speed enforcement pertained to the activities of on-site detection, apprehension and punishment by a police officer all at one time. The development of automated speed enforcement devices, typically speed cameras, has provided an alternate method of efficient and effective means of deterrent enforcement, whilst reducing the requirement for enforcement resources. Speed cameras, either mobile or fixed, operate following the general principle of detecting a speeding vehicle through the use of a detection device (RADAR or LIDAR), recording an image of the speeding vehicle (be it by camera or video), identifying vehicle owner through registration plates and subsequently issuing a penalty which is mailed to the owner. The determination of a vehicle speed can be carried out through two methods, a current speed or calculated average speed. Mobile cameras are set to detect a vehicle speed at one point in time, from which a lapse in concentration could result in a speeding fine. Fixed cameras however can either work on the same premise as a mobile camera, or use time/distance measurement devices to calculate a vehicle speed over a set distance between two sensors and the time it takes to pass between them, arguably providing a fairer scenario to motorists.
In comparison to their visible and signed counterparts, mobile cameras can be either operated in an overt or covert manner through the use of marked or unmarked vehicles. Despite the criticism received by the public regarding covert operations, a mix of overt and covert operations are highly successful by reinforcing deterrence through the increase of perceived risk of apprehension. To further deterrence theory, the use of ‘empty’ camera boxes and the rotation of a single camera between multiple boxes have been used abroad as a means of creating uncertainty in the minds of motorists. Whilst not used within Australia (although demonstrated with red light cameras in various States), this clearly illustrates the levels law enforcement and Government agencies are willing to take in a means of furthering deterrence theory and impacting speed behaviours.
Contrary to common public perception, the localities of speed cameras are governed by strict criteria. In Queensland, speed camera selection placement is divided into two criteria. The primary criteria are for zones with a history of speed related crashes of all severities (also known as ‘black spots’). The secondary criteria comprises where road works are being conducted, locations that have been identified through validated public complaints and locations that have been identified through validated stakeholder concern or local knowledge of problem locations. The placement of cameras is subsequently determined by a review panel to confirm the appropriateness of the site, and the exact positioning of the camera to achieve optimal results. Regardless of the style of automated detection device, fixed or mobile, the use of cameras provides an efficient and resourceful means of speed enforcement. Their effectiveness as a device and in reducing speed and road accidents however will be discussed in the following section.
Effectiveness of Speed Cameras
Properly deployed and operated, speed cameras reduce speeding. The impact on road safety and the effectiveness of altering driver behaviour however, are debatable. Since the introduction of mobile speed cameras into Queensland in 1997 (at the time of this paper fixed speed cameras are yet to be operational), statistics show that there has been a 45% decrease in fatal crashes within 2km of camera sites, with reductions of 31%, 39%, 19% and 21% for hospitalisation, medically treated, injury and non-injury crashes respectively. These findings are further supported by Champess and Folkman (2003), but they note a marked increase of crashes requiring hospitalisation. It is hypothesised however that the impact of speed cameras could have resulted in the reduction of severity of crashes from fatal to one requiring hospitalisation. It is therefore apparent there is evidence to suggest the effectiveness of mobile speed cameras on road safety and crash reduction.
The effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing speed at camera locations is partially attributed to time and distance halo effects (or on-site effects) and the memory effect, with a primary objective of enhancing deterrence theory. Champess, Sheehan and Folkman (2005) observed that whilst vehicle speeds were not affected prior to a mobile camera location, an immediate reduction of speed was evident in view of the camera, and continued with a reduced speed for a distance of 1.5km. Fixed speed cameras alternatively exhibit a lower halo effect distance downstream; however have been shown to result in upstream changes in speed prior to the camera, primarily due to their highly visible nature assisted by the use of marked signs. It is when combined with the memory effect that the efficacy levels of mobile speed cameras increase. It was observed by Nilsson and Sjorgen (cited in Zaal 1994, 79) that whilst on-site effects were limited to short distances, repeated exposure to enforcement in one locality resulted in a reduction of speeding behaviour for a period of ten to seventeen days after the removal of cameras.
Due to the use of the deterrence theory as the primary method of assisting traffic enforcement, the natural assumption relating to the use highly visible operations as the most effective means has been created. Diamantopoulou and Cameron (2002) however, note that a use of overt and covert operations, combined with public awareness of covert operations, increase the efficacy levels of speed detection programs through the heightening of the perceived risk of detection or apprehension, reporting a 73.9% net casualty crash reduction during the measured period. Although speed cameras may be ‘unpopular’ amongst the general community, their effectiveness of reducing speed and the rate and severity of road accidents in the vicinity of their location cannot be refuted.
Criticism of Speed Cameras
It cannot be denied that of all the traffic enforcement practices, speed enforcement comes with the most notable negative community perception. The primary criticisms of speed cameras can be broken into four dilemmas, the credibility dilemma, the social dilemma, the legitimacy dilemma and the implementation dilemma. The primary public criticism is the perception that speed enforcement has no credibility in relation to road safety and is purely a Government tactic to raise further revenue. This perception though is arguably media fuelled, with a survey of Greater Sydney motorists (3000 total) and professional drivers (200 total) finding only 15-25% of respondents believed speed cameras were a form of revenue raising.
Whilst revenue raising is not the only criticism of speed cameras, it does underpin the majority of alternate criticisms. In the advent of enforcement strategies that can result in the collection of monetary penalties, it must be admitted that such strategies and their ability to raise revenue are subject to the attitude in their operation. The uses of ‘sneaky’ tactics such as positioning speed cameras out of the line of sight of the motorist (or ‘hiding in the bushes’ as it’s referred) are undeniably operating in forms that impact on the credibility of the objectives for speed cameras in the reduction of speeding behaviour and casualty crashes (Delaney, Ward and Cameron 2005). This issue is furthered by the perceived perception that covert operations are strictly revenue raising operations and question the credibility and social effect of such programs, despite the evidence to suggest covert operations successfully deter speeding.
Questionable accuracy of speed cameras is commonly represented in media speculation and regularly touted by anti-camera activists, and is recognised as part of the implementation dilemma. However, the advent of technological advances has seen greater accuracy of cameras with a marked reduction in contributing factors to inaccurate readings. Many discrepancies recorded are not a result of the detection devices themselves, but due to operator error in incorrect setup of the device. This though arguably applies only to mobile speed cameras, of which a large proportion of possible inconsistencies (such as the cosine effect) results in lower speed readings thus benefiting the motorist. Fixed speed cameras however are installed under stringent conditions within specific locations to ensure complete accuracy. This is furthered by tests and trial periods to ensure devices are not affected by alternate factors such as weather, signage and localised infrastructure, allowing for highly accurate and, in the case of time/distance detection, fairer systems
The implementation dilemma also contains arguments that the enforcement tolerance (only several km/h over the limit in some States) is too harsh, particularly due to the inability for vehicle speedometers to accurately measure such differences. Further criticisms such as the positioning of cameras on hills, the inability to give reasons for speeding (as opposed to detection and apprehension by a police officer), the placement of cameras in areas that are ‘safe to speed’ and the perceived lack of control over camera placement all impact on the credibility, legitimacy and social dilemmas. Whilst there has been much criticism cast over the operation of speed cameras, it is apparent that a large proportion of this criticism is of perceived and unfounded notions. Speed cameras are governed by criteria and panel reviews, and frequently calibrated to ensure accuracy. However the public attitude is integral to the efficacy of speed cameras, and as such recommendations to the improvement of speed enforcement strategies will be discussed in the next section.
Recommendations for Improvement
As with any traffic enforcement strategy, the nature and objectives of operations should constantly be reviewed. The use of speed cameras, whilst generally effective, arguably present two key flaws that impact on their use within society, the attitude of mobile camera operators and the attitude of the general public. To successfully impact on the public perception, the four dilemmas of credibility, legitimacy, social and implementation need to be addressed. As part of maintaining credibility, camera operators need to be aware of the objectives of speed camera use, that is, to impact on speeding behaviour and reduce the rate of casualty crashes. Any perception or aim of revenue raising by operators, visible through the form of operation (i.e. ‘hiding in bushes’) impacts negatively on the public perception of speed cameras. The education of operators in not only correct operation to ensure accuracy of detection devices, but in the objectives of cameras and a removal of any possible insinuations of revenue raising will greatly assist in increasing positive public attitudes.
To further the credibility of cameras, greater transparency in control of operations and the use of monies collected is required. Despite the legislative requirement in Queensland under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, amended in 1999 for all money collected by cameras to be spent on funding road safety programs, rehabilitation programs or improvements to roads, the exact use of the funds needs to be made apparent. This further relates to the control of camera locations and public understanding of how locations are selected as a means of reducing the notion that sites are selected according to their ability to raise revenue. It has further been suggested by Zaal (1994), Delaney, Ward and Cameron (2005) and Diamantopoulou and Cameron (2002) that despite the effectiveness of covert operations increasing perceived risks of apprehension, media campaigns must be used to inform the public of such operations, so as to suppress protests of revenue raising and increase intentions of furthering deterrence theory.
The effectiveness of speed cameras in comparison to traditional enforcement was initially questioned due to their inability to punish offenders immediately and provide instant feedback of inappropriate driving behaviour to motorists. It has been recommended by Oei that notification display boards be positioned after enforcement sites so as to provide drivers with instant feedback as to their speed and detection of an offence, and remind drivers of active operations. Whilst this recommendation may not be plausible for multi-lane roadways, the displays would be effective on two lane roads and impact positively on the legitimacy and social aspects of public perception.
Alternate recommendations include spatial deployment of resources through an increase in random site selection (that is, whilst still maintaining selection criteria), optimisation strategies to spread resources economically whilst still maintaining deterrent effects through tolerance levels through increased deployment and a decrease in offender apprehension. The possibility of rewarding strategies to reward motorists with long standing infringement-free records has also been suggested to encourage further appropriate driving behaviours. Whilst there are a multitude of recommendations and alternative strategies available to improve the efficacy of speed cameras, the key purpose should focus on maintaining a positive public attitude through the use of transparency and constant review of legitimacy, credibility, implementation and social dilemmas.
Conclusion
Excessive speeding behaviour is a constant problem throughout Australia, and speed enforcement is difficult due to the inability for road users to link the causal relationship between speed and road accidents. It cannot be denied that speed has a direct relationship to the cause of accidents, be it as single factor or in a combination of other contributing factors. Despite the criticism that speed cameras are purely a form of revenue raising, it has been observed through various research that the use of automated speed detection devices such as speed cameras remain an effective tool in reducing casualty crashes and speeding behaviour in the vicinity of enforcement sites.
Whilst there is undoubtedly potential to abuse the use of speed cameras, it has been recommended that furthering the transparency of the control of speed camera operations and the use of collected penalties will assist in reducing harmful operator intent and negative public perceptions. The review of alternative placement strategies and the prospect of providing motorists with instant feedback will assist in promoting a positive and accepting public attitude towards cameras and in turn increase their effectiveness as an enforcement tool. Whilst the reasons for speeding behaviour are elaborate and could be further discussed in depth, this broad synopsis can assist in observing that speed cameras are successful in reducing speeding and impact positively on road crashes, without inciting unfounded claims of revenue raising.