The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report

  • Published: PA Consulting
  • Authors: A. Gains, M. Nordstrom, M. Heydecker and J. Shrewsbury
  • Date Added: 18 Mar 2013
  • Last Update: 19 May 2017
  • Format: pdf

Objectives:

To evaluate the effectiveness of safety camera partnerships in the 4 years following changes to their funding mechanisms.

Methodology:

Each partnership (38 reviewed in total) provided regular monitoring information to a national programme board. This data was independently analysed to assess the success of the cameras, the partnerships and the funding mechanism

Key Findings:

  • There has been a significant reduction in speeds at camera sites

  • At the vast majority of sites where safety cameras were introduced there was a reduction in vehicle speed. Average speed across all new sites dropped by around 6 per cent or 2.2 mph.

  • The reduction in vehicle speed was particularly noticeable in urban areas (30 mph or 40 mph limits) where average speed fell by around 7 per cent. Speed in rural areas (over 40 mph) fell by 3 per cent on average.

  • There was a 31 per cent overall reduction in the proportion of vehicles breaking the speed limit at new camera sites. This was most noticeable at fixed camera sites, where the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit dropped by 70 per cent, compared to 18 per cent at mobile sites.

  • The introduction of speed cameras has reduced excessive speeding. This conclusion is based on a substantial body of evidence, based on a large number of sites across a large number of partnership areas Speed surveys also confirmed that these reductions were sustained over time.

  • There has been a significant reduction in casualties at camera sites

  • There was a 42 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) at sites where safety cameras were introduced. Overall, this equates to around 1,745 fewer KSI casualties per annum, though this is subject to some reduction due to regression-to-mean.

  • There was a 22 per cent reduction in the number of personal injury RTIs at camera sites. Overall, this equates to around 4,230 fewer personal injury RTIs per annum, though this is subject to a reduction due to regression to- mean that is probably modest in scale.

  • There were reductions in personal injury RTIs and KSI casualties at both fixed and mobile safety camera sites. The former appeared to be the most effective – on average, the number of killed or serious injuries fell by around 50 per cent at fixed sites, and by around 35 per cent at mobile sites. These results were found to be consistent with speed surveys.

  • There were over 100 fewer people killed per annum at camera sites (32per cent fewer).

  • There was a 32 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

  • There was a 29 per cent reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

  • There was a positive association between the fall in speed and the fall in personal injury collisions at camera sites.

  • The majority of the public support the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement.

  • The level of public support for the use of cameras has been consistently high with 82 per cent of people questioned agreeing with the statement that ‘the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties’.

  • 71 per cent of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives.

  • The funding mechanism and partnership arrangements have worked wellIn the fourth year, the programme had released around £96 million per annum (in England, Wales and Scotland) for local partnerships to invest in safety camera enforcement and supporting education.

  • In the fourth year, we have estimated that the benefits to society, in terms of the value of casualties saved, were in the region of £258 million per annum.

Themes:

Safety cameras, Effectiveness, Speed and casualty reduction

Comments:

Pivotal DfT research demonstrating the significant impacts that safety cameras can have.

Free