Speed cameras are a key road safety measure used by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA). They aim to make our roads safer by reducing speeding and the number and severity of vehicle crashes. However there is much public debate about their effectiveness. While some people see them as an essential element in a road safety program, others view them as having no impact on driver behaviour and as revenue-raisers only. This audit assessed whether RTA’s fixed, safety and mobile speed cameras are located in places that reduce speeding and make our roads safer. We answered the following questions: • were speed cameras located in areas identified as having greatest road safety risk? • do speed cameras reduce speeding and the number and severity of road crashes in these locations? Fixed speed cameras and safety cameras aim to reduce speeding at specific locations, while mobile cameras aim to reduce speeding across the road network. Safety cameras are located at intersections and have a dual function. They can detect drivers running red lights and driving above the speed limit. We found that fixed speed cameras were generally located in areas with high road safety risk. Likewise, safety cameras that enforced speed limits were initially placed at high risk sites. However as all safety cameras will now enforce speed, RTA no longer uses evidence of a speeding problem to select these sites. We also found there may be other locations for mobile cameras with greater road safety risk than currently used by RTA. This is because it had a short timeframe to roll-out mobile cameras so it used sites based on former NSW Police Force locations. RTA has since identified other locations with higher crash numbers which it plans to use in the future roll-out of mobile cameras. In general, speed cameras change driver behaviour and have a positive road safety impact. We found that the number of speeding offences, and the total number of crashes, injuries and fatalities reduced after the introduction of fixed speed cameras. However the results for individual cameras varied, with the number of crashes decreasing at some locations but not at others. It is too soon to determine the impact of safety and mobile speed cameras which were only introduced last year, although early results are encouraging. We examined how RTA assessed and selected the location of speed cameras. While key selection processes are in place, more could be done to ensure cameras are located in areas of greatest road safety risk. For example, there should be more analysis of vehicle speeds to help determine camera locations and regular monitoring of existing sites for changing conditions. We found that RTA: • developed site selection criteria for each camera type • analysed crash data to determine black spots, but did limited analysis of vehicle speeds • selected camera locations that broadly met their respective site selection criteria • analysed crash data for some potential camera sites, but did not regularly monitor existing sites to see if cameras are best placed at these locations. RTA’s speed camera programs were developed at different times and are not part of an integrated framework. Site selection decisions relate to the type of camera to be used, rather than the nature of the black spot. Therefore there might be a more appropriate camera type for an identified black spot than the one currently in place. RTA advises that it is shifting focus from fixed speed cameras at black spots, to reducing speeding across the network using mobile cameras. We also examined the effectiveness of speed cameras and how RTA assesses their impact. There have been some positive results: • RTA found that at fixed speed camera locations, total crashes and injuries reduced by 26 per cent, and fatalities by 67 per cent, in the three years after installation • in general, long term trends show that these reductions have been maintained • the average number of speeding fines per camera has declined since the installation of fixed and safety cameras, which means less people are speeding at these locations. While fixed speed cameras have a positive road safety impact overall, crash results vary for individual cameras. For some camera locations, the number of crashes did not reduce. This means that other road safety measures may be needed for these sites. RTA has identified 93 of 141 fixed speed camera locations as effective with a clear road safety benefit. It plans to review and relocate 38 of the remaining cameras. We support this, but think that crash analysis over a longer time period is needed before final decisions are made. This is because our crash analysis suggests that only 40 had statistically significant reductions. The safety camera and mobile speed camera programs are too new to conclude if they have reduced crashes, although early results indicate drivers may be speeding less. We also found that total fine revenue from fixed speed cameras reduces the longer they operate, which reflects changes in driver behaviour. But in the absence of public information on the effectiveness of each speed camera, people will continue to question their road safety value. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting