Right: Vehicles pass under the watchful "eyes" of speed detection cameras mounted on a bridge. Studies carried out in overseas countries indicate that the devices cut the average speed by up to 15 percent .
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of speed cameras
1. Speed is a major contributory factor in causing and worsening road accidents
There have been a wide range of studies done which indicate a connection between speed and accident rates. None of these studies appear to claim that speed is generally the sole contributory factor; rather they are look at the effect of speed in connection with the mix of other factors that affect car safety and driver performance.
A 2002 British study prepared for the Road Safety Division, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy found that 'Accident frequency in all categories increased rapidly with mean speed. The "All accident frequency" increased with speed to the power of approximately 2.5 - thus indicating that a 10% increase in mean speed results in a 26% increase in the frequency of all injury accidents.'
The same study found that the effect of speed was particularly negative under adverse road conditions, for example, where there are frequent sharp bends or intersections.
The study report stated, 'The effect of mean speed was found to be particularly large (power of about 5) for junction accidents, suggesting substantial potential for accident reduction from strategies designed to reduce speeds at junctions.'
Studies of fatal road accidents in rural Australia have indicated that speed is a major contributory factor. The 1995 Henderson study noted that excessive speed 'not only makes crashes more likely, it makes the crashes that do occur more destructive'. The 1999 Kloeden et al. study demonstrated that excessive speed leads to more driver errors and gives drivers less reaction time. A 1995 Victorian case-control study of fatal single-vehicle crashes found that driving above the speed limit significantly increases the chances of involvement in a road crash.
Australian studies indicate that excessive speed is a probable or possible cause in 25% of the rural crashes around Adelaide (Kloeden et al. 1997) and is a factor in up to 36% of fatal crashes in NSW (Department of Transport, 1998).
The recent 2011 Victorian Auditory General's report on the effectiveness of speed cameras commented on the effect of speed under all driving conditions, rural and metropolitan. The report stated, 'The link between speed and the likelihood of a crash is strongly supported by research evidence.
A seminal study conducted in 2001 by the University of Adelaide found that in rural
areas in South Australia, the risk of crash doubled with a 10 km/h increase in speed in
100 km/h zones. Another study by the same university conducted in 2002 found that in metropolitan areas, when travelling between 60 and 80 km/h, the vehicle occupants' risk of a fatality or serious injury crash doubled for each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed. As such, small increases in speed have significant impacts on crash risk along with more excessive speeding.'
Referring specifically to the effect of speed on the severity of an accident, rather than its contribution to the likelihood of an accident, the Victorian Auditor General's report stated, 'There is a causal link between speed and severity of a crash, because when a crash occurs, the greater the travelling speed, the greater the impact energy which is transferred to the road users involved.
In a head-on crash, the likelihood that occupants will survive decreases rapidly if the
vehicle is travelling above 70 km/h. For side-impact collisions, the chance of survival decreases rapidly above 50 km/h.'
2. Speed cameras reduce speeding and accidents
There have been a wide range of studies which have demonstrated speed cameras reduce both speeding and accidents.
On October 6, 2011, Dr Ananya Mandal reported in News Medical on the findings of recent study conducted by the University of Queensland. The study analysed 35 other studies from Australia, the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway to determine the usefulness of speed cameras in preventing accidents.
Collated findings from all the studies showed that speed cameras cut the average speed by 1-15 percent and the percentage of vehicles that exceeded local speed limits between 14 percent and 65 percent. The numbers of crashes in the areas of the cameras also fell by between 8 percent and 49 percent, while fatal or serious injury crashes reduced by between 11 percent and 44 percent.
Researcher Cecilia Wilson of the University of Queensland's Centre on National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine stated, 'While there is variation in the results, the overall finding is clear - speed cameras do reduce injuries and deaths...Even though some of the studies were not conducted as carefully as others, the consistency in the way that vehicle speeds, crashes, road traffic injuries and deaths all reduced in places where speed cameras were operating shows that these cameras do a good job.'
The University of Queensland study concluded, 'Speed cameras used for road section control, which measure average speed over distance, together with related emerging technologies arguably have the potential to favourably influence speeding behaviour and thus enhance road safety.'
3. Speed cameras are generally accurate
Supporters of speed cameras typically stress their accuracy and the quality of their maintenance program.
The Victorian Auditor General's report notes that faults are infrequent and rapidly rectified. In 2010, a software fault in the Hume point-to-point camera system resulted in nine infringements being incorrectly issued. On Thursday 14 October 2010, a police officer went to serve a notice for vehicle impoundment arising from a speed infringement on the Hume Freeway. The officer reported to the Traffic Camera Office that he thought that the driver was unlikely to have committed the offence.
On Friday 15 October, the Hume system was retrospectively deactivated as from Thursday14 October. A review of infringements was initiated on the same day and completed by the morning of Monday 18 October. The review examined infringements detected around the times at which cameras in the system resynchronised their internal clocks as this was identified as the most likely cause of inaccurate readings.
The Department of Justice then reviewed all infringements since activation of the system in 2007. Both the first and second reviews identified the same nine incidents as invalid. The total number of infringements issued since activation of the system in 2007 was around 68 000. The nine invalid infringements were withdrawn.
Regarding the maintenance of fixed speed camera's the recent Victorian Auditor General's report further stated, 'The maintenance and testing program for fixed cameras is comprehensive, methodologically sound and undertaken at appropriate intervals. This is complemented by a strong systematic approach to monitoring the fixed camera network for faults and equipment degradation.'
The Victorian Auditor General's report also noted that the Department of Justice receives information on the condition of the camera network at daily, monthly and quarterly intervals. In addition to information received from regular scheduled maintenance and testing activities, sources of information about possible faults are daily electronic monitoring of the status of cameras providing alerts of power or communications failure, or gross faults in camera image; monthly report of camera system performance and reports from the public or Victoria Police of camera faults providing observations of cameras' physical condition.
4. Speed cameras are not essentially revenue-raising devices
It has been claimed that speed cameras are not about revenue-raising but are put in place to alter driver behaviour and increase road safety.
The Victorian Auditor General's report notes that speeding fines provide the government with less than .5 percent of its annual revenue. The report also notes that implementation discretion, which means that many possible fines are not actually applied, saw the Victorian Government deliberately forfeit $8.4 million in fines over the last financial year.
In relation to the claim that there are too many cameras and the fines are too high, the Victorian Auditor General's report claims that for speed cameras to be effective they have to be widespread and the fines need to be significant.
The Auditor General's report states, 'The extent to which enforcement is effective depends on the level of perceived risk that it can create. To create a high level of perceived risk, a significant number of road users and a significant amount of the road network must be exposed to enforcement. If enforcement is too small, is reduced, or is removed, the perceived risk will fall and there will be less deterrence. As such, to be effective, enforcement activities must be ongoing and of sufficient scale.'
The Victorian Auditor General's report also states that there is no documentary evidence from any relevant government department to indicate that revenue raising is a factor in the decision as to where speed cameras will be placed or in the decision about the level at which fines will be set. The Auditor General's report claimed that all available evidence indicates that the basis of these decisions is preventing road accidents.
Defenders of speed cameras claim the fact that Victoria did not (until recently) warn motorists of the location of cameras was a road safety measure, not a revenue-raising one. They argue that warning drivers of the location of speed cameras reduces their overall effectiveness. A warning may ensure that drivers slow down in the vicinity of the marked cameras; however, there is unlikely to be any effect on driving behaviour in areas where there are no cameras.
5. Opposition to speed cameras is media-driven and sometimes politically motivated
It has been suggested that public opposition to speed cameras has been fuelled by the negative treatment they frequently receive in the media. It has further been suggested that there is frequently no factual justification for the negative nature of these reports.
This point has been made by the Victorian Attorney General's report which stated, 'Public confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the road safety camera program has been...undermined by the media reporting surrounding the high amounts of infringements on the EastLink Freeway, although there has been no evidence of incorrectly issued infringements.'
It has been claimed that the current Victorian government, when in Opposition, used community dislike of speed cameras as a way of discrediting the former government.
Josh Gordon, in an article published in The Age on September 8, 2011, stated, 'In 2009, the then shadow and now Minister for Roads, Terry Mulder, said speed cameras represented a "treasured pot of gold for John Brumby".'
Gordon also claims, 'During last year's election campaign, Ted Baillieu promised a government led by him would regularly publish details of mobile speed camera locations, while hinting there were serious questions about their placement being linked to raising revenue.'