Speed Camera Debate Heats Up

[Falchoon]

from drive.com.au

The bucks start here -- the speed camera debate heats up

By Peter McKay

The Sydney Morning Herald

Tuesday October 28 2003

Do fixed speed cameras save lives or merely raise revenue? The debate has been rekindled. Peter McKay reports.

British sociologist Dr Alan Buckingham's finding that fixed speed cameras have failed to slow the rate of deaths on Australian roads has rocked our state governments.

In NSW, there was an immediate and aggressive response from the Roads and Traffic Authority, the author of the state's road safety policy.

The massive differences between Buckingham's findings and those of other Australian researchers point to a real dilemma for motorists: who do we believe?

Buckingham's report, Speed Traps: Saving Lives or Raising Revenue, says the rate of decline in road deaths had slowed since speed cameras were introduced across Australia.

"The whole point of speed cameras was to increase the rate of reduction in the number of serious and fatal accidents but the data shows the reverse," he says.

Buckingham dismisses as flawed the NSW Government's oft-quoted statistics suggesting speed is a factor in 30 per cent of crashes. His analysis: speed is not a major factor in most crashes, and speed cameras are revenue raisers and most should be removed.

He also says drivers who are moderate speeders are safer than those who travel well above or below the speed limit -- findings that certainly fly in the face of the government's justification for tough anti-speed road safety measures.

And -- further bad news for several state governments and the pro-camera lobby -- Buckingham will be in Sydney for a seminar next week to renew his attack on their road safety policies. He is writing a paper which critiques the key studies on which the anti-speed lobby and researchers rely.

The RTA uses its own research and that provided by outside organisations, individuals and groups, a spokesman told Drive. The outside research is often funded by the state government.

The RTA is also involved in co-operative funding agreements with organisations with an interest in a reduced road toll, including counterparts in other states and insurance companies.

Spin doctors for the state road authorities have worked overtime to counter Buckingham's explosive report. The RTA returns the serve, with a statement claiming a significant reduction in road deaths at 28 speed camera sites across NSW.

Preliminary analysis had found deaths "have been reduced from 21 over three years leading up to the camera installation to just one in two years with the cameras operating.

"The evaluation found reported crashes have been cut by 20 percent, with casualty crashes cut by 23 percent and tow-away crashes by 17 percent."

Professor Ian Johnston of the Monash University Accident Research Centre, who fronts the RTA's anti-speed TV commercials, also disputes Buckingham's contentions.

He says that in urban areas, every 5kmh over the limit roughly doubles the risk of a crash resulting in a casualty.

Buckingham acknowledges the obvious -- the faster the impact speed, the greater the risk of injury or death -- but says it does not follow that speeding leads to more accidents. Nevertheless, millions of mainly law-abiding people are fined for speeding each year.

He says over the past 40 years, road trauma has been reduced, thanks to careful road engineering, sensible law enforcement and advances in medicine and car safety -- but not speed cameras.

The NSW Roads Minister, Carl Scully, is an unswerving advocate of speed cameras.

But, a few days ago, Liberal MP Andrew Humpherson called for a review of all speed camera locations, saying that the State Government was addicted to speed cameras.

The National Motorists Association of Australia, a moderate action group, supports Buckingham's independent findings. It has long had issues with studies by government-funded researchers.

A spokesman says motorists should be concerned that the outcomes of some road safety studies may be influenced by the money flowing to researchers from governments that collect revenue from speed fines.

The temptation exists for researchers to produce findings that governments want to see, the association claims, and this guarantees future funding, continuing the cycle.

"The NSW government has one or two attack dogs who are sooled on to anyone who dares produce opinions -- or, as in the case of the Buckingham report, well-researched findings -- that contradict the government's revenue strategy."

The NMAA has called for details of NSW Government funding for research into road safety to be made public, claiming very few road safety researchers have science or engineering qualifications.

Meanwhile, Buckingham has hit back. Referring to the RTA's analysis from the 28 sites, he says "it seems incredible that overall, the 100 fixed speed cameras in NSW are not associated with a reduction in the State death toll".

He says driver inattention, not speeding, is the greatest contributor to accidents -- and it is at least as common at slow speeds as it is at high speeds.

His report appears in Policy magazine, the journal of The Centre for Independent Studies, which is available from selected newsagents or online -- see www.cis.org.au and www.policy.org

The CIS, a non-profit organisation, says it neither funded Buckingham's research nor paid for his story in the magazine. Buckingham told Drive his employer, Bath Spa University College, allowed him the time to conduct his research.

Buckingham's barbs:

. Speed cameras discourage the culture of driver responsibility which is a major contributor in the good road safety record of both Australia and Britain.

. Cameras risk creating a nation of speedometer-watchers who drive according to the dictates of the camera rather than road conditions.

. Cameras can contribute to road fatalities by distracting drivers, increasing frustration, encouraging sudden braking and diminishing the initiative to drive at appropriate speeds.

[XRSICKT]

most of the cams I see are in high traffic areas, where they should be more in fast traffic areas where the likelyhood of death from a accident is much more.

[dankman]

I've found these things to be death traps waiting to happen.

Along Ginenderra Drive in Canberra there are 3 red light / speed cameras along this road.

About 7 or so months ago I was a witness to a horrific crash on the one before the lake bridge.

A lady in an EB falcon sedan was travelling about 3 or 4 car lengths in front of me in the outside lane, I was on the inside.

When the lights changed I had a lot more breaking distance than she did so I stopped quite easily. She however slammed on the breaks when she really would have made it through the yellow light.

The truck behind her planted his after she did but of course crumpled the rear of her car almost upto the driver and passenger seat. Thank god now one was in the back seat cause they would have been dead for sure.

I think that if the camera had not have been there she would have continued through.

Anyways, in some cases they are good, but often set far too strictly, or at least the public isn't educated in how they work at all, just that their revenue raisers.

I think they should have some sort of campain telling everyone what they do and HOW soon you get pinged. I have also seen so many people just accept the fines they get even though there were serious circumstances at the time, eg my example above, truck stuck up my arse, how the hell was I supposed to stop safely?

my 2.2c

[Guest HocuSChrisT]

yeh, they're so dangerous!, people instead of watching the road, stare at their speedo too much, and end up having a rear ender!! It's bogus.

[Redhawk]

Buckingham's research is also the same as that carried out by the University of British Columbia who came up with the same conclusion that those drivers a little over the speed limit were safer than most other drivers.

From the evidence I've seen in WA speed cameras are purely revenue raisers. Have yet to see one in a 'black spot'.

[plonky]

I have made my position clear on speed cameras, and they are NOTHING more than a stealthy indiscriminate tax upon the motorist.

However, the more the electorate wants the Government to supply, the more the Government needs to collect revenue.

I am totally offended by any suggestion that Highway Patrol Police go out and collect revenue on behalf of the State Govt. Highway Patrol Police issue infringements for infractions of the law, be it speed, general traffic or equipment offences.

Stationary speed cameras do not, and never will, have a deterrant/educational effect on the motorist.

More drivers learn about their responsibilities under the ARR's by being stopped by a HWP car than they do by being snapped for a 'Kodak moment' with a State Govt. Funded Cash machine.

If ALL fatalities occurred at the site of speed camera placements then I would agree that they work. In regards the the camera on the M4, the fatalities have reduced, not because of the camera, but because the road has finally been widened to 3 divided lanes and the traffic management of peak hour has been streamlined by way of traffic regulation during Operation WestSafe (or whatever they call the bloody thing)

Scully should be made to pay by being voted out. In fact the whole State Government should be voted until they realise that cameras are a source of revenue, not a way of reducing road trauma.

They even rely upon a flawed study.... the 50kmh crap they go on with is based upon a study of one town in Sweden where they implemented a 50 kmh limit. About the only thing that went through the town was a couple of Mercedes A120's and a Moose (this is after the Mercedes A Class became Moose Proofed)

Just remember, after the 1 November this year, the default speed limit becomes a mind blowing 50kmh!

That means and area which is signposted 50, street lit or has telegraph poles every 100m is a 50 Urban Speed Limit.

Make the bastards pay, vote Scully out. He doesn't even have a drivers license....same goes for his bookworm Premier, he doesn't even have a drivers license. It's about time a bit of civil disobedience took place!!

[Dagabond]

The Herald Sun down here in Victoria recently ran a front page spread about a letter they received from a number of disgruntled Police Sergeants about the impending installation of speed cameras onto the West Gate Bridge.

It went into the fact that even the police believe that the installation was nothing but government revenue raising at it’s worst, further pointing out the fact that the government have got there head firmly entrenched in there buttock’s and relying on outdated and overdramatised research from government funded organization’s.

They also pointed out that these cameras were calculated to make $1 Million a week for the revenue coffers and that the cameras on the Western Freeway were making in excess of $12,000 a day on a relatively straight stretch of the freeway, rather than having them installed in trouble spot’s or on two lane carriageway’s they’re installing them where they are achieving the highest revenue possible.

:o

[SJW]

Plonky,

I agree with your comments, a kodak moment is an inconvenience and a hassle for the wife who loses points from her licence.... after all it was her driving ????.

Whereas being pulled over by HWP is a much better deterrent and makes you concious of your crime as it happened and you learn from it and have the consequences straight away.

I understand why speed cameras exist and can even justify them in some area's, but those that are blatant revenue raisers and not in black spot area's are not what I want as a voting member of public.

I think we should see them used more in school zones, black spots and residential area's. Let the HWP take care of the freeways and motorways.

that's my 2 cents finished now, if you want, you can vote for me and I'll get the laws changed. ( I'm not running for anything yet, but I'd love the superannuation that a politician gets .... )

[OwnaXR6T]

What is really going to cause crashes is the rumoured speed cameras on red lights. rear enders I reckon from everyone hitting the anchers when they see orange.

[cdm]

  OwnaXR6T said:

What is really going to cause crashes is the rumoured speed cameras on red lights. rear enders I reckon from everyone hitting the anchers when they see orange.

Rumoured? There is 82 of them in Melbourne now. At least! One of them is within about 3kms of my house and I have to drive through it at least 4 times a day. I'm not sure if it can only get you going one way or both...