Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 62, Issue 7, pp 1181–1188 | Cite as

Safety cameras and road accidents: effectiveness in local authority areas in England

Case-oriented Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Safety cameras have been central to strategy for improving road safety in the UK (and other countries) over the past decade and a National Safety Camera (NSC) programme was introduced in the year 2000 to fund and guide the expansion of camera sites. This programme was brought to an end in 2007 and responsibility for decisions on expanding, maintaining or rolling back safety cameras has now been largely devolved to local highway authorities and their partners. To make strategic choices in such areas it is clearly vital to understand the extent to which safety cameras are effective in reducing road accident potential. Although the NSC programme has been evaluated this work has focussed mainly on assessments of impacts at camera sites rather than wider area effects: particularly local highway area effects. The research reported here has explored the rates of personal injury collisions (PIC) over the past decade on the roads of English Local Authority areas and investigated relationships between area characteristics including levels of safety camera introductions and the PIC improvements (or otherwise) reported. To assist in this analysis, an indicator of safety camera intensity has been derived in this research to reflect the relative likelihood in areas of coming into contact with safety camera sites This work shows that area improvement rates differ significantly on an urban/rural dimension and are also very dependent on prior (to camera introductions) levels of PIC risk. Controlling for these factors using a pair comparison approach, analysis shows that safety camera introduction effects are statistically detectable in very highly urbanised, high PIC risk areas and at high risk sites within areas but not elsewhere. Whilst recognising that new high risk sites can emerge in any area, the conclusion is reached that many local areas and especially more rural areas would be unlikely to gain advantage from a further general expansion of fixed point and mobile camera sites and that de-commissioning of current sites should be seriously considered.

Keywords

public expenditure government regional studies transport regression 

References

  1. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997). West London Speed Camera Demonstration Project. Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions: London, England.Google Scholar
  2. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000). Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone. Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions: London, England.Google Scholar
  3. Department for Transport (2003). A Cost Recovery System for Speed and Red-light Cameras: Two Year Pilot Evaluation. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  4. Department for Transport (2004). The National Safety Camera Programme: Three-year Evaluation Report. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  5. Department for Transport (2005). The National Safety Camera Programme: Four-year Evaluation Report. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  6. Department for Transport (2007). Travel in Urban and Rural Areas. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  7. Department for Transport (2009). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain - 2008. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  8. Gill M, Goldacre MJ, Yeates DGR (2006). Changes in safety on England's roads: Analysis of hospital statistics. Br Med J, doi:10.1136/BMJ.38883.593831.4F.
  9. Hindle GA, Hindle A, Souli S (2008). Modelling and assessing local area differences in road casualties: A case study in England. J Opl Res Soc, doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602623.
  10. Hirst WM, Mountain LJ and Maher MJ (2004). Sources of error in road safety scheme evaluation: A quantified comparison of current methods . Accident Anal Prev 36: 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mountain LJ (2006). Safety cameras: Stealth tax or life-savers? Significance 3(3): 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pilkington P and Kinra S (2005). Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: Systematic review . Br Med J 330: 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Robinson D and Campbell R (2006). Contributory Factors to Road Accidents. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar
  14. Ward H, Lyons R and Thoreau R (2006). Under-reporting of Road Casualties. Department for Transport: London, England.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.HCS LtdPreston

Personalised recommendations