Safety Camera Partnership
Encyclopedia
A Safety Camera Partnership (also Casualty Reduction Partnership, Safer Roads Partnership) is a local multi-agency partnership between Local Government, police authorities, HMCS
, Highways Agency
and the National Health Service
within the United Kingdom
. Their aim is to enforce speed limits and red traffic lights by the use of cameras.
Initially established in 1999 as part of The National Safety Camera Scheme to enforce speed limits in the United Kingdom
. Until April 2007, the partnerships were funded from fines generated from the use of traffic enforcement cameras in each area. Since that time they have received Road Safety Grants.
The programme was started as part of the UK government's Road Safety Strategy that set targets of:
The reported casualty statistics 2009 showed that the targets had been achieved although the accuracy of the figures are disputed and the role that SCPs played is controversial. The 2009 figures for deaths and serious injuries were 44% lower than the 1994-8 average and deaths and serious injuries of children down by 61% on the 1994-8 average. A similar level of 10-year casualty reduction had been consistently achieved over each of the previous sixteen years, with a previous high of 43% in 1993 and the lowest recent figure being 38% in 2006. What hasn't been established though is what part, if any, the partnerships played in achieving those goals, and whether the strong downward trend in casualty numbers present before the partnerships were introduced would have otherwise continued resulting in those goals being realised much sooner.
contraventions (speeding), and red light cameras are used to record and detect traffic light
offences. In an analysis of data recorded in the police STATS19 system, "exceeding speed limit" (the only accident contributory factor which speed cameras target) is recorded as one of the contributory factors in 5% of all road accidents and 12% of fatal accidents. The factor "disobeyed traffic signal" (the factor which red-light cameras target) is recorded as a factor in 2% of all road accidents. The two factors targeted by the SCPs are both in the "Injudicious Action" category of the referenced report. In total, all the factors from that category (which also includes: "Disobeyed Give Way or Stop sign", "Disobeyed double white lines", "Disobeyed pedestrian crossing", "Illegal turn/direction", "Going too fast for conditions", "Following too close", "Vehicle travelling along pavement", and "Cyclist entering road from pavement") are listed as contributory factors in 32% of fatal accidents and 28% of all accidents.
Since April 2007 the funding for Safety Camera partnerships has been significantly altered; all funding is now passed to Local Authorities/County Councils in the form of an enhanced road safety grant. Safety Camera Partnerships must bid annually for funding to council budget holders along with other local authority funded organisation for carry out their operations; the funding, while a road safety grant can be used for any local authority expense that is not connected to road safety, ring-fencing of local authority funds not being allowed.
As a result of this funding change the cost of running the SCP's fell onto local Councils. The drive to save costs due to the recession led in 2010 and 2011 to many Councils reviewing their spending in this area.
(ASA) has upheld complaints against:
The announcement was in part the result of a report commissioned by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) to look at the differing effects of various strategies related to the deployment of speed cameras. The main finding of the report was that camera deployment can reduce drivers' speeds markedly and that cameras on the survey roads were perceived to be reasonably effective.
The eight initial implementations began on 1 April 2000. The cameras were mainly to be placed in locations where there had been a significant number of casualties as a result of road accidents. One novelty in the partnerships was that the revenue raised by the cameras would be ring-fenced for investment back into the running and maintenance of the original cameras and investment in more cameras. In part this was a response to allegations that such cameras were being placed for revenue generation and not for safety reasons. From the start the partnerships were controversial with strong opinions both for and against the cameras. In December 2001 new regulations enforced a code of visibility for the cameras in order that they were always clearly seen by motorists. As of April 2006 there were thirty eight Safety Camera Partnerships in England and Wales covering forty-one police force areas out of a total of forty-three. (Durham and North Yorkshire are the exceptions). Similar arrangements exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As the cameras became more widespread the issue became more contentious politically. In particular motoring bodies began to question the effectiveness of speed cameras as a means for accident prevention. This created a demand for research showing whether or not the cameras were, in practice, effective at reducing deaths and injuries from road accidents. Four independent evaluation reports were commissioned by the DfT to address this.
Since April 2007 however, an annual specific (although not ring fenced) 'Road Safety Grant' which was no longer related to the number of fines issued locally was given directly to the Local Authorities with a responsibility for road safety who were free to choose whether or not to re-invest this in their partnership.
During 2007 a total of 1.26 million fixed penalties were issued, which was down 23% from the previous year.
Her Majesty's Courts Service
Her Majesty's Courts Service is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice and is responsible for the administration of the civil, family and criminal courts in England and Wales....
, Highways Agency
Highways Agency
The Highways Agency is an executive agency, part of the Department for Transport in England. It has responsibility for managing the core road network in England...
and the National Health Service
National Health Service
The National Health Service is the shared name of three of the four publicly funded healthcare systems in the United Kingdom. They provide a comprehensive range of health services, the vast majority of which are free at the point of use to residents of the United Kingdom...
within the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
. Their aim is to enforce speed limits and red traffic lights by the use of cameras.
Initially established in 1999 as part of The National Safety Camera Scheme to enforce speed limits in the United Kingdom
Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom
Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom is the action taken by appropriately empowered authorities to attempt to persuade road vehicle users to comply with the speed limits in force on the UK's roads...
. Until April 2007, the partnerships were funded from fines generated from the use of traffic enforcement cameras in each area. Since that time they have received Road Safety Grants.
Aims and objectives
Their stated objectives were to reduce deaths and serious injury by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red-light running. The aim was to do this by deterring, detecting and enforcement of speed and red light offences using but not limited to camera technology and driver education programmes. Some also included the use of road safety engineering as a method of contributing to the aim.The programme was started as part of the UK government's Road Safety Strategy that set targets of:
- 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2010 (compared to the average of 1994-8)
- 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries of children.
The reported casualty statistics 2009 showed that the targets had been achieved although the accuracy of the figures are disputed and the role that SCPs played is controversial. The 2009 figures for deaths and serious injuries were 44% lower than the 1994-8 average and deaths and serious injuries of children down by 61% on the 1994-8 average. A similar level of 10-year casualty reduction had been consistently achieved over each of the previous sixteen years, with a previous high of 43% in 1993 and the lowest recent figure being 38% in 2006. What hasn't been established though is what part, if any, the partnerships played in achieving those goals, and whether the strong downward trend in casualty numbers present before the partnerships were introduced would have otherwise continued resulting in those goals being realised much sooner.
Strategy
Speed cameras are used to detect and record speed limitSpeed limit
Road speed limits are used in most countries to regulate the speed of road vehicles. Speed limits may define maximum , minimum or no speed limit and are normally indicated using a traffic sign...
contraventions (speeding), and red light cameras are used to record and detect traffic light
Traffic light
Traffic lights, which may also be known as stoplights, traffic lamps, traffic signals, signal lights, robots or semaphore, are signalling devices positioned at road intersections, pedestrian crossings and other locations to control competing flows of traffic...
offences. In an analysis of data recorded in the police STATS19 system, "exceeding speed limit" (the only accident contributory factor which speed cameras target) is recorded as one of the contributory factors in 5% of all road accidents and 12% of fatal accidents. The factor "disobeyed traffic signal" (the factor which red-light cameras target) is recorded as a factor in 2% of all road accidents. The two factors targeted by the SCPs are both in the "Injudicious Action" category of the referenced report. In total, all the factors from that category (which also includes: "Disobeyed Give Way or Stop sign", "Disobeyed double white lines", "Disobeyed pedestrian crossing", "Illegal turn/direction", "Going too fast for conditions", "Following too close", "Vehicle travelling along pavement", and "Cyclist entering road from pavement") are listed as contributory factors in 32% of fatal accidents and 28% of all accidents.
Funding
The income from camera fines is initially passed to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (formerly the Lord Chancellor's Department), who pass it on to the DfT. The Safety Camera Partnerships originally reclaimed money from the DfT which they then spent on the operating costs of the cameras, additional safety measures such as "speed awareness" courses, public relations, and staff expenses.Since April 2007 the funding for Safety Camera partnerships has been significantly altered; all funding is now passed to Local Authorities/County Councils in the form of an enhanced road safety grant. Safety Camera Partnerships must bid annually for funding to council budget holders along with other local authority funded organisation for carry out their operations; the funding, while a road safety grant can be used for any local authority expense that is not connected to road safety, ring-fencing of local authority funds not being allowed.
As a result of this funding change the cost of running the SCP's fell onto local Councils. The drive to save costs due to the recession led in 2010 and 2011 to many Councils reviewing their spending in this area.
From the ASA
The Advertising Standards AuthorityAdvertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)
The Advertising Standards Authority is the self-regulatory organisation of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice broadly reflects legislation in many instances...
(ASA) has upheld complaints against:
- The West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership for their claim that "where you see one of these" (a speed camera) "there have been four of these" (a gravestone). It was found that the claim was misleading, since the "four coffin rule" on fixed camera sites did not apply retrospectively to existing sites, and there were circumstances where local communities could request the installation of cameras at sites where there had been fewer than four KSI collisions.
- The London Safety Camera Partnership for a newspaper insert which stated that "Speeding causes over a quarter of all deaths on London's roads". It was judged to be misleading on the grounds that none of the factors identified by the advertisers necessarily involved a vehicle exceeding the speed limit and that the claim would be understood by readers to mean that vehicles that exceeded the speed limit had caused a quarter of all deaths on London's roads and not that speed was merely a contributory factor in a quarter of fatal accidents.
- The Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership that 'the inclusion of the websites "www.safespeed.org.uk", "www.abd.org.uk" and "www.pepipoo.com", under the general heading "TRICK DEALERS", was denigratory' and that claims about the costs to the NHS of high speed collisions breached their "substantiation" and "truthfulness" code clauses.
Police
- in 2003 Northumbria Police's then Acting Chief Inspector of motor patrols is reported to have said "Speed cameras don't reduce casualties - they are just for revenue generation", he also said "They don't engage and they aren't going to send you a message in the post telling you were driving badly".
- In 2004 the then Chief Constable of Durham Police, Paul Garvin, is reported to have said "The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position", and "I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets." Since Mr. Garvin's departure Durham Police Authority have accepted road safety funding distributed from the Department for Transport and continue to operate the van to enforce speed in the county.
Other
- In 2005 a press release the Institute of Advanced MotoristsInstitute of Advanced MotoristsThe Institute of Advanced Motorists is a charity based in the United Kingdom and serving nine countries, whose objective is to improve car driving and motorcycle riding standards, and so enhance road safety, through the proper use of a system of car and motorcycle control based on Roadcraft...
(IAM) claim the damaging effect on relations between the driver and the police caused by a "plague" of speed cameras, coupled with the "robotic issue of tough penalties" has continued to damage road safety. However, in a 2010 press release the IAM's stance had changed, "Fixed speed cameras have been, and should remain, an important component in the road safety tool kit for local Councils."
- In 2006 an undercover reporter for The Mail on SundayThe Mail on SundayThe Mail on Sunday is a British conservative newspaper, currently published in a tabloid format. First published in 1982 by Lord Rothermere, it became Britain's biggest-selling Sunday newspaper following the closing of The News of the World in July 2011...
suggested that the Government's actual objectives for the partnerships may be to generate substantial revenues for the treasury, with little regard for the effects on road safety.
History
The safety camera programme was announced with a press release in December 1999. Eight trial areas were announced which would begin a roll-out of a number of Safety Cameras. These areas were Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames Valley.The announcement was in part the result of a report commissioned by the UK Department for Transport (DfT) to look at the differing effects of various strategies related to the deployment of speed cameras. The main finding of the report was that camera deployment can reduce drivers' speeds markedly and that cameras on the survey roads were perceived to be reasonably effective.
The eight initial implementations began on 1 April 2000. The cameras were mainly to be placed in locations where there had been a significant number of casualties as a result of road accidents. One novelty in the partnerships was that the revenue raised by the cameras would be ring-fenced for investment back into the running and maintenance of the original cameras and investment in more cameras. In part this was a response to allegations that such cameras were being placed for revenue generation and not for safety reasons. From the start the partnerships were controversial with strong opinions both for and against the cameras. In December 2001 new regulations enforced a code of visibility for the cameras in order that they were always clearly seen by motorists. As of April 2006 there were thirty eight Safety Camera Partnerships in England and Wales covering forty-one police force areas out of a total of forty-three. (Durham and North Yorkshire are the exceptions). Similar arrangements exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As the cameras became more widespread the issue became more contentious politically. In particular motoring bodies began to question the effectiveness of speed cameras as a means for accident prevention. This created a demand for research showing whether or not the cameras were, in practice, effective at reducing deaths and injuries from road accidents. Four independent evaluation reports were commissioned by the DfT to address this.
Since April 2007 however, an annual specific (although not ring fenced) 'Road Safety Grant' which was no longer related to the number of fines issued locally was given directly to the Local Authorities with a responsibility for road safety who were free to choose whether or not to re-invest this in their partnership.
During 2007 a total of 1.26 million fixed penalties were issued, which was down 23% from the previous year.