Do speed cameras really cut accidents?

Motorists in Oxfordshire might feel a little more free with the accelerator from Tuesday as the council was due to switch off its fixed speed cameras. The move is angering some safety campaigners, but others say it will have little impact on accident figures.

Speed camera

For many motorists there are few things that get their annoyance levels revving more than the dreaded speed camera.

Ever since the devices started to sprout beside Britain's roads in 1992, they have been public enemy number one for numerous drivers.

It's hard to exaggerate how divisive these jutting luminous boxes have become. Safety campaigners argue passionately that they are life-savers, forcing drivers to keep within prescribed speed limits. Yet many motorists believe they are more about raising money for government - which gets all the fines they raise - than reducing risk.

Now, 18 years, 6,000 cameras, and an estimated £100m in fines later, speed cameras could be nearing the end of the road - at least in England and Wales.

The ultimatum comes after Downing Street announced it would be cutting the road safety budgets it gives to English and Welsh local authorities by 40%, as part of its wider efforts to reduce public spending.

Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said at the weekend that this cut - which specifically ends central funding for fixed speed cameras - was "another example of this government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist".

As a result of the reduced funding, Oxfordshire County Council is expected to confirm on Tuesday that it will end its spending on all its speed cameras, resulting in the 72 fixed and 89 mobile speed camera vans it funds across the county being withdrawn.

With a number of other local authorities saying they are likely to follow suit, the key questions are whether speed cameras have been successful in reducing road traffic accidents, and if we may now see a rise in such incidents.

'Serious danger'

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, the organisation that operates the speed cameras in Oxfordshire on behalf of the council, has already said it fears a big increase in accidents.

Start Quote

Speed cameras as a proven and cost-effective way of reducing deaths and injuries on the roads by controlling speed”

End Quote Julie Townsend Road safety charity Brake

"There's a serious danger we will see an increase in casualties," says its communication manager Dan Campsall. "We may be counting the cost of this in terms of bodies."

Figures from the partnership appear to back up this claim.

They show that at the 212 fixed camera sites across the wider Thames Valley region - which also includes Buckinghamshire and Berkshire - there was a 38% drop in vehicle collisions.

This is when you compare the three years before each camera was put in place with the most recent three years.

The chart below shows that in the 11 years between 1998 and 2008, a time during which speed cameras proliferated, the number of road deaths remained fairly constant. However, there was a cut in serious injuries - although opponents of speed cameras will say this is largely down to other factors, such as better safety standards in new cars.

Statistics from Swindon Borough Council also appear to contradict those from Thames Valley.

Swindon switched off all its fixed speed cameras a year ago, saying they weren't an effective tool in cutting road traffic accidents as only 6% were caused by people speeding, and that accident levels were actually rising across the borough.

Road casualties chart

The council said it would instead target its road safety funds at "accidents at junctions, at night, among younger drivers, and on rural roads".

A spokesman for Swindon council says that in the first six months after the cameras were switched off accident numbers across their sites "remained the same".

While he admits "this is too short a period to draw any meaningful conclusions", he adds:"However, warnings that accidents and casualties would immediately rocket after the cameras were switched off have so far been proved wrong".

'Wider problem'

The RAC Foundation motoring think tank says speed cameras should not be treated in isolation, and that "the broader problem is the slashing of the [entire] road safety budget".

HOW SPEED CAMERAS ARE FUNDED

Speed camera
  • Local authorities get a road safety budget from the Department for Transport
  • The councils give the funds to their local road safety partnership, of which they are a member. This operates the cameras on their behalf
  • The fines raised by the cameras go directly to the Treasury and not to the local authorities

Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, adds: "The roads minister Mike Penning says he hopes councils will now focus on other ways of reducing road casualties, but how can they do anything if the cash to do it with is not available?"

"For example, if the government [still] believes speed limits are a good thing then who is going to enforce them? Certainly not the police who also face a large reduction in resources and manpower."

However, if Oxfordshire does go ahead and end funding for all its fixed and mobile speed cameras, it will be the police that has to fill the gap with mobile hand-held speed detectors, as these are both operated and funded directly by police forces.

Turning his attention to alternatives to speed cameras, Mr Glaister is cautious about the long-term effectiveness of electronic signs that flash up how fast people are driving - so-called speed indicator devices.

"The experience in London is that they do slow traffic to start with, but as motorists become more used to them then speeds increase again," he says.

'Appalled'

For Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive of road safety charity Brake, getting rid of speed cameras is "madness".

"I am appalled that Oxfordshire is threatening to do this," she says. "Speed cameras are a proven and cost-effective way of reducing deaths and injuries on the roads by controlling speed.

"Any reduction in the number of cameras is a real backward step in road safety terms."

Ms Townsend points to a 2004 report by University College of London which, studying 4,000 speed cameras over a three-year period, found a 42% reduction in deaths and serious injuries at their locations.

"Aside from the safety question, removing speed cameras also doesn't make any economic sense," she says.

"Not only do road deaths and injuries cause untold trauma to victims and their relatives, the cost is enormous for the emergency services and the NHS."

Add your comments using the form below

I do think speed cameras are a good thing, but poorly implemented, Quite often speed cameras seem to be somewhat hidden, obscured by trees, in dips, its very easy to be just slightly over the speed limit unintentionally, what could improve things would be the use of flashing signs 50 yards before a camera and combining these cameras to test for average speed. The intension would then be clear, safety first not profit.

Peter Mould, Salford, UK

If the speed cameras generate income from fines, then surely they are self sustaining and no savings are to be made by removing them!

Ray Freshwater, Cambridge

ll the most recent evidence suggests that road safety policy such as traffic calming, lower speed limits with speed cameras and cycle lanes have not reduced road casualties as claimed by the government and police. In actual fact the police have been massively under reporting serious injuries in an attempt to justify their current policy, they claimed 26,000 when the NHS figures prove that the true figure is 40,000. Admittedly road deaths have come down, but perhaps this is due to better paramedic ambulance treatment and things like the air ambulance and car design. The injury figures have come down more recently by 2%, but perhaps the reduction in deaths and 2% injuries is due to the introduction of free bus passes for the elderly taking many potentially less competent old drivers off our roads.

Gordon Pye, Lancashire

There is no doubt that speed cameras improve road safety - those concils which aim to remove them are very selective in their data. Besides that, surely it is a good thing to stop people breaking the law even if there was no effect on road saftey? People should not be speeding - and they deserve to get caught.

Dr Andrew Kelly, Cheshire

I hope they do this in Yorkshire in the near future. But speed cameras are not the worst. Speed Bumps are costing motorists gazillions of pounds in suspension and bodywork.

Ross Dunbar, Baildon, West Yorkshire

I honestly believe it is safer to not have the fixed saftey cameras. I have lost count of the number of times the car in front of me has rammed on their breaks just metres before the camera, changing their speed from 50mph to 30mph.

Thomas Smith, Bihsop's Stortford, Hertfordshire

The reasons speed cameras fail to win the public over are twofold: 1) They are blatantly there to raise money - those who have been caught slightly over the limit in the middle of nowhere or just at the point the limit rises (say, to become a dual carriageway) and there is a camera van 10ft before the increased speed - will back this up. 2) IF they are there to save lives, their CLAIMED reason for existence, why not advise motorists there is a camera in '200yds' etc so they have the opportunity to slow down and therefore NOT be speeding at such a dangerous location? Another fact, of course, is the DOT's own figures that in only circa 6% of all serious injuries or deaths on the road is speed a factor - and that doesn't even mean the key factor. The fact is bad driving and inattention are by far the biggest reasons for accidents and tackling that goes in the 'too difficult' box.

Richard Lewis, Bristol, England

In Portugal they regulate speed by having traffic lights that turn to red if they detect you are travelling above the speed limit. Once people realise this they dont even bother to speed because they know they wil get stopped. No fines, no points just slower traffic and no aggrevated motorists.

Clifford Gribble, Poole, UK

I'm not a fan of speed cameras, but I've always respected the arguement that fixed cameras were only placed in accident black spot areas, so were justified. It is the mobile ones, which seem to me to be sited where they raise most revenue, as opposed to a need for them to prevent accidents, which seem to be the least justifiable.

Richard Jackson, Portsmouth, UK

I'd like to see all standard fixed speed cameras removed which only serve to make speeders break hard. Instead I would like to see a smaller number of average speed cameras used in high risk places like 20mph zones in front of schools.

Matt, Norfolk, UK

It would make more sense to turn off 90% of the cameras at any time, and leave 10% functioning. The locations of these would be changed regularly and randomly. That way, motorists would never know whether they were passing a "live" camera, and so be at risk of getting caught speeding. Saves a lot of money but still maintains the deterrent.

Eric Woodcock, Southport

If you are happy to be contacted by a BBC journalist please leave a telephone number that we can contact you on. In some cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name as you provide it and location, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. When sending us pictures, video or eyewitness accounts at no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws. Please ensure you have read the terms and conditions.

Terms and conditions

More on This Story

In today's Magazine

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Features

  • OrangemanPunctured pride?

    How would N Ireland's Orangemen feel if Scotland left the union?


  • Sheep on Achill IslandMass exodus

    Why hundreds of thousands of people have left Ireland


  • MarchionessThames tragedy

    Survivors and victims' families remember Marchioness disaster


  • A teenaged mother in the Zaatari campUntold misery

    The plight of Syria's refugee child brides


  • Michael MosleyMeat feast?

    Which is the best eco option - eating beef, chicken or mussels?


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.