|
|
| The Safety Camera Funding Scheme |
|
What is a Safety Camera “partnership”?
Areas that have been accepted into the safety camera funding scheme must form partnerships made up of local authorities, the police and courts in order to qualify for payment from conditional offer fixed penalty receipts to cover their costs of safety camera operation.
Why is the term “safety camera” used rather than “speed camera”?
The term safety camera is used to encompass both speed and traffic signal enforcement cameras; and there is significant evidence that they do have a highly beneficial effect on road safety.
Why are some cameras hidden?
It is not in the interests of local authorities or the police to place cameras that have no effect on reducing casualties. Those areas participating in the scheme that allows some fixed penalty fine revenue to be netted off and reinvested in camera activity must comply with certain rules and achieve casualty reductions or risk being suspended from the scheme. Fine revenue for those areas remaining outside the scheme passes to the Treasury. In each case, therefore, it would make no sense to "hide" cameras.
How can drivers be certain of the speed limit at camera sites?
Rules exist that aim to ensure drivers are warned of the presence of a camera and reminded of the speed limit through signing. These rules operate for the scheme that allows some fine revenue to be netted off and re-invested by partnerships of local authorities, the police and courts to cover the costs of safety camera operation. Netting off currently covers over 30 police force areas and the majority of those not yet taking part are expected to be participating by spring 2003.
Why not allow police, courts, and councils to keep the entire fine?
That would run the risk of cameras being placed simply to raise revenue. Cameras must be placed only to improve road safety.
What happens if the scheme is so successful that fewer people speed and there is insufficient revenue to cover the extra camera costs?
If this happens there will be a very significant reduction in the number of people killed and injured on our roads. This will save far more in medical and social costs, apart from the misery and suffering that will be saved, than the loss in revenue. The benefits of camera enforcement could thus be recovered from savings made elsewhere, and corresponding changes to camera funding arrangements could then be made. As compliance improves, camera use may be reviewed and scaled down as appropriate.
Why does money from speed camera fines need to be channelled back to fund more ‘safety cameras’ (speed and red light cameras)?
An increase in operational safety cameras on British roads will discourage speeding resulting in:
fewer road traffic collisions,reduced casualties in terms of numbers and severity reduced demand on the health service calmer and more free flowing traffic environment.
How can we ensure that all of the money given to the police from speed camera enforcement will be spent on ‘safety cameras’ (speed and red light cameras)?
The force areas who wish to be considered to be part of the netting off scheme must:
form a partnership including local authorities, police and magistrates courts, present an operational case to the Project Board (containing amongst others, central government departments, local government officers and ACPO) and ensure the whole process is monitored and audited annually to ensure netting off rules are not broken. |
| Rules of the Safety Camera Funding Scheme |
|
How many accidents are needed at proposed sites for enforcement in order for cameras to be placed?
The rules for the safety camera netting off scheme have been developed to have the most positive road safety benefits and demand that partnerships should use the guideline of four accidents resulting in people being killed or seriously injured over the previous three years at sites they propose to enforce using cameras. This does not preclude cameras being placed at sites that do not meet the guidelines if they contribute to the overall strategy aimed at reducing road accident casualties.
If you want to learn more about the current rules – go to the SCS document library and download a copy of the DfT 0506 handbook for National Safety Camera Scheme. This handbook details when and how a partnership may introduce safety cameras.
Why are the rules so restrictive?
Guidance on safety camera deployment has always made it clear that cameras should only be placed where there is a history of speed related road accidents. Since those forming the partnership are able to use some of the fine revenue to cover their costs involved in camera operation, it is vital camera deployment meets the primary purpose to reduce collisions, deaths and injuries. A detailed set of rules has been devised including the need to conduct an analysis of speeds and casualties prior to the placement of cameras. Experience of the netting off scheme shows quite clearly that the greatest success in reducing death and serious injury results from a strong partnership working towards a common goal.
Why are cameras coloured yellow?
A report by the TRL recommended yellow as the colour with greatest visibility in the greatest number of circumstances for street signs. It made sense to carry that over to camera housings.
Yellow camera housings are hard to see in some circumstances, for example, driving into direct sunlight? Are fines quashed if it is too sunny to see the camera?
There will always be circumstances in which it is more difficult to see the camera housings. The rules are sufficiently flexible to allow housings to be coloured non-yellow if the circumstances demand on a site by site basis.
Absolute visibility will always be impaired during bright sunlight at the time of year when the sun is low in the sky, but the combination of signing and housing should provide drivers with sufficient warning. Whether the camera is visible or not the prosecutions will stand.
What are the circumstances that allow different colours to be used?
Partnerships will have to provide visibility statements in their operational cases. These will be considered by the Project Board. The sort of circumstances in which a colour other than yellow might be approved might be in towns where the prevailing stone colour is yellow or in an area of outstanding natural beauty where a bright colour could be considered intrusive. In most circumstances, however, the colour will be yellow.
Why is it that there are some speed cameras which haven’t been painted yellow?
Cameras which have not been painted yellow are operated by the Police enforcement unit and are not operated by the safety camera partnership. They do not form part of the national safety camera scheme and fine revenue can not be hypothecated.
Is there evidence that coloured cameras are more effective than grey ones?
No studies have been conducted but numerous complaints from drivers have been received that cameras have not been evident. It makes sense that drivers will slow down if they see the camera but might not if they do not.
No firm evidence exists one way or the other on whether or not highly visible cameras obtain better casualty reduction than less visible or hidden cameras.
In New Zealand the Government found during trials that hidden cameras were more effective but reverted to visible cameras after the trial, and it is also possible to point to British Columbia in Canada that took the decision to stop entirely speed camera enforcement in the belief it was having no effect on improving road safety. Ministers do not believe either approach is right for the UK.
Was the move to remove speed cameras in the Province of British Columbia in Canada a success?
British Columbia had their own political reasons for removing their cameras. It was not a universally popular move, particularly amongst the police. Our experience of cameras is that they are highly effective at reducing accidents.
Why were cameras coloured at all? Surely if someone is committing a criminal offence they deserve to be caught?
The purpose of cameras is to dissuade drivers from exceeding speed limits, not to catch them speeding. Making cameras clearly visible to drivers has improved compliance. Those who still choose to flout the law will be caught and punished.
Was the Government giving in to the motorists lobby by colouring cameras?
The perception of “hidden” cameras runs the risk of failing to slow traffic and at the same time alienating the motoring public. Colouring cameras was simply a matter of the interests of road safety and the wishes of the public coinciding.
Why are coloured cameras more acceptable to motorists?
If cameras are more visible drivers will have the opportunity to slow down.
Drivers will more readily accept that the cameras are not there to catch them speeding but to encourage them to comply with the limit.
What are the rules for mobile units?
Fixed and mobile cameras do not operate under identical visibility rules. Although fixed camera housings should be yellow in appearance and visible, mobile camera units should have a sign placed at the beginning of targeted routes and vehicles associated with mobile enforcement should be in a livery that makes clear they house speed enforcement cameras. Those operating the cameras within the vehicles are required to wear standard, fluorescent tunics.
How do I report a camera that does not comply with the rules of the scheme?
This is a local matter that should be reported to the Project Manager of the relevant Safety Camera Partnership. All areas are subject to quarterly and annual audits and partnerships are under obligation to put right any sites that do not comply. It should be noted, however, that the visibility rules do not affect the prosecution process or the legal status of cameras. Drivers should note that any failure by a safety camera partnership to comply with the rules has no bearing whatsoever on the legality or otherwise of a prosecution against them for speeding or crossing a red traffic signal.
Have visible cameras been accepted by the public?
The Government believe that if the public understand and accept the deployment of cameras in an open way, they are more likely to respond and reduce their speeds as required. And that is exactly what is happening in the safety camera partnership areas that are participating in netting off.
Partnerships must put in place an effective communications strategy to ensure the local people have a clear idea of why and where cameras are being deployed in their area. Experience is showing that this approach is ensuring people recognise and support the use of cameras where appropriate. |
|
