1. Speed enforcement in Australia: A changing policy landscape shaped by public opinion Dr Judy Fleiter CRICOS No. 00213J Brake - International Congress on Speed 17 May 2012 London

2. Acknowledgements  Brake Congress Organisers  Co-researchers @ CARRS-Q –Barry Watson, Vic Siskind, Angela Watson, David Soole  National Health & Medical Research Council Postdoctoral Asia-Australia Fellowship

3. Overview  Speeding and crash involvement in Australia  Speed management in Australia  Jurisdictional differences  National Road Safety Strategy (2011-2020)  Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs  The role of public opinion/feedback  Implications for speed management

4. Australia Brisbane 22.8 million people 12.4 million registered passenger vehicles 552 passenger vehicles /1000 people Passenger vehicles = 76% Heavy vehicles = 2.5% Motorcycles = 4.1% # Motorcycles increased by 56% in last 5 years ABS, 2011

5. Australian Road Deaths: Improvements from 1970-2010 30.4 deaths/100,000 people6.1 deaths/100,000 people With a 2-fold increase in vehicles & 50% growth in population

6. International Comparisons, 2009 Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD)

7. Road Trauma in 2011 Deaths = 1292, lowest since 1946 Injuries = ~32,300 Injury figures inconsistently collected and difficult to confirm across jurisdictions Speeding identified as the major contributing factor in 34% of fatal crashes and 13% of all serious injury crashes Australian Transport Council, 2011

8. Improvements in Road Safety in Queensland since 1967

9. CRICOS No. 00213J Percentage of fatalities involving speeding drivers/riders in Queensland Year % Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011

10. One of the ‘Fatal 4’ Speeding Drink driving Fatigue – driving tired Non-use of Seatbelts

12. Percentage of speeding infringements per penalty category, Queensland Km/hour above the speed limit % of infringements Queensland Transport, 2008

13. Speed management in Australia (1)  Over the last 2 decades, jurisdictions have adopted a ‘holistic’ approach to reducing speeding: –Road environment improvements (e.g. lower urban speed limits, school zones, road treatments) –Enforcement programs (e.g. traffic patrols, fixed & mobile speed cameras, point-to-point cameras [P2P]) –Education programs (e.g. mass media education) –Intelligent Transport System (ITS) measures (e.g. vehicle activated and variable message signs)

14. Speed management in Australia (2)  Strong reliance on traffic law enforcement programs: −traffic laws (eg. speed limits) −traffic policing (eg. speed cameras) −sanctions (eg. fines, demerit points, double demerits, licence loss)  Substantial variation across jurisdictions  Northern Territory in 2007:  reduced unrestricted speed limit on major highways to 130 km/hr & on other open roads to 110 km/hr  Demerit points system introduced

15. Speed cameras in Australia (1)  Victoria first trialed speed cameras in 1985, covert  By 1991, 54 cameras operating 5,400 hrs/month  Same year Britain introduced speed cameras  Other Australian jurisdictions developed programs over time  Operational in all jurisdictions by 1997 Carnis, Rakotonirainy & Fleiter, 2008; Delaney, Ward & Cameron, 2005; Soole, Lennon & Watson, 2008

16. Speed cameras in Australia (2)  No standardisation across jurisdictions of  deployment methods,  site selection criteria,  visibility (overt/covert),  camera type,  level of private contractor use,  speed offence categories, and  penalties

17. Speed cameras in Australia (3)  Comparison of lowest level speeding penalties  Demerits range: 0 – 2 points  Fine range: $90 - $196  Category definitions:  Not more than 9km/hr  Under 10 km/hr  10 km/hr and under  Under 13 km/hr  Under 15km/hr

18. Speed cameras in Australia (4) Camera type NSWVictoriaWestern Australia QueenslandSouth Australia Fixed172 in 141 locations 62 + 10 P2P 6 (planned)9 + 4 in a tunnel + 1 P2P 1 Mobile6 deployed at140 locations (up to 1000 hrs/month) 85 (up to 9,300 hr/month) Emphasis on covert 23 tripod or in-car, 14 hand-held (~3000 hrs/month) 50 (6,215 hrs/month) Emphasis on overt 18 (3,060 hrs/month) Safety77 red light/speed 17523 red light/speed + 7 planned 077 red light/speed NSW Auditor-General Report, 2011

19. Point-to-point speed enforcement (1) JurisdictionSpecificationsVehiclesDate implemented Victoria5 camera sites along 54 km of major highway, bi-directional measurement All vehicles1 st to implement in 2007 for all vehicles New South Wales 21 bi-directional lengths (6km – 75 km) throughout the State, multiple speed limits Heavy vehicles ONLY All vehicle trial at 3 sites in 2005 Australian Capital Territory 2.7 km stretch of road, 80 km/hrAll vehiclesFeb 2012 Queensland1 site on major highway (14.7 km), 110 km/hr throughout section, uni-directional All vehiclesDec 2011 Soole, Fleiter & Watson, 2012

20. Point-to-point speed enforcement (2) JurisdictionSpecificationsVehicles South Australia Current trial of 2 sites. 51.5 km at 110 km/hr and 300m at 60 km/hr Not able to detect motorcycles, forward facing cameras only Western Australia Currently consideringPropose all TasmaniaCurrently developing business case for trial Propose all Northern Territory Not currently considering- Soole, Fleiter & Watson, 2012

21. National Strategy Perspective (1) National Road Safety Strategy (2011-2020) Under the federal system, recognises advantages of individual jurisdiction responsibility for road safety regulation and management Also recognises scope for greater national collaboration for best practice approaches Australian Transport Council, 2011

22. National Strategy Perspective (2) Safe Systems Principles Targets by end of 2020: –reduce the annual number of road crash fatalities by at least 30% –reduce the annual number of serious road crash injuries by at least 30% –Previous national strategy had no target for injury reductions

23. National Strategy Perspective (3) 4 Cornerstone areas –Safe people –Safe roads –Safe vehicles –Safe speeds Strategic intent –Speed limits complementing the road environment to manage crash impact forces to within human tolerance –all road users complying with the speed limits.

24. National Strategy Perspective (4) Key areas for intervention for Speed Whole of Australia –Best practice speed enforcement –Public information about community benefits of lower travel speeds –Introduction of risk-based national speed limit guidelines

25. National Strategy Perspective (5) Metropolitan areas –Reduce speed limits at intersections –More speed limits of 40 km/hr or lower in pedestrian and cycling areas Regional and remote areas –Review of speed limits on higher crash risk routes

26. National Strategy Perspective (6) Community generally recognises speed management as necessary BUT, reluctance by some sections of community to accept lower speed limits Need for ‘ongoing public engagement to build sufficient acceptance of new initiatives’ Three points central to this

27. National Strategy Perspective (7) 1.Need for ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders. –Continue engaging with motoring groups, historically cautious in offering support to reduced speed limits and more intensive enforcement 2.Need to focus effort on convincing community of importance of speed limit compliance. –Motorists must understand societal costs of low level speeding –Difficult to ‘sell’ – personal trade off compared with societal gain 3.Need for national community dialogue to explain safety rationale for speed management –Additional information about economic and environmental benefits might assist in promoting speed limit compliance

28. The importance of community perceptions

29. Community attitudes & perceptions (1)  Views of those opposed to stricter/more innovative speed management have considerable influence in Australia  More vocal in some jurisdictions (eg media)  Annual community attitudinal surveys to road safety  Gradual increase in public awareness of speed- related risks through 1990s to early 2000s but stable in recent years Australian Transport Council, 2011; Petroulis, 2011

30. Community attitudes & perceptions (2) ‘Chances of being crash-involved increase significantly if driving speed increases by 10 km/hr’  55% agreement in 1995 – 70% agreement in 2011 ‘An accident at 70 km/hr will be a lot more severe than an accident at 60 km/hr’  80% agreement in 1995 – 92% agreement in 2011 Petroulis, 2011

31. The Speed Paradox

32. Community attitudes & perceptions (3) ‘Speeding fines are mainly to raise revenue’  54% agreement in 1995 - 62% agreement in 2011 ‘How fast should you be allowed to travel without being booked by police (60 and 100 km/hr roads)’  50% agreed 65 km/hr or higher on 60 km road  33% agreed 110km/hr on 100 km rural road  Responses indicate acceptable speeds of approx. 10% above posted limits (links to enforcement tolerances) Fleiter & Watson, 2006; Petroulis, 2011

33. Community attitudes & perceptions (4)  In 2011, the Auditor-General’s Office in 2 jurisdictions (New South Wales & Victoria) conducted reviews of speed camera programs  Addressing community concern over use of cameras  Election commitment made before 2011 State Election

34. NSW Auditor-General’s report (1)  “Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras”  Performance Audit  Acknowledged much public debate  Public submissions invited on how to improve speed camera program and speed management generally  2 issues covered: –were speed cameras located in areas identified as having greatest road safety risk? –do speed cameras reduce speeding and the number and severity of road crashes in these locations?

35. NSW Auditor-General’s report (2)  Findings:  Fixed cameras generally located in areas with high road safety risk  May be other locations for mobile cameras with greater road safety risk than currently used  Speed cameras change driver behaviour and have positive road safety impact overall  Results from individual cameras varied – crashes decreased at some but not others

36. NSW Auditor-General’s report (3)  No evidence that camera sites were chosen based on potential revenue. Site selection based on road safety  No incentives for private contractors to generate more offences (ie contractor payments do not relate to number of offences)  Traffic authority, not contractor, decides site location, roster of enforcement hours, alternative deployment sites  Not all camera locations consistent with site location criteria  Annual review needed of all camera locations as part of overarching strategy.

37. NSW Auditor-General’s report (4)  Need to annually monitor the effectiveness of each camera and publish trends in crashes, revenue, and speeding or infringement data for each camera  Cameras do not change behaviour of high level speeders (ie >45km/hr over the limit)  Less public concern about revenue raised by police speed enforcement (ie not cameras) yet they raise almost same amount of money

38. NSW Auditor-General’s report (5)  93 of 141 fixed camera locations effective with clear road safety benefits.  Noted plan to review and relocate the remaining 38 cameras  But, public ‘outrage’ at this possible removal saw some cameras retained  Current situation....  Some cameras reactivated (not issuing fines)  Small number removed  Ongoing stakeholder consultation to determine future of the remaining questioned cameras

39. NSW Speed Limit Review Audit carried out as part of Govt commitment to reduce ‘annoying’ speed zone changes Review of the top 100 speed zones as nominated by the community 18 speed limits increased, 18 decreased and 12 were a mixture of both Media Release, Minister for Roads and Ports, NSW, 22 March 2012

40. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (1) ‘Sections of the community and media have shown significant interest in the road safety camera program, voicing concerns about whether using cameras is appropriate, the accuracy of cameras, and the validity of infringements. Some allege that the purpose of the road safety camera program is to raise revenue, while major faults such as those of the Western Ring Road fixed speed cameras in 2003 and the 9 incorrect fines issued on the Hume Freeway point-to-point cameras in 2010 have served to erode public confidence in the program’. 2011, p.vii

41. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (2) The Audit examined: – whether there is a sound rationale for the road safety camera program –whether the cameras are sited for road safety outcomes –the accuracy of the camera system, and –whether the public can be confident that an infringement is valid

42. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (3) Key findings: The supporting technology used and camera operations systems provide high degree of confidence that infringements are issued only when clear evidence of speeding or red-light running Processes and controls in place provide a particularly high level of confidence in reliability and integrity of road safety camera system

43. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (4) Revenue generation demonstrably not the primary purpose of camera program In fact, more revenue could be raised through tightening operational polices that provide for some leniency to speeding drivers Deployment and siting of fixed and mobile cameras based on road safety objectives

44. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (5) Further revisions (eg. random deployment of mobile cameras) should strengthen current program Cameras cannot identify a large proportion of speeding motorcyclists Need to address gap in enforcement for motorcyclists

45. Victorian Auditor-General’s report (6) Suggest improvements to allay public perceptions about program integrity & purpose: –Ongoing systematic review and evaluation of fixed cameras on freeways –Program of independent testing of mobile cameras –Need for communication strategy and public education campaigns to specifically address widely held misconceptions of revenue raising and camera inaccuracy –Greater attention to promote positive contribution of road safety camera program in Victoria

46. Attitudes to point-to-point speed enforcement (1) Instead of checking a vehicle’s speed at a single time and location, point-to-point cameras measure the vehicle’s average speed over a distance of several kilometres. Some people think this is a better way of identifying motorists who are deliberately speeding. How would you feel about the use of point-to-point speed enforcement on main roads? Petroulis, 2011

47. Attitudes to point-to-point speed enforcement (2) 2/3 support 1/3 strong support Significantly less likely to support: –Males –Aged 35-39 years –Heavy vehicle or motorcycle licence holders –Regular commuters –Northern Territory

48. High risk groups Representation overall % of fatalities% of serious casualties Motorcycles1% of vehicle-km travelled 1622 Heavy vehicles3% of fleet18%- Motorcycle registrations increased by 56% between 2005-2010. Motorcycle deaths increased by 17% between 2000-2010 Single vehicle crashes account for 42% of motorcyclist deaths Australian Transport Council, 2011

49. Speeding recidivists profiling (1) Speeding offenders in Queensland N = 84, 456 Categorised offenders according to index offence severity –High range –Mid range –Low range offender Watson, Watson, Siskind, & Fleiter, 2009

50. Speeding recidivists profiling (2) Significant differences between high-range offenders compared to low- and mid-range offenders High-range offenders more likely: –Male –Younger –Hold Provisional licence –Hold Motorcycle licence

51. Compared to low- and mid- range offenders... High-range offenders involved in significantly greater proportion of single-vehicle crashes A significantly greater proportion of high-range offenders had ‘speed’ allocated as a contributing circumstance in crash High-range offenders had greater criminal history (sig. more likely to have drug and offences against order than low-range offenders)

52. Speed management priorities (1)  Identify best mix of automatic and manned enforcement  Develop better detection of speeding motorcyclists  Implement innovative strategies like point-to-point (average) enforcement which identifies persistent speeding over longer distances  Implement and evaluate innovative sanctions for reducing speeding recidivism −vehicle impoundment −intelligent speed adaption (ISA) −behaviour change/rehabilitation programs

53. Speed management priorities (2)  Innovative communication strategies needed to: −challenge perception that speeding is okay and that everyone speeds −address community perceptions of enforcement tolerances −challenge perception that low level speeding is safe −encourage voluntary use of ISA (private and fleet vehicles)

54. Thank you, any questions? j.fleiter@qut.edu.au Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (ICADTS T2013) August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre

55. References (1) Auditor-General New South Wales. (2011). Improving Road Safety: Speed Cameras, Road and Traffic Authority - New South Wales Auditor-General’s Report. Auditor-General Victoria (2011). Victorian Auditor-General’s Report: Road Safety Camera Program. Australian Transport Council. (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011 Australian Transport Council, National Road Safety Strategy (2011-2020), http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/national_road_safety_strategy/index.aspx Carnis, L., Rakotonirainy, A., & Fleiter, J. (2008) Speed enforcement programmes in France and Queensland: First elements for a systematic comparison. In High risk road users - motivating behaviour change: what works and what doesn't work? National Conference of the Australasian College of Road Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the Queensland Parliament, 18-19 September 2008, Brisbane. Delaney, A., Ward, H., & Cameron, M. (2005). The history and development of speed camera use Report No. 242 Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre. Fleiter, J. J., & Watson, B. (2006). The speed paradox: the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(2), 23-30.

56. References (2) Media Release, Minister for Roads and Ports, 22 March 2012, SPEED LIMIT REVIEWS COMPLETED ON TOP 100 CORRIDORS Petroulias, T. (2011). Community Attitudes to Road Safety – 2011 Survey Report. In Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Ed.). Canberra. Queensland TMR (2011). Queensland Road Toll Weekly Report No. 689. Year to date to Sunday 10 April 2011. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport & Main Roads. Soole, Fleiter & Watson (2012). Point-to-Point Speed Enforcement: A Technological Overview, Review of the Empirical Evidence,,and Recommendations for Better Practice, CARRS-Q Commercial Research Report commissioned report by Austroads, Australia. Unpublished Soole, D. W., Lennon, A., & Watson, B. (2008). Driver perceptions of police speed enforcement: differences between camera-based and non-camera based methods: results from a qualitative study. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Adelaide. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/17781/1/c17781.pdf Watson, B., Watson, A., Siskind, V. & Fleiter, J. (2009). Characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding offences. Proceedings of the 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Sydney: Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW.