1. “Safe speeds” Data for a safer system Road Safety Support Jan Sjorup
Saving lives delivering justice

2. Data for a safer system
UK ran the National Safety Camera programme between 2000 to 2007, Monitoring and evaluating the programme using national rules and guidelines, collecting data nationally to measure the effectiveness of enforcement cameras.
(UK is the only country to have done this at a national level)

3. Resulted in Two year evaluation Three year evaluation
Data for a safer system
Resulted in
Two year evaluation
Three year evaluation
Four year evaluation 24 38 8

4. Communication survey’s
Data for a safer system
Typical data utilised
Stats 19 collision data
Speed survey’s
Offence
Engineering surveys
Communication survey’s
Provided a national standard for
Monitoring and evaluation
National Program

5. Data for a safer system
Data collected under the programme provided the intelligence for the future planning, implementation and evaluation of enforcement strategies at both a local, national level and seen as a benchmark internationally.
Other national independent studies enforced the conclusion: That cameras are an effective tool at reducing Road casualties

6. Data for a safer system 40% KSI Reduction 42% KSI Reduction
Four year Report
Three year Report
40% KSI Reduction
42% KSI Reduction

7. Data Example

8. Use of Offence and Postcode data Measurement of camera effectiveness Average Speed
Post code area
Offenders %
Northampton
4126
37%
Milton Keynes
4041
36%
Luton
512 5%
Stevenage
507
Leicester
256 2%
Peterborough
240

9. Use of Offence and Postcode data

10. Use of Offence and Postcode data

11. What is enforcement
Saving lives delivering justice

12. What is enforcement Sound Legislation is the basis of law enforcement
Traffic speed
Compliance
Deterrence
General and specific
Sound Legislation is the basis of law enforcement
Subjective risk
of apprehension
Legislation sufficient
for compliance
Objective risk
of apprehension
Enforcement: how does it work?
The basis of traffic law enforcement is legislation, and the ultimate aim is to achieve compliance
with this legislation. Whether drivers comply with traffic rules depends on the advantages and
disadvantages of doing so and their relative value. Figure shows a simplified model of the
mechanisms for traffic law enforcement. The direct line from legislation to compliance in diagram
reflects those people for whom legislation is sufficient to make them comply. Police enforcement must
be seen as a way to influence those for whom that is not the case.
Enforcement is based on the principle that people try to avoid a penalty, which is a disadvantage
of not complying with the rules. The actual amount of enforcement activities determines the objective
risk of apprehension. This objective risk of apprehension in turn affects the subjective risk of
apprehension, i.e. the risk people believe there is. The subjective risk of apprehension can be increased
by specific enforcement strategies and, very importantly, by publicity campaigns and attention to
enforcement activities in the media. If the probability of apprehension is considered to be high and
apprehension is followed by a fine or other sanction, most people will refrain from traffic law
infringements. In this way, the subjective risk of apprehension provides the desired deterrence effect.
In this respect,
a distinction must be made between specific deterrence effect for those who are
actually caught and the general deterrence effect for those who have not (yet) been caught.
Enforcement
Activities
Legislation

13. Types of Speed enforcement Strategy
Red Amber Green (RAG)
Random Road Watch (RRW)

14. Types of Speed enforcement Strategy
Red Amber Green (RAG):
Sites are selected on there casualty record and enforcement prioritised dependant on the worst affected sites.
Local criteria based on Dft Guidelines used to select site based on:
Casualty record
Speed
Engineering issues
Used for Fixed & Mobile camera enforcement (not mandatory)

15. Red Amber Green (RAG enforcement)
Effective at reducing casualties at specific sites (45% to 89% casualty reduction achieved). limits general deterrence over greater area
2006 Dft recognised that continuance in existing enforcement policy would only maintain existing reduction. “ see graph below”
Provision in 06/07 guidelines to adopt Route enforcement.

16. Types of Speed enforcement Strategy
Random Road Watch (RRW): The randomness of enforcement is a major determinant of driver’s subjective assessment of risk of apprehension. The exact location and time of speed enforcement should be unknown to drivers. The unpredictability of enforcement will increase the effects in terms of time and space. Enforcement activities are best rotated randomly. RRW is a enforcement resource management technique that randomly schedules levels of enforcement with the aim of realizing long-term, widespread coverage of a road network. Evidence from the Australia scheme showed benefit/cost ratio for the programme was estimated to be 55:1.

17. Types of Speed enforcement Strategy
Random Road Watch (RRW):
Sites are selected for maximum visibility at different times on routes and locations to increase “subjected apprehension” and hence the “General Deterrence” of being detected and prosecuted.
Phased in over time on routes and sites.
Public awareness campaign at program introduction
It is interesting to note that speeds in France already began decreasing with the announcement of the automatic speed control programme, even before the first speed cameras were actually installed.
Increases “Perceived Perception of Enforcement” using limited resources
Most effective for Mobile enforcement

18. Types of Speed enforcement Strategy
Random Road Watch (RRW):
Randomisation of enforcement enhances the deterrent effect giving the impression of a large-scale enforcement effort
Implementation provides a further step change that aids speed and casualty reduction.
Known to be particularly effective in reducing fatal casualties
Australia evidence suggests 31% reduction in fatal casualties over 18 months “Newstead et al”
Cumbria observed similar results. (2007 to 2011)

19. Halo effect Time halo’ can be defined as the length of time that the
effects of enforcement on drivers’ speed behaviour continue after the enforcement operations have ended.
• The effects of visible camera operations along the road side tend to dissipate after 3 days. 3 2 1
Days

20. Halo effect Distance Halo
Defined as the distance over which the effects of an enforcement operation last after a driver passed the enforcement site.
• Larger distance halo effects can be achieved if the enforcement method is ‘randomised’. The minimum distance halo effect found at fixed
speed camera sites (500 m) is almost five times smaller than the minimum distance halo effect of physical policing (2.4 km)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Meters

21. Real life example Cumbria RRW
Saving lives delivering justice

22. The Problem 2003 – County Perspective
71 the Maximum number of KSI casualties that could be dealt with by enforcing cluster sites under Dft guidelines
The Cumbria Safety camera partnership was set up in April 2003, based on the Safety camera pilot schemes that were run around the country between 2000 and Cumbria's KSI baseline figure ( ) was 555 KSI casualties a 40% reduction to meet the 2010 target was 333.
The Dft approved 43 sites that had been identified as KSI cluster sites these were treated with both Fixed and Mobile enforcement between 2003 and 2007 under the Dft hypothecation rules and guidelines. The total figure at the core sites was 71 KSI. This is the figure that the safety camera programme would directly address.
555 KSI Casualties spread around the county

23. Area of Influence (Halo)
The illustration shows that there has been a direct influence on onsite casualties because they reduced by 77.5% but on the rest of the network that reduction was much less at 20%.The illustration shows that there is an off site influence but it is minimal. Ideally it would be necessary to enforce the entire network, however this is not practical. A practical and affordable method of creating an influence over the whole network was required.
On-Site Reduction 77.5%, Off-Site 20% between 2003 to 2006

24. RRW – Increase Area of Influence
Under the “the netting off system” the area of influence is confined by the areas bounded by the Police enforcement camera signs. Driver behaviour is modified by the signs. However as well as reducing speed within the signs. Speed is often increased outside of the signs (camera surfing). As drivers are aware of the enforcement boundaries.
RRW Sites introduced from 2007

25. 9 the number of KSI casualties at cluster sites
Outcome 2010 – County Perspective
The Cumbria Safety camera partnership was set up in April 2003, based on the Safety camera pilot schemes that were run around the country between 2000 and Cumbria's KSI baseline figure ( ) was 555 KSI casualties a 40% reduction to meet the 2010 target was 333.
The Dft approved 43 sites that had been identified as KSI cluster sites these were treated with both Fixed and Mobile enforcement between 2003 and 2007 under the Dft hypothecation rules and guidelines. The total figure at the core sites was 71 KSI. This is the figure that the safety camera programme would directly address.
9 the number of KSI casualties at cluster sites
194 KSI Casualties seen in 2010

26. Layered Enforcement Model
Saving lives delivering justice

27. Layered Enforcement Model
Layer 6 Average Speed Camera
Data Publicised
Layer 5 Fixed Core spot cameras
Installed under Dft Hypothecation criteria
Data publicised
Layer 4 Mobile core site enforcement
Selected under Dft Hypothecation criteria
Layer 3 Community Concern
Mobile enforcement
Layer 2 Random Road Watch
Layer 1 Traditional Police enforcement
Officer Stops
Layer 6
Layer 5
Layer 4
Layer 3
Layer 2
Layer 1

28. Layered Enforcement Model
Communications
All Layers need to be accompanied by an effective communication campaign to increase drivers perceived perception of enforcement so as to increase subjective apprehension and overall general deterrence. .
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layered enforcement provides an overall enforcement solution that can be tailored to suit partnership requirements using the best practice of all enforcement strategies
Enforcement layers work together to enhance the Halo effect throughout the road network, increasing subjective apprehension and general deterrence to affect driver behaviour, reduce speed and road casualties throughout the enforcement area.