Page 1827 - Week 06 - Thursday, 14 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Directing camera revenue back to road safety sounds impressive but for the ACT it would really just be a drop in the ocean compared with the amount the ACT government spends each year on road safety through road safety infrastructure improvements, vehicle inspections, driver training and testing, road safety awareness and education programs, legislation and policy reforms, and policing. The cost of these functions goes well beyond the approximately $12 million in penalties from road safety cameras.
The effect that hypothecation has on improving community attitudes is also unproven. However, I suspect that some in our community are unlikely to change their views on cameras no matter what we do. Whatever the case, the best way of changing community attitudes is to get the strategic operation of the cameras right and then be able to show, through evaluations, the effect they have on reducing speeds and crashes.
Improving the community’s understanding about the role and use of road safety cameras is also important. The Justice and Community Safety Directorate will implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General’s review by publishing and promoting information about the purpose, performance and effectiveness of the speed camera systems. This will include improved community engagement by inviting participation, input and feedback on the use of cameras in the ACT.
The Auditor-General recommended that the government evaluate the ACT road safety camera program and develop and implement a speed camera strategy. In March 2014 it was announced that the University of New South Wales had been engaged to undertake an evaluation of the ACT’s road safety camera program. The evaluation was to include an analysis of the camera program as a whole, including its impact on speed and crashes. As well as the statistical analysis, the evaluation was to include a literature review to provide guidance for developing options for improved strategic and operational management and governance, including future and ongoing evaluation of the cameras.
The evaluation found that mean percentile speeds reduced by six to eight per cent on roads with mobile cameras in the first few years after their introduction in 1999. This reduction in speeds coincided with a 25 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in serious injury crashes on roads where the cameras were being used.
A rising trend in serious injury crashes was identified from 2006 when the number of mobile camera operations undertaken in the ACT decreased by around 30 per cent. This was mostly due to ageing camera equipment which became prone to breaking down—an issue which was resolved last year with the replacement of all mobile cameras. This demonstrates that mobile camera enforcement must remain at sufficiently visible levels to ensure the effectiveness of this type of speed enforcement.
The evaluation also showed that serious injury crashes at red light camera intersections dropped. The report does not include a statistical analysis of crash impacts of fixed mid-block cameras as pre-2011 crash data does not accurately identify the crash location on the mid-block. A statistical analysis of crash impacts for point-to-point cameras could not be undertaken as these are recent installations and insufficient data was available for a meaningful analysis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video