speed enforcement in australia: a changing policy landscape shaped by public opinion dr judy...

Speed enforcement in Australia:A changing policy landscape

shaped by public opinionDr Judy Fleiter

CRICOS No. 00213J

Brake - International Congress on Speed 17 May 2012

London

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

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

Australia

Brisbane

22.8 million people

12.4 million registeredpassenger 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

Australian Road Deaths:Improvements from 1970-2010

30.4 deaths/100,000 people 6.1 deaths/100,000 people

With a 2-fold increase in vehicles & 50% growth in population

International Comparisons, 2009

Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD)

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

Improvements in Road Safety in Queensland since 1967

CRICOS No. 00213J

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percentage of fatalities involving speeding drivers/riders in Queensland

Year

%

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011

One of the ‘Fatal 4’

SpeedingDrink drivingFatigue – driving tiredNon-use of Seatbelts

Percentage of speeding infringements per penalty category, Queensland

< 13 13-20 21-30 31-40 40+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40.3

50.7

7.61 0.4

Km/hour above the speed limit

% o

f inf

ringe

men

ts

Queensland Transport, 2008

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)

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

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


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


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


Camera type

NSW Victoria Western Australia

Queensland South Australia

Fixed 172 in 141 locations

62 +10 P2P

6 (planned) 9 + 4 in a tunnel

+ 1 P2P

1

Mobile 6 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)

Safety 77 red

light/speed

175 23 red light/speed + 7 planned

0 77 red light/speed

NSW Auditor-General Report, 2011

Point-to-point speed enforcement (1)

Jurisdiction Specifications Vehicles Date implemented

Victoria 5 camera sites along 54 km of major highway, bi-directional measurement

All vehicles 1st 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/hr All vehicles Feb 2012

Queensland 1 site on major highway (14.7 km), 110 km/hr throughout section, uni-directional

All vehicles Dec 2011

Soole, Fleiter & Watson, 2012

Point-to-point speed enforcement (2)

Jurisdiction Specifications Vehicles

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 considering Propose all

Tasmania Currently developing business case for trial

Propose all

Northern Territory

Not currently considering -

Soole, Fleiter & Watson, 2012

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



• 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


• 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.


• 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


• 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


• 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


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

The importance of community perceptions

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


‘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

The Speed Paradox


‘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


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

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?


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


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.


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


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

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

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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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

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

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

High risk groups

Representation overall

% of fatalities % of serious casualties

Motorcycles 1% of vehicle-km travelled

16 22

Heavy vehicles 3% of fleet 18% -

• 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


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

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

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)

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

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)

Thank you, any questions?

[email protected]

Mark your Diaries!International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety

Conference (ICADTS T2013)August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre

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.

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.

speed enforcement in australia: a changing policy landscape shaped by public opinion dr judy...

Documents