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

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)

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

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

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

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

Data Example

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

Use of Offence and Postcode data

Use of Offence and Postcode data

What is enforcement Saving lives delivering justice

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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

Real life example Cumbria RRW Saving lives delivering justice

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 2003. Cumbria's KSI baseline figure (1994-1998) 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

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

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

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 2003. Cumbria's KSI baseline figure (1994-1998) 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

Layered Enforcement Model Saving lives delivering justice

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

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.