PDA

View Full Version : Victoria's Speed Camera System - Findings from the Auditor General



2002_XC
31st August 2011, 10:41 AM
Today the Auditor General tabled in Parliament findings from their Audit into Victoria's Road Safety Camera program. Since this document is a public document, I thought I'd paste direct from the report how the system works and some findings. the full report is available at www.audit.vic.gov.au (http://www.audit.vic.gov.au)




The audit examined whether there is a sound rationale for the road safety camera program and whether the cameras are sited for road safety outcomes. It also examined the accuracy of the camera system and whether the public can be confident that an infringement is valid.





In 2009–10, 1 156 673 infringements were issued from road safety cameras for speeding and 147 505 for red-light running. These numbers will vary if infringements are withdrawn or reissued. Revenue collected from these infringements amounted to $211.3 million, which is 0.47 per cent of the total general government revenue for 2009–10.





While there can be no absolute guarantee over the accuracy of any system, the processes and controls in place provide a particularly high level of confidence in the reliability and integrity of the road safety camera system.





Accuracy and reliability of the camera system

DOJ has developed appropriate specifications for fixed and mobile camera equipment so that they measure speed accurately and reliably. All camera equipment is tested extensively against these specifications and must demonstrably comply with the specifications before becoming operational.

Maintenance and testing of fixed cameras is comprehensive and methodologically sound. Testing is conducted by appropriately accredited independent organisations. Testing and maintenance of fixed camera equipment, including annual certification testing, is frequent enough to maintain accuracy and reliability.

Maintenance and testing of mobile cameras is sound. During the set up for each mobile camera session, the camera’s speed measurement is required to be tested. This session testing, together with yearly maintenance and certification testing, is frequent enough to maintain a high level of assurance over the accuracy of the cameras. Notwithstanding the fundamental strength of the testing and maintenance regime, even greater assurance could be provided by a program of independent testing under roadside operating conditions.





DOJ has a strong, systematic approach to monitoring the fixed camera network for faults and degradation. The rigour of this approach has increased in response to the major faults detected in the Western Ring Road fixed cameras in 2003. DOJ gets information on camera performance from a comprehensive range of sources including test reports and evidence monitoring. This provides assurance that any faults or degradation of fixed cameras will be identified and rectified quickly.

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 10:45 AM
Validity of infringements

The road safety camera system has a number of mechanisms to provide additional assurance that infringements issued are valid.

A police discretionary enforcement threshold is applied to all speeding infringements detected by speed cameras. This provides a very high level of confidence that drivers issued with an infringement exceeded the speed limit. This enforcement threshold is above that required by the Road Safety Act 1986.


Since 2004, all fixed speed cameras except point-to-point have two separate, independently-designed speed measurement methods. Regardless of how far over the speed limit the primary device records a driver, if the secondary corroborating measurement is not within 2 km/h, an infringement will not be issued. This significantly reduces the likelihood that infringements from fixed speed cameras are invalid.

At the start of each mobile speed camera session, the camera operator is required to compare the camera’s speed measurement against a radar of independent design. If this comparative test does not read within a defined tolerance the session should not proceed. The operator is required to declare in writing each time that this test was performed successfully, and can be called upon to confirm this in court. Nonetheless, independent assurance, such as photographic evidence of the test being carried out, would provide stronger evidence that the test was conducted.

Point-to-point cameras measure average speed. A driver measured by point-to-point cameras as having exceeded the speed limit would have had to maintain a travelling speed significantly above the speed limit for the duration of the camera zone. A secondary corroboration system is currently being installed to provide greater assurance over the validity of infringements issued from this system. Had this been in place since activation, it is unlikely that the nine incorrect Hume Freeway infringements would have been issued in 2010.


For red-light infringements, cameras record two images, one of a vehicle entering the intersection on a red light and a second as the driver continues through the intersection on that red light. Vehicles are only detected and photographed shortly after the change to red. An infringement is issued only if the two photos show that this incident occurred. Furthermore, there can be additional confidence in red-light infringements as drivers can review both photographs.

Before an infringement is issued, the evidence is reviewed to make sure it is valid. There are robust processes in place to verify infringements. These processes are designed to promote verification accuracy, with contractual incentives based on accuracy of verification as opposed to maximising infringements and revenue. After the evidence is verified, Victoria Police further review a sample of lower-level speeding incidents and red-light incidents, and all loss of licence incidents before infringements are issued.

All cameras are subject to independent certification testing, which is used as evidence of camera accuracy in court. Two certification providers are used by DOJ and both meet the requirements of the Road Safety Act 1986. While the record keeping and transparency of documentation of one of the certification providers needs to be improved, VAGO found no shortcomings with certification testing.

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 10:48 AM
One of the most persistent public misconceptions surrounds the purpose of road safety cameras. Government and departmental documents consistently demonstrate that the road safety camera program’s objective is to reduce road trauma and improve road safety outcomes. There is no evidence that the primary purpose of the program is to raise revenue.

Vectracious
31st August 2011, 10:54 AM
sorry to sound cynical, but why does any of this not come as a surprise....

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 10:55 AM
Fines and revenue

During 2009–10, 1 156 673 speeding infringements and 147 505 red-light running infringements were issued from road safety cameras.
The fine structure for 2011–12 is shown in Figure 1D. Legislation determines that the value of a speeding fine depends on the number of kilometres above the speed limit the vehicle was travelling.

Figure 1D
Penalties for road safety infringements

Exceeding the speed limit in a car by: (speed, fine$, demerit points, automatic suspension)

Less than 10 km/h 153 1 n/a
10 km/h – 15 km/h 244 3 n/a
16 km/h – 24 km/h 244 3 n/a
25 km/h – 29 km/h 336 4 1 month
30 km/h – 34 km/h 397 4 1 month
35 km/h – 39 km/h 458 6 6 months
40 km/h – 44 km/h 519 6 6 months
45 km/h or more 611 8 12 months

Red-light running 305 3 n/a

Unregistered vehicle 611 n/a n/a

Revenue from road safety cameras represented about 0.47 per cent of the total general government revenue in 2009–10. This proportion is consistent with the last three financial years where revenue from cameras has represented around 0.50 per cent of total general government revenue.





Evaluations in Victoria and other jurisdictions

Road safety cameras have been extensively evaluated in Victoria and other Australian
and international jurisdictions. These evaluations have consistently found that the use
of road safety cameras is associated with:

• reductions in crash frequency and severity

• reductions in excessive speeding

• increases in compliance with speed limits.
Evaluation of Victoria’s road safety camera program has primarily been conducted by
MUARC. The most recent Victorian road safety camera initiative to be evaluated was
the new fixed intersection cameras, which both measure speed, and detect red-light
running. It is the first major evaluation of combined speed and red-light camera
technology—previous evaluations have only assessed either red-light or fixed speed
cameras.
The evaluation, completed in 2011, examined the impact of the introduction of
77 speed/red-light cameras installed across Victoria. This relatively large number of
sites allowed the evaluation to come to a more robust conclusion. Examining the
before and after effects of a single site cannot give as robust a result, because it might
be affected by chance. By having a larger sample size, there can be greater
confidence that any differences observed are due to the cameras.

Rationale for the road safety camera program

Victorian Auditor-General’s Report Road Safety Camera Program 19

The evaluation found that, on average, after cameras were installed at these sites,
there was a statistically significant reduction in casualty crashes of 47 per cent on the
leg of the intersection where cameras were situated. The evaluation also examined the
rate of crashes for all roads leading to the intersection, not just the road where the
camera is. It found there was a 26 per cent fall in casualty crashes for these roads.
This demonstrates that the cameras are having a positive effect on road safety even
on drivers who are not directly exposed to the camera. Additionally, there was a
44 per cent fall in right-turn crashes, where two vehicles hit at a right angle, which is a
particularly serious type of crash as the vehicle occupants have less protection.
The evaluation estimated that, across the 77 intersections, the cameras had led to
reductions of 17 fatal or serious injury crashes and 36 minor injury crashes per year.
Based on these outcomes, the evaluation recommended that the use of
speed/red-light cameras at intersections should be continued and expanded in Victoria.
VAGO examined the MUARC evaluation to determine the level of reliance that could
be placed on its results and found that:

• The methodology was sound, with a large number of camera sites appropriately
compared to a larger sample of control sites, over extended pre- and
post-camera periods.

• The design assessed all crashes at the intersections, as well as those most likely
to be affected by the initiative such as right-angle, right-turn and rear-end
crashes. It has been common for evaluations of this type to only assess crashes
that occur on the leg of the intersection where the camera is situated and only
consider specific crash types.

• Findings are consistent with findings of evaluations of independent red-light
cameras and fixed speed camera programs in other jurisdictions.

• Conclusions drawn based on the findings and results were appropriate.
As such, there can be a high level of confidence in the results of the evaluation.
These results, supporting the use of cameras to reduce road trauma, are consistent
with the findings of other published evaluations of other aspects of the Victorian
camera program. Examples include evaluations of:

• fixed cameras—fixed speed cameras were first used in Victoria in 2000, in the
Domain Tunnel on the Monash Freeway. MUARC found that, in the tunnel, the
cameras contributed to a fall in average speeds from 75.1 km/h to 72.5 km/h. It
also found that the proportion of vehicles travelling over the speed limit fell from
17.5 per cent to 6 per cent.

Rationale for the road safety camera program

20 Road Safety Camera Program Victorian Auditor-General’s Report

• mobile cameras—in December 2001, a package of road safety initiatives that
focused on the intensification of mobile camera operations was introduced.
Initiatives included a 50 per cent increase in the number of mobile camera hours,
a lower speed detection threshold, reduction of the default speed limit in
residential areas to 50 km/h, and the ‘Wipe Off 5’ campaign. MUARC found a
clear reduction in the number of casualty crashes attributable to the package,
particularly in 40, 50 and 60 km/h zones. The strongest results were in the last
six months of the evaluation, when all of the initiatives had been implemented.
Between July and December 2004, there was a highly statistically significant fall
of 26.7 per cent in fatal crashes and a 10 per cent fall in casualty crashes.
Examples of findings from studies in other jurisdictions are shown in Figure 2D. These
findings are consistent with the Victorian evaluations.

Figure 2D
Evaluations of road safety cameras in other jurisdictions

New South Wales

In 2005, an evaluation of New South Wales’ fixed speed cameras was conducted by ARRB
Transport Research. The evaluation examined changes in crashes and speeding at
28 camera sites on metropolitan and rural freeways and highways. Along the stretches of
road where the cameras were located, there was an 89.8 per cent fall in fatal crashes. The
percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit fell by 71.8 per cent and the percentage of
vehicles speeding by more than 10 km/h fell by 87.9 per cent. Effects on speed and road
trauma lasted up to 4 km from the camera sites.

Queensland

In 2009, MUARC evaluated the performance of Queensland’s mobile speed camera
program. The evaluation found a 40.4 per cent fall in fatal and serious injury crashes,
50.7 per cent fall in crashes requiring medical treatment and a 31.2 per cent fall in all
crashes.

United Kingdom

In 2005, a national evaluation of 502 fixed camera sites and 1 448 mobile camera sites was
completed. The evaluation found that fatal and serious injury crashes fell by 42.1 per cent.
There was an overall fall in free speeds and a 31 per cent fall in the number of vehicles
exceeding the speed limit.

France

In 2003, France introduced road safety cameras to combat a high road toll and by 2007 it
had 2 000 cameras. Between 2002 and 2005, fatalities on French roads fell by over
30 per cent. Fatal and serious injury crashes fell by between 40 and 65 per cent within 6 km
of camera sites. Average speeds fell by 5 km/h and the number of drivers speeding by more
than 30 km/h fell by 80 per cent.

Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office based on reports by ARRB Transport Research,
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Department for Transport (United Kingdom), and
World Health Organisation.

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 10:56 AM
sorry to sound cynical, but why does any of this not come as a surprise....

its been the first time a report such as this has been released. it is spot on in relation to the maintenance and testing, and the use of a secondary corroborating device.

poita
31st August 2011, 11:09 AM
so to summarise for those too lazy to read it, ie me

sooty
31st August 2011, 11:17 AM
Makes for good reading, anything over 25km/h is automatic loss of licence, is that new under hoon laws? The one month auto susp

Vectracious
31st August 2011, 11:39 AM
its been the first time a report such as this has been released. it is spot on in relation to the maintenance and testing, and the use of a secondary corroborating device.

thats fine about the maintenance, I was talking about the "There is no evidence that the primary purpose of the program is to raise revenue"

2 things about that statement....

- the AG has gotten all the info from the government/department and not independently.

Government and departmental documents consistently demonstrate that the road safety camera program’s objective is to reduce road trauma and improve road safety outcomes


- the wording primary purpose
Interesting that they say that - and not just "purpose" or just "There is no evidence of the program being used to raise revenue"

And no, I won't take the foil hat off :p

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 11:55 AM
Makes for good reading, anything over 25km/h is automatic loss of licence, is that new under hoon laws? The one month auto susp

that's always been law.

Nurb608
31st August 2011, 11:57 AM
Makes for good reading, anything over 25km/h is automatic loss of licence, is that new under hoon laws? The one month auto susp

Been out for quite a while now. It replaced the 30km/h rule.

Nurb608
31st August 2011, 11:58 AM
that's always been law.

Maybe in your history, lol. But it was 30 when I was younger.

*awaits old jokes*

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 11:59 AM
Maybe in your history, lol. But it was 30 when I was younger.

*awaits old jokes*

are you awaiting them to be translated into braile because your eyesight is failing? or waiting for your hearing aid to charge up?

Nurb608
31st August 2011, 12:03 PM
are you awaiting them to be translated into braile because your eyesight is failing? or waiting for your hearing aid to charge up?

My hearing was fine before i got married :lol:

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 12:13 PM
:p .

gman
31st August 2011, 03:25 PM
My hearing was fine before i got married :lol:

You'll pay for that one later on mate, but fair call... ;)

It was 45+KPH over when I first got my license... (awaits older jokes....)

Nurb608
31st August 2011, 03:53 PM
It was 45+KPH over when I first got my license... (awaits older jokes....)

I don't feel that bad now :)

ChrisMaz
31st August 2011, 05:20 PM
I didn't realise Horse and Cart could even get to 45KPH?

2002_XC
31st August 2011, 05:58 PM
:rofl1: