safety cameras are in use has fallen by 40%, transport secretary
Alistair Darling announced today. This equates to over 100 fewer
deaths a year.
The results come from an independent report evaluating the first
three years of the safety camera scheme and coincide with the
publication of details of every site where a camera may be used,
including data on the reasons for their approval and the impact they
have had on casualties.
The three year report covering 24 partnerships shows:
Effect on casualties at camera sites - beyond the long-term downward
* There was a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or
seriously injured (KSI)
* There were 870 fewer KSIs per year, including over 100 fewer
* There was a 33% fall in injury accidents - 4,030 fewer per year
* There was a 35% reduction in pedestrians killed or seriously
Effect on speed
* Average speeds at new sites fell by around 7% or 2.4mph
* Average speed at urban sites fell by around 8%
* The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71%
* 79% of people asked support the use of cameras to reduce
* The benefit to society through casualties saved is about£221
million per year.
Mr Darling said:
'These figures prove that cameras save lives. The number of people
speeding has come down and there has been a significant reduction in
deaths and injuries at camera sites.
'Up to ten people are killed on our roads each day. We owe it to them
and their families to do everything we can to improve road safety
'Most camera sites have achieved good results. We will be asking the
partnerships where results were not as good as other sites to see
what more could be done to achieve the greatest casualty reductions.'
The release of the casualty data coincides with the publication of
detailed camera site data. This shows the location of every approved
camera site and gives the road safety justification.
Mr Darling added:
'We've published the location of every site where a camera may be
used. These show why the cameras were installed and the effect they
have had on casualties. The vast majority have delivered real
benefits in safety and prove that the cameras are justified and
'I have asked the partnerships who operate the cameras to take a look
at the details of the sites. It is for them to ensure that the
cameras which have had less impact on reducing casualties are needed
and are still the best road safety solution.'
The following tables show the casualty reduction at camera sites.
Table 1 shows the reduction in killed and seriously injured in the
partnerships who have been in the scheme for 18 months or more.
Estimates of the combined effect on KSIs of cameras operating under
cost recovery for more at least eighteen months, by partnership area
Overall effect on KSIs
North Wales -68%
Nottingham (City) -33%
Thames Valley -43%
**Although Cleveland and Essex had reductions in the frequency of
KSIs at camera sites, there was insufficient data for the model to
produce reliable estimates for these areas.
Estimates of the combined effect on Personal Injury Collisions (i.e.
all severities) of cameras operating under cost recovery, by
Effect on Personal Injury Collisions (per annum)
Effect on Personal Injury Collisions
Name Effect on PICs
Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire
- Avon and Somerset -13%
- Gloucestershire -23%
North Wales -41%
- Nottingham (City) -16%
- Nottinghamshire (excluding City) -12%
South and Mid Wales - South Wales -32%
- Dyfed-Powys -28%
- Gwent -39%
South Yorkshire -60%
Thames Valley -28%
West Yorkshire -72%
** Although Hampshire and Strathclyde had reductions in the frequency
of PICs at camera sites, there was insufficient data for the model to
produce reliable estimates for these areas.
1. The independent report was commissioned by the Road Safety
Division of the Department for Transport and produced by University
College London and PA Consulting Group.
2. The three year report and data on individual camera sites are
available at www.dft.gov.uk
3. For cameras installed before a partnership joined the programme
the data in column G shows the average annual KSI casualty before the
site was brought into the programme. This may reflect a period after
the site was established. As such the camera may have already reduced
casualties which the table would not show.
4. The pilot system began in April 2000 and lasted until March 2002.
The eight areas involved were: Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire,
Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames
Valley. National roll-out began with a first tranche in October 2001
and added safety camera partnerships for Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire,
Lancashire, Norfolk, North Wales, Staffordshire and Warwickshire. In
a second tranche Avon, Somerset and Gloucestershire, Bedfordshire,
Hampshire, Leicestershire, London, joined the scheme in April 2002.
5. Casualty reduction for those counties appears in this report.
Other counties have since joined the scheme but after the scope of
this report. They are: From July 2002: Dorset, Kent & Medway, London
(metropolitan and city). From October 2002: Devon & Cornwall,
Hertfordshire, Sussex, West Midlands, Grampian. Joined 2003:
Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Humberside, North Yorkshire,
Northumbria, Suffolk, West Mercia, Lothian & Borders, Dumfries &
Galloway, Tayside, Northern Ireland.
6. All casualty and accident reductions shown take account of the
long-term national trend.