An Open Access Journal
Table 1 The French CA and the British SCP compared
From: A neo-institutional economic approach to automated speed enforcement systems
France | Great-Britain | ||
Contrôle Automatisé (CA) | Speed Camera Programme (SCP) | ||
Operational dimensions | Types of devices | • Fixed and mobile devices | • Fixed and mobile devices |
Transparency | • Signaled locations for the fixed sites | • Signaled locations for the fixed sites and mobile cameras | |
• Covert operations for the mobile controls | • Available information for the fixed sites on the Department for Transport and the local partnerships websites | ||
• Available information on the Department of Transportation website concerning the locations for the fixed sites | • Yellow box for fixed speed camera and identifiable vehicle for mobile speed camera | ||
• Handbook for the working of the system | |||
Communications policy | • Essentially media coverage | • Communication provided by the national office and by the local partnerships | |
System density | • 2,346 cameras (1,512 fixed cameras, 834 mobile cameras) | • 5,000 cameras (51% for fixed devices) | |
• 1 camera per 27,700 inhabitants | • 1 camera per 12,000 inhabitants | ||
• 5.9 cameras per 1,000 kilometers of road network | • 12.8 cameras per 1,000 kilometers of road network | ||
• 0.06 camera per 1,000 vehicles (February 2009) | • 0.17 camera per 1,000 vehicles (2006) | ||
Working modalities | • Continuous detection for fixed sites | • Random use for fixed sites. | |
• Random and discontinuous use of mobile devices | • Random and discontinuous use of mobile devices | ||
Technical dimensions | Legal framework | • Law of 12 June 2003 | • Road Traffic Act of 1991 |
• Decree of 27 October 2003 | • Vehicles Crime Act of 2001 | ||
• Interministerial Order of 13 October 2003 | |||
Funding | • Direct Funding by government | • Hypothecation, netting-off or self-funding rule | |
• Creation of the ‘Compte d’affectation speciale’. This account is specially dedicated for the funding of the system (operation and expansion) (Programme 751) | • Since April 2007, direct funding by Department for Transport | ||
• Best Value Principle (Economic, Efficiency, Effectiveness) | |||
Sanctions policy | • 68 euros for SEa < 20 kph for speed limit >50 kph | • Fixed Penalty Notice of 60 £ + 3 demerit points | |
• 135 euros for SE > 20 kph for speed limit >50 kph and for SE < 20 for speed limit <50 kph | • Reflections on a Graduated Fixed Penalties for speeding offences | ||
• 1,500 euros for SE > 50 kph Demerit points according the importance of the speed offence | |||
Site Selection Criteria | • No official criteria. Selected site has to be concerned with road accident victims, speed problems, or impossibility of operating a manual speed control | • Six main criteria : number of road accidents victims, 85th percentile speed, site conditions, site requirements, suitability of site for camera enforcement... | |
Organizational dimension | Organizational Structure | • DPICA: strategy and management | • Until April 2007, National Safety Camera Board, Safety Camera Programme Office + Safety Camera Local Partnerships |
• CNT: operation of the system | • After April 2007: Local Transport Plan + Department for Transport | ||
• Préfets (Official of the government at the Departemental level): coordination of speed enforcement policy and proposition for the location of fixed sites | |||
Operator | • Automated system for fixed sites | • Police forces | |
• Police Nationale and Gendarmerie Nationale | • Private operators for specific tasks at Central Ticket Office (CTO) and civil servants | ||
• Private operators for maintenance and for specific tasks at the Traffic Camera Office (Centre National de Traitement), and civil servants | |||
Interaction with the manual controls | • Complementary means | • Substitution process | |
• Allocation of saved police resources toward other speed control initiatives and toward other traffic safety duties | • Reduction of the number of policemen assigned to traffic safety duties | ||
Means | Context | • 14th July Presidential Address | • 2000: Experimental sites with the netting-off system |
• Traffic safety as a top national priority. | • A “mismatch” in terms of costs and benefits “was identified between those responsible for purchase and installation of cameras and those financing their subsequent operation and supporting enforcement” | ||
Resources | • Costs: 194 million euros (1998) | • Costs: £ 95.8 millions (for 2003/2004) | |
Objectives | • Reduction of road accident victims | •“A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured by 2010” | |
• 3,000 road deaths for 2012 | |||
Resultsb | Speed | • Reduction of 10 kph for the average speed on the road network (2002–2008) | • Reduction of 2.2 mph of average speed |
• Reduction of 70% in the proportion of passenger cars breaking the speed limit | • Proportion of vehicles breaking the speed limit: −31% | ||
• Reduction of 86% in excessive speeding (>30 kph) and 90% for excessive speeding (>40 kph) | • Excessive speeding (>15 mph): −51% (source: 4 year evaluation report) | ||
Traffic Hazards | • A 40% reduction of road fatalities (2002–2008) | • People killed or seriously injured at camera sites: −42% | |
• 12,000 saved lives since the implementation of CA (Government estimates). | • Injury collisions at camera sites: −22% (source: 4 year evaluation report) | ||
Evaluation | • Administrative evaluations not available for the general public | • Monitoring for casualty and collision data | |
• Evaluation report on the effects of CSA [29] | • Annual budget approval | ||
• MP report on the financial sustainability of the CA | • Financial Quarterly Reporting Year-End Audit Arrangements | ||
• Annual reports | |||
Financial approaches | • Economic gains are not estimated | • In 2003/04, £ 258 million saved. | |
• Regulatory budget approachc | • Benefit-cost ratio = 2.7 | ||
• Revenue (fines) = 550 million euros (2009) | • Revenue (fines) = £ 118,6 millions | ||
Social acceptability | • Regular polls | • High level of public support for the use of cameras for reducing casualties (82% agree) | |
• 68% of people support the ASE (2006) | • 85% of all local press coverage is positive or neutral | ||
• High proportions of people supporting the idea that the ASE system is efficient to reduce speed and increase traffic safety | • 71% of people agree that the primary use of cameras was to save lives | ||
• High proportions of people supporting the ideas that the ASE system is fair and reliable. | • Destruction of cameras by minority groups | ||
• Destruction of cameras | • Strong opposition coming from association of drivers | ||
• Opposition coming from media (road user magazine) |