Victorian Auditor-General’s report
31 August 2011

Road Safety Camera Program

Audit summary
Road trauma is a significant concern of the community and government. In 2010, there were 4 503 crashes on public roads that resulted in fatality or serious injury, with 288 people dying on Victoria’s roads. Road trauma costs the Victorian economy an estimated $3.8 billion a year. 
While road crashes are caused by a variety of interacting factors, speeding and red‑light running have been identified as significant factors. Speeding is identified as the primary cause of about a third of road casualties each year. Speeding increases the likelihood of a crash, with even small increases above the speed limit resulting in a significantly greater risk of crashing. Furthermore, the faster a vehicle is travelling, the greater the severity of the crash and the likelihood of fatality and serious injury. Red‑light running is similarly linked with crash risk and severity. Crashes at major metropolitan intersections account for around 20 per cent of all fatal and serious injury crashes. Around 20 per cent of injury crashes that occur at intersections involve red‑light running.
The road safety camera program has been operating since 1983 and is a component of Victoria’s current road safety strategy, arrive alive 2008–2017, which aims to reduce road trauma by 30 per cent. Road safety cameras are an enforcement approach that is intended to improve the behaviour of road users. Mobile and fixed speed cameras aim to enforce speed limits and deter drivers from speeding, and fixed red-light cameras aim to deter drivers from running red lights. 
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 These numbers will vary if infringements are withdrawn or reissued.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.
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 nine incorrect fines issued on the Hume Freeway point-to-point cameras in 2010 have served to erode public confidence in the program.
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. 
Conclusions
Road safety cameras improve road safety and reduce road trauma, and their ongoing use as an enforcement tool remains appropriate. The supporting technology used and the way the camera system operates provide a high degree of confidence that infringements are issued only where there is clear evidence of speeding or red-light running.
A strong body of research shows road safety cameras improve the behaviour of road users, and reduce speeding and road crashes. Cameras cannot differentiate between different road-users groups with varying levels of road trauma risk. However, at‑risk groups are appropriately targeted by non-camera approaches within the broader arrive alive 2008–2017 road safety strategy.
Any program that aims to deter dangerous and risky behaviour through the use of fines will generate revenue, but this is demonstrably not the primary purpose of the road safety camera program. In fact, more revenue could be raised through tightening operational policies that provide for some leniency to speeding drivers and therefore reduce the number of infringements issued.
The deployment and siting of fixed and mobile cameras is based on the road safety objectives of the program. Further revisions to operational approaches, such as random deployment of mobile cameras, should however strengthen the program. 
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.
There are aspects of the program that can be further strengthened to allay public perceptions about its integrity and purpose. First, the lack of past evaluations of fixed speed cameras on freeways, and failure to provide for the ongoing, systematic review of their efficacy is a gap in Victoria’s evaluation program. Second, mobile cameras warrant a program of independent testing of their accuracy under actual operating conditions—as is the case for fixed cameras.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) can also more purposefully develop and manage its communication and public education programs to specifically address the widely held misconceptions that the road safety camera program’s primary purpose is to raise revenue and that the cameras are inaccurate. In addition, greater attention to promoting the positive contribution the road safety camera program makes to Victoria’s road safety is needed.
Findings
Rationale for the road safety camera program
The road safety camera program is part of a broader road safety strategy, arrive alive 2008–2017, that is based on the road safety principles of the Safe System approach. The Safe System approach forms the basis of the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 and is acknowledged by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations as the optimal approach for improving road safety. 
Of arrive alive’s three focus areas, the road safety camera program is a component of safer road users, which aims to improve the behaviour of road users. The rationale for attempting to change driver behaviour to reduce speed and red-light running is sound. Both behaviours increase the risk and severity of crashes, and improvements in these behaviours should result in less road trauma. Enforcement mechanisms, including road safety cameras, are effective in changing dangerous driver behaviour. 
Australian and international evaluations strongly support using road safety cameras to improve road safety. These evaluations have consistently found that cameras improve road safety outcomes through reduced speeding, fewer crashes and less road trauma.  
Evaluations of Victoria’s mobile cameras and fixed speed/red-light cameras demonstrate their effectiveness in reducing the frequency and severity of road trauma. However, there are gaps in Victoria’s research program. Fixed speed cameras on freeways have not been extensively evaluated in Victoria, and point-to-point cameras have never been evaluated. 
Cameras cannot differentiate between road user groups that may have different levels of road trauma risk. At-risk road user groups are appropriately targeted by a range of road safety measures, which can include cameras. Motorcyclists are 30 times more likely to experience road trauma. However, because some cameras can only record front numberplates, camera coverage over motorcyclists is limited by the lack of front numberplates with which to identify risky road users. 
Siting cameras for road safety outcomes
Since 2007, fixed camera siting has been informed by sound criteria based on road safety outcomes and not on maximising revenue. These criteria address factors known to increase crash risk and severity, as well as considering the physical suitability of a site.
DOJ systematically prioritises sites for fixed cameras at intersections. However, due to the lack of available research evidence, it does not have a similar systematic approach for prioritising sites for other types of fixed camera sites. 
Mobile cameras are deployed across about 2 000 sites that must be physically suitable and satisfy at least one of four deployment criteria. Deployment criteria are based on a site’s crash likelihood and crash severity risk. The use of such criteria is consistent with other jurisdictions. However, using deployment criteria limits the ability of police to site cameras ‘anywhere, any time’. Furthermore, these criteria could create and reveal siting patterns, which local drivers could identify and then adjust their behaviour accordingly. Application of deployment criteria could reduce the effectiveness of the mobile camera program in reducing speeds generally across the road network. There has been no research in Victoria to determine whether the current approach for siting mobile cameras is optimal. 
Local police determine the monthly deployment of mobile cameras to approved sites based on local priorities. However, this approach may also reduce the effectiveness of mobile cameras, in comparison to other approaches such as random deployment. Mobile cameras are not deployed often enough at night, are deployed in discernible patterns and are being used in effect as ‘fixed cameras’ by being regularly located at single locations. Consequently, there is an increased likelihood that the general deterrence effect of the mobile camera system would be diminished.
Publishing the weekly roster of mobile camera sites is also inconsistent with the program’s aim to create general deterrence. Given the connection between speeding and road trauma, and the demonstrated effect of cameras in reducing speeding, there is a likelihood of increased adverse road safety outcomes as a result of this practice. This is particularly so in areas of country Victoria where residents can identify local areas where there is no mobile camera enforcement. 
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. 
Performance of mobile camera equipment is monitored and managed by the mobile program provider. Regular robust mechanisms for detecting equipment faults and degradation, including session checks, continuous monitoring of evidence, and annual workshop maintenance provide confidence that cameras are only used if they are operating in accordance with technical specification requirements. 
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.
Public communications about the program
In contrast to the integrity and strength of the road safety camera program, the road safety partners have not adequately addressed public concerns surrounding the program’s purpose, effectiveness and integrity. Some common misconceptions are shown in Figure 1, including references to the sections of the report that relate to these misconceptions.
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.
On the contrary, reasonable police operational decisions and the discretionary enforcement threshold afford leniency to speeding drivers that reduces potential revenue.
Prior to 2011, the road safety partners had not developed an adequate, coordinated communication strategy to counter negative misconceptions. However, DOJ has progressively increased the amount of information available about the program to the public. During the conduct of this audit, DOJ developed a communication strategy aimed at addressing public concerns regarding road safety cameras. This meets the requirements of a sound communications strategy, and includes a plan to evaluate all future communications initiatives.
Figure 1 
Common misconceptions concerning the road safety camera program
Misconception	VAGO’s evidence against misconception	Page	
The purpose of the road safety camera program is to raise revenue	Government and departmental documents consistently state the purpose of the road safety camera program is improving road safety outcomes and that decisions around camera siting are based on improving road safety outcomes.
Operational procedures limit the total potential revenue generated by the program.
A police discretionary enforcement threshold above the speed limit is applied. More revenue could be raised if this was not applied. 	59–60	
Low-level speeding is safe 	Even small increases above speed limits are dangerous. Research shows that driving 5 km/h over the limit in a 60 km/h zone doubles the risk of crashing. 
For pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, small increases in speed substantially increase the severity of road trauma experienced. 	14–16	
Road safety cameras don’t reduce road trauma	An extensive body of research and evaluations both throughout Australia and overseas have demonstrated that road safety cameras result in improved road safety outcomes including lower speeds and reductions in fatalities and serious injuries from crashes.	17–20	
Road safety cameras are sited to maximise revenue	Fixed and mobile road safety cameras are sited according to criteria based on road safety objectives. There are no incentives for police or other agencies involved in siting decisions to encourage siting based on maximising revenue.	26–28, 30–32	
Speed cameras should not be placed on freeways because freeways are safe	While freeways are often well designed and constructed roads, the large traffic volumes and high speeds of freeways reduce the inherent safety of these roads and mean that crashes are likely to have serious road trauma consequences. 
Between 2006 and 2010, 122 people died as a result of crashes on roads in metropolitan Melbourne 100 km/h zones, which are typically freeways.	27	
The cameras are faulty, as shown by the fines withdrawn from the Road Safety Act 1986.	There are rigorous equipment management processes including frequent testing and maintenance.
Additional policies and procedures around detecting faults and equipment degradation have been put in place since 2004, including the requirement for two separate speed measurements. This reduces the chance of an incorrect fine to close to zero. This requirement was introduced in response to the Western Ring Road faults. 	38–48, 51, 61 	
Note: These misconceptions have been selected based on examination of media articles, public surveys and submissions received for this audit. 
Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office.
Recommendations
Number	Recommendation	Page	
1.	The Department of Justice should continue its focus on evaluation, though priority should be given to evaluating the effectiveness of both fixed freeway cameras and point‑to‑point camera systems.	23	
2.	VicRoads, in partnership with the Department of Justice, Victoria Police and the Transport Accident Commission should address the gap in speed enforcement for motorcyclists. 	23	
3.	To determine the optimal deployment approach for mobile cameras, Victoria Police should conduct and evaluate pilots of the following alternative approaches:
·	site selection based only on physical criteria, not deployment criteria
·	random rostering. 	35 	
4.	To increase the effectiveness of the mobile camera program: 
·	the Department of Justice should review the impact of publishing the list of weekly rostered sites for mobile cameras on road safety
·	Victoria Police should establish a target number of sites required across Victoria and within police divisions to provide sufficient geographic coverage, and establish a procedure for getting assurance that permanently unsuitable sites are replaced with new sites
·	Victoria Police should determine a target proportion of monthly hours to be allocated at night.	35	
5.	To strengthen assurance, the Department of Justice should establish regular independent testing of the accuracy and reliability of speed measurement by mobile speed cameras under actual operating conditions.	48	
6.	To increase assurance over the accuracy of infringements from mobile cameras, the Department of Justice should get stronger assurance that mobile camera operators comply with critical procedures.  	56 	
7.	To increase transparency of certification, the Department of Justice should require that all certification service providers comply with appropriate quality control and documentation standards, and are subject to regular audits against these standards conducted by appropriately qualified measurement experts. 	56	
8.	The Department of Justice should expedite the implementation of its communication strategy with a particular emphasis on addressing misconceptions about the program. 	64	

Submissions and comments received
In addition to progressive engagement during the course of the audit, in accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to the Department of Justice, Victoria Police, VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission with a request for submissions or comments.
Agency views have been considered in reaching our audit conclusions and are represented to the extent relevant and warranted in preparing this report. Their full section 16(3) submissions and comments, however, are included in Appendix A.