The effects of mobile speed camera introduction on road traffic crashes and casualties in a rural county of England. Reducing road traffic injuries: effectiveness of speed cameras in an urban setting. Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study. Further results from a trial comparing a hidden speed camera programme with visible camera operation. Evaluation of photo radar program in British Columbia. Speed and safety effect of photo radar enforcement on a highway corridor in British Columbia. Evaluation of automated speed enforcement on Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale, Arizona. The effects of speed enforcement with mobile radar on speed and accidents. An evaluation study on rural roads in the Dutch province Friesland. Evaluation of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland.
This study assesses the impact of crash and casualty numbers in correspondence to the introduction of mobile speed cameras in the rural county of Norfolk, England.
                Road traffic accident casualty and crash data were collected for two years before the introduction of cameras and two years subsequently. The casualties and crashes occurring at 29 camera sites were identified and separated from those occurring in the rest of the county. Trends in crashes and casualties, and their severity, were examined graphically and comparisons were made between before and after periods. The regression to the mean effect at individual sites was estimated.
                After the introduction of cameras, overall crashes declined by 1% and crashes involving fatalities or serious injuries declined by 9% on the roads without cameras. At the camera sites, crashes decreased by 19% and fatal and serious crashes by 44%. The reduction in total crashes was significantly greater than that expected from the effect of regression to the mean in 12 out of 20 sites tested.
                The introduction of cameras appears to have resulted in real and measurable reductions in crash risk in this rural county.
                Our results suggest the deployment of mobile speed cameras is an effective tool for organizations wishing to reduce road traffic casualties in areas where high crash rates have been associated with excessive vehicle speeds. We assessed the effectiveness of speed cameras on Barcelona's beltway in reducing the numbers of road collisions and injuries and the number of vehicles involved in collisions.
                We designed a time-series study with a comparison group to assess the effects of the speed cameras. The "intervention group" was the beltway, and the comparison group consisted of arterial roads on which no fixed speed cameras had been installed. The outcome measures were number of road collisions, number of people injured, and number of vehicles involved in collisions. We fit the data to Poisson regression models that were adjusted according to trends and seasonality.
                The relative risk (RR) of a road collision occurring on the beltway after (vs before) installation of speed cameras was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.63, 0.85). This protective effect was greater during weekend periods. No differences were observed for arterial roads (RR=0.99; 95% CI=0.90, 1.10). Attributable fraction estimates for the 2 years of the study intervention showed 364 collisions prevented, 507 fewer people injured, and 789 fewer vehicles involved in collisions.
                Speed cameras installed in an urban setting are effective in reducing the numbers of road collisions and, consequently, the numbers of injured people and vehicles involved in collisions. To identify the most appropriate metric to determine the effectiveness of mobile speed cameras in reducing road traffic related injuries.
                Controlled before and after study which compares two methods for examining the local effectiveness of mobile speed cameras-a circular zone around the camera and a route based method to define exposure at various distances from sites.
                South Wales, UK.
                Persons injured by road traffic before and after intervention.
                Use of mobile speed cameras at 101 sites.
                Rate ratio of injurious crashes at intervention and control sites.
                Camera sites had lower than expected numbers of injurious crashes up to 300 metres using circles and up to 500 metres using routes. Routes methods indicated a larger effect than the circles method except in the 100 metres nearest sites. A 500 metre route method was used to investigate the effect within strata of time after intervention, time of day, speed limit, and type of road user injured. The number of injurious crashes after intervention was substantially reduced (rate ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.57) and sustained throughout two years after intervention. Significant decreases occurred in daytime and night time, on roads with speed limits of 30 and 60-70 miles/hour and for crashes that injured pedestrians, motorcycle users, and car occupants.
                The route based method is the better method of measure effectiveness at distances up to 500 metres. This method demonstrates a 51% reduction in injurious crashes. As described in a previous paper [Accident Anal. Prev., 33 (2001) 277], the hidden camera programme was found to be associated with significant net falls in speeds, crashes and casualties both in 'speed camera areas' (specific signed sites to which camera operation is restricted) and on 100 km/h speed limit roads generally. These changes in speeds, crashes and casualties were identified in the trial area in comparison with a control area where generally highly visible speed camera enforcement continued to be used (and was used in the trial area prior to the commencement of the trial). There were initial changes in public attitudes associated with the trial that later largely reverted to pre-trial levels. Analysis of 2 years' data of the trial showed that falls in crash and casualty rates and speeds associated with the hidden camera programme were being sustained. It is not possible to separate out the effects of the concealment of the cameras from other aspects of the hidden speed camera programme, such as the four-fold increase in ticketing. This increase in speed camera tickets issued was an expected consequence of hiding the cameras and as such, an integral part of the hidden camera programme being evaluated. This article presents the results of an evaluation of the speed and traffic safety effects of the photo radar program in British Columbia (BC) after 1 year of full operation. Traffic speed data were collected from the photo radar units and from induction loops installed across the province. Traffic collision and injury data were obtained from police investigation reports and from BC ambulance services records. The study employed a number of analytical frameworks, including simple before and after comparison, time-series cross-sectional analysis, and interrupted time series analysis. The study revealed a dramatic reduction of speed at photo radar deployment sites. A reduction of 2.4 km/h in mean speed was also observed at selected monitoring sites where enforcement was not likely to be present. The reduction of speed was accompanied by a decrease in collisions, injuries and fatalities. The analysis found a 25% reduction in daytime unsafe speed related collisions, an 11% reduction in daytime traffic collision victims carried by ambulances and a 17%, reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities. This study evaluates the effect of the photo radar program on traffic speed and collisions at photo radar (PRP) influence locations (PRP location) and interleaving non-PRP locations on the Vancouver Island portion of Highway 17 (Pat Bay Highway) in British Columbia (BC). Simple before-after comparison was used to summarize the speed effect while observational before- after method was employed to estimate the safety effect. To control for regression to the mean and time effect, Empirical Bayes (EB) method with comparison groups was employed in collision analysis. The study found a 2.8-km/h reduction in mean speed and a 0.5-km/h reduction in speed standard deviation at a monitoring site 2 km south of the treatment area. Corresponding to speed reduction. the study revealed a 14%+/-11% reduction in expected collisions at the PRP locations, a 19%+/-10% reduction at the non-PRP locations, and a 16%+/-7% reduction along the study corridor as a whole. No evidence was found for a localized effect in a 2-km range of the photo radar direct influence area, over and above those at the interleaving non-PRP locations. The results support the hypothesis of a distance spillover effect--that the program not only improved safety at the PRP locations, but along the entire enforcement corridor as well. It suggests that the unpredictable nature of the deployments lead drivers to modify their behavior along the length of the corridor because they could not discern 'safe' from 'unsafe' segments. Speed cameras can reduce speeding and injury crashes, but in many communities they are confined to low-speed settings such as residential streets and school zones. In 2006 the city of Scottsdale, Arizona, implemented a 9-month pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effects of highly visible speed camera enforcement on a busy urban freeway. This was the first use of fixed speed cameras on a major US highway. Deployment of six cameras along an 8-mile corridor was associated with large declines in mean speeds and an 88% decrease in the odds of vehicles traveling 11 mph or more above the 65 mph limit. Traffic speeds increased soon after the pilot program was suspended. In addition to reducing speeding along the enforcement corridor, speed cameras were associated with large reductions in speeding on the same highway but 25 miles away from the camera installations. However, traffic speeds were fairly stable on urban freeways in Scottsdale that were not part of the study road. Public opinion surveys found widespread concerns about speeding on the Loop 101 freeway and high levels of support for speed camera enforcement on this road. In an evaluation study, the effects of targeted speed enforcement on speed and road accidents were assessed. Enforcement was predominantly carried out by means of mobile radar and focused on rural non-motorway roads. Information and publicity supported the enforcement activities. The evaluation covered a period of 5 years of enforcement. The speed data of these 5 years and the year preceding the enforcement project showed a significant decrease in mean speed and the percentage speed limit violators over time. The largest decrease was found in the first year of the enforcement project and in the fourth year of the project, when the enforcement effort was further intensified. There were similar decreases in speeding at both the enforced roads and at the nearby comparison roads that were not subjected to the targeted speed enforcement project, which may be explained by spillover effects. The best estimate for the safety effect of the enforcement project is a reduction of 21% in both the number of injury accidents and the number of serious casualties. This was based on comparison between the number of accidents/casualties during the enforcement project (5 years) and and the 8 preceding years on the enforced roads and at all other roads outside urban areas in the same region. Almost one quarter of speeding-related fatalities occur on streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less. In 2007, Montgomery County, Maryland, implemented the state's first automated speed enforcement program, with camera use limited to residential streets with speeds limits of 35 mph or less and school zones. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate initial effects of camera enforcement on traffic speeds and to assess public attitudes.
                Vehicle speeds were measured approximately 6 months before and 6 months after speed cameras were deployed and warning signs were installed. Speed data were collected on a sample of roads with and without camera enforcement in Montgomery County, as well as on a sample of roads in a comparison community that did not have speed cameras. In addition, telephone surveys were conducted in Montgomery County.
                Relative to speeds of drivers on roads in the comparison community, the proportion of drivers in Montgomery County traveling more than 10 mph above posted speed limits declined by about 70% at locations with both warning signs and speed camera enforcement, 39% at locations with warning signs but no speed cameras, and 16% on residential streets with neither warning signs nor speed cameras. Public opinion surveys found 74% of Montgomery County drivers thought speeding on residential streets was a problem. Six months after enforcement began, 60% of drivers were aware of the camera program and 62% supported it.
                The camera program was effective at reducing speeding on targeted streets. The finding of speed reductions beyond targeted locations is evidence that highly visible automated enforcement can promote community-wide changes in driver behavior. Although a majority of drivers supported automated speed enforcement, about one third opposed it. Jurisdictions planning to implement speed cameras should draw on international experience to anticipate controversies that generally arise and take steps to address them.
Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.