Editing Traffic enforcement camera (section)

==Effectiveness==
Aside from the issues of legality in some countries and states and sometimes opposition the effectiveness of speed cameras is very well documented. Professor [[Stephen Glaister]] notes, "What [studies have done] is to show that at camera sites, speeds have been reduced, and that as a result, collisions resulting in injuries have fallen. The government has said that a decision on whether speed cameras should be funded must be taken at a local level. With the current pressure on public funds, there will be – indeed there already are – those who say that what little money there is can be better spent. [However, the] devices are already there; they demonstrate value for money, yet are not significant revenue raisers for the Treasury; they are shown to save lives; and despite the headlines, most people accept the need for them. Speed cameras should never be the only weapon in the road safety armoury, but neither should they be absent from the battle."<ref name="rac"/>

The 2010 Cochrane Review of speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths<ref name="cochranereview">{{cite journal|title=Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths.|last=Wilson|first=C |author2=Willis, Hendrikz |author3=Le Brocque, Bellamy|journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|year=2010|issue=10|pmid=20927736|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub3|pages=CD004607|url=http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:224791/UQ224791_OA.pdf|editor1-last=Wilson|editor1-first=Cecilia}}</ref> reported that all 28 studies accepted by the authors found the effect of speed cameras to be a reduction in all crashes, injury crashes, and death or severe injury crashes. "Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% and 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time. Nevertheless, the authors conceded that the magnitude of the benefit from speed cameras "is currently not deducible" due to limitations in the methodological rigor of many of the 28 studies cited, and recommended that "more studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect."

The 2010 report, "The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras A review of evidence",<ref name="rac">{{cite web |url=http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/efficacy_of_speed_cameras_allsop_181110.pdf |title=The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras |website=Racfoundation.ortg |access-date=2016-06-30 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160415114909/http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/efficacy_of_speed_cameras_allsop_181110.pdf |archive-date=2016-04-15 }}</ref> by Richard Allsop concludes "The findings of this review for the RAC Foundation, though reached independently, are essentially consistent with the Cochrane Review conclusions. They are also broadly consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis reported in the respected Handbook of Road Safety Measures, of 16 studies, not including the four-year evaluation report, of the effects of fixed cameras on numbers of collisions and casualties."

While the articles above show the effectiveness of body cameras there is also a controversial side of things. Some states including Minnesota do not use traffic cameras for tickets while other neighboring states like Iowa do. This shows that traffic cameras are not usable the same way across jurisdictions and therefore making them less effective.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Goldenbeld |first1=Charles |last2=Daniels |first2=Stijn |last3=Schermers |first3=Govert |date=July 2019 |title=Red light cameras revisited. Recent evidence on red light camera safety effects |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.007 |journal=Accident Analysis & Prevention |volume=128 |pages=139–147 |doi=10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.007 |pmid=31015183 |s2cid=129941666 |issn=0001-4575|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
In 2001 the Nottingham Safety Camera Pilot achieved "virtually complete compliance" on the major ring road into the city using average speed cameras,<ref>{{cite web|title=Annex 6 TECHNOLOGY FOR ENFORCEMENT|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap65.htm|quote=A notable example is in the Nottingham Safety Camera Pilot where virtually complete compliance was achieved on the major ring road into the city}}</ref> across all Nottinghamshire SPECS installations, KSI (Killed / Seriously Injured) figures have fallen by an average of 65%.<ref>{{cite web|title=Permanent Casualty Reduction Scheme|url=http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/images/Nottingham_Case_Study.pdf|quote=Across all Nottinghamshire SPECS installations, KSI figures have fallen by an average of 65%}}</ref>

In 2003 the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'' reported that speed cameras were effective at reducing accidents and injuries and recommended wider deployment.<ref>{{cite journal|author=S M Christie|author2=R A Lyons|author3=F D Dunstan|author4=S J Jones|year=2003|title=Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study|journal=British Medical Journal|volume=9|issue=4|pages=302–306|doi=10.1136/ip.9.4.302|pmc=1731028|pmid=14693888|quote=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|name-list-style=amp}}</ref> In February 2005 the ''British Medical Journal'' again reported that speed cameras were an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties, noting however that most studies to date did not have satisfactory control groups.<ref name="pilk and kin">{{cite journal|author1=Paul Pilkington|author2=Sanjay Kinra|year=2005|title=Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review|journal=[[British Medical Journal]]|volume=330|issue=12 February|pages=331–334|doi=10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE|pmc=548724|pmid=15653699|quote=Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.|name-list-style=amp}}</ref> In 2003 Northumbria Police's Acting Chief Inspector of motor patrols suggested that cameras did not reduce casualties but did raise revenue – an official statement from the police force later re-iterated that speed cameras do reduce casualties.<ref>{{cite news|date=25 October 2003|title=Cameras are for cash|publisher=The Journal|url=http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13555072_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Cameras-are-for-cash-name_page.html|access-date=2008-03-31}}</ref>

In December 2005 the Department for Transport published a four-year report into Safety Camera Partnerships which concluded that there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and 42% fewer people being killed or seriously injured following the installation of cameras.<ref name="dft report">{{cite web|author=Department for Transport|year=2005|title=The National Safety Camera Programme: Four Year Evaluation Report|url=http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/nscp/nscp/thenationalsafetycameraprogr4597|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100329032402/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/nscp/nscp/thenationalsafetycameraprogr4597|archive-date=2010-03-29}}</ref> ''[[The Times]]'' reported that this research showed that the department had been previous exaggerating the safety benefits of speed cameras but that the results were still 'impressive'.<ref>{{cite news|last=Webster|first=Ben|date=16 December 2005|title=Speed camera benefits overrated|work=The Times|location=London|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1934085,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007022836/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1934085,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 7, 2008|quote=The main report says that fixed cameras reduce deaths and serious injuries by 50 percent and mobile cameras by 35 percent. It calculates that cameras prevent 1,745 deaths or serious injuries a year across Britain. However once the regression to the mean was taken into account, fixed cameras were found to reduce deaths and serious injuries by only 873, or 24 percent for fixed and 17 percent for mobile cameras. While still impressive, these reductions are lower than could be achieved by other road safety measures.}}</ref>

A report published by the RAC Foundation in 2010 estimated that an additional 800 more people a year could be killed or seriously injured on the UK's roads if all speed cameras were scrapped.<ref>{{cite news|date=24 November 2010|title=RAC Foundation report backs speed camera safety benefit|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11826295}}</ref> A survey conducted by [[The Automobile Association]] in May 2010 indicated that speed cameras were supported by 75% of their members.<ref name="risk">{{cite web|title=Speed camera support 'at all-time high'|date=13 September 2024 |url=http://www.admiral.com/newsArticles/4520/Speed-camera-support-at-all-time-high|publisher=Admiral|quote=Support for speed cameras is running at an all-time high, a poll by the AA has suggested. According to the motoring organisation's survey of members in October, 75% now believe that the use of speed cameras is 'acceptable' – including 30% who believe their use is 'very acceptable'. This compares with a 69% approval rating in a poll conducted in November last year, and is the highest level reached in ten years of monitoring public sentiment for the devices, the AA says.}}</ref>

The town of [[Swindon]] abandoned the use of fixed cameras in 2009, questioning their cost effectiveness with the cameras being replaced by vehicle activated warning signs and enforcement by police using mobile speed cameras:<ref>{{Cite news|date=2009-07-31|title=Town ditches fixed speed cameras|publisher=BBC|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8177247.stm}}</ref> in the nine months following the switch-off there was a small reduction in accident rates which had changed slightly in similar periods before and after the switch off (Before: 1 fatal, 1 serious and 13 slight accidents. Afterwards: no fatalities, 2 serious and 12 slight accidents).<ref name="telegraph.co.uk">{{cite news|author=David Barrett|date=2010-08-07|title=Speed camera switch-off sees fewer accidents|newspaper=Telegraph|location=London|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html|url-status=live|access-date=2016-06-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160918062810/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html|archive-date=2016-09-18}}</ref> The journalist [[George Monbiot]] said that the results were not [[Statistical significance|statistically significant]] highlighting earlier findings across the whole of Wiltshire that there had been a 33% reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured generally and a 68% reduction at camera sites during the previous 3 years.<ref>{{cite web|date=2010-07-26|title=Tory Boy Racers &#124; George Monbiot|url=http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/07/26/tory-boy-racers/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110130020242/http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/07/26/tory-boy-racers/|archive-date=2011-01-30|access-date=2016-06-30|website=Monbiot.com}}</ref>{{Self-published inline|date=November 2024}} In 2012, the town had the fewest accident rates per 1,000 registered vehicles: a result linked by the Local Authority Member for Council Transformation, Transport and Strategic Planning to the removal of speed cameras and resultant additional funding for road safety, alongside close working with the police.<ref>{{cite web|author=Katie Bond|date=2012-03-21|title=Town tops league for safest driving|url=http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/9604736.Town_tops_league_for_safest_driving/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815222806/http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/9604736.Town_tops_league_for_safest_driving/|archive-date=2016-08-15|access-date=2016-06-30|website=Thisiswiltshire.co.uk}}</ref>

In Scotland, the introduction of average speed cameras significantly reduced speeding on the [[A9 road (Scotland)|A9]] and [[A96 road|A96]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.gov.scot/news/3year-a9-performance-data-published-1 |date=20 April 2018 |access-date=8 October 2018 |title=Comprehensive A9 performance data published |work=Scottish Government |archive-date=9 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181009132210/https://news.gov.scot/news/3year-a9-performance-data-published-1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=2018-01-23|title=Driver behaviour 'transformed' by A90 average speed cameras|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-42774902|access-date=2021-02-27}}</ref>

====Home Office Type Approval====
'''HOTA''' is an [[acronym]] for '''Home Office Type Approval''', a testing and certification process by the [[Home Office]] in the United Kingdom that [[speed camera]]s must pass before evidence from them can be admissible in UK courts by way of certification in accordance with Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA) (Amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991).<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/20| title = Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988}}</ref> It is a misconception that speed enforcement devices must be Home Office Type Approved before they may be deployed on public roads to gather evidence of speeding offences however if the device does not have UK Type Approval then the evidence from the device is not able to be certified but must be adduced by a witness and perhaps an expert witness who is able to adduce evidence of its accuracy. The Road Traffic Offenders Act route via Section 20 certification is a clear advantage over the unapproved equipment route to court.

The Type Approval of devices that meet the definitions or more accurately "prescriptions" of types of devices in Statutory Instruments (forms of secondary legislation) is administered by the Home Office Road Crimes Section with the scientific scrutiny now performed by The [[Defence Science and Technology Laboratory]] (DSTL) in conjunction with accredited technical laboratories. The [[National Police Chiefs' Council|National Police Chiefs Council]] (NPCC)<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.npcc.police.uk/| title = The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC)}}</ref> oversee a secretariat who coordinate police and laboratory testing of equipment in the process.

Only when DSTL<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-science-and-technology-laboratory|title = Defence Science and Technology Laboratory| date=14 June 2023 }}</ref> scrutiny, laboratory testing and road testing is completed, and the equipment fully meets the specifications in the relevant Home Office Speedmeter Handbook will the equipment be recommended to the [[Home Secretary|Secretary of State]] to be awarded UK Type Approval. Once recommended an administrative process takes place between the Home Office and the UK manufacturer or distributing agent in which a contract (Type Approval Agreement) is exchanged and agreed between both parties. When that contract is signed then a Type Approval Certificate is signed by a minister at the Home Office; the equipment can then be used to produce certifiable evidence, evidence of speeding that is admissible in [[Judiciaries of the United Kingdom|UK courts]] without the support of a [[witness]]. There is no requirement to place the Type Approval Agreement or Certificate of Type Approval before [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] because the Statutory Instrument defining the "type" of equipment has already been fully ratified by both [[Palace of Westminster|Houses of Parliament]].

The accuracies required to meet HOTA, as laid out in the Speedmeter Handbooks, are agreed internationally. They are not particularly challenging to meet for modern digital equipment however, HOTA requirements extend beyond accuracies; it is often the requirement that an instrument must not cause a violation record to be made when no violation exists that is the most difficult to meet. The Speedmeter Handbooks are freely and openly available to view, they provide guidance to [[manufacturers]] and the accredited test laboratories in the general requirements. DSTL and the Home Office may vary the requirements at any time and may adapt them depending upon the equipment that is to be assessed, the Handbooks being "guidance".<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk//hosdb/publications/road-policing-publications/15-05-Speedmeter-Handbook12835.pdf?view=Binary | archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100408155424/http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk//hosdb/publications/road-policing-publications/15-05-Speedmeter-Handbook12835.pdf?view=Binary | archive-date=2010-04-08 | title=The Speedmeter Handbook (Fourth Edition) | year=2005 | author=Dr. S.R. Lewis | publisher=UK Home Office}}</ref>

Unlike approval systems in most countries, no equipment is approved without a [[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom|police]] input into the testing. Rather than simply testing speed accuracy, the systems are all tested in real traffic situations some of which are created specifically to test a perceived weakness in the systems. Track and real road testing is always conducted so that all kinds of [[Vehicle|vehicles]] and traffic situations are used to stimulate the systems. Roadside equipment such as fixed cameras must pass environmental testing before deployment in road testing. The period used for road testing ensures that the systems are tested in all weather.

If one detection is made that is outside of the accuracy parameters or if one violation record is produced when no violation existed during any test, then the device will fail its approval until that error is rectified to the satisfaction of the Home Office and DSTL. When rectification is demonstrated testing may recommence.

=== United States ===
According to the 2003 [[National Cooperative Highway Research Program|NCHRP]] study on Red Light Running (RLR), "RLR automated enforcement can be an effective safety countermeasure....[I]t appears from the findings of several studies that, in general, RLR cameras can bring about a reduction in the more severe angle crashes with, at worst, a slight increase in less severe rear-end crashes.<ref>{{cite book|author=Hugh McGee|title=NCHRP Synthesis 310|publisher=National Cooperative Highway Research Program|year=2003|page=12}}</ref> However it noted that "there is not enough empirical evidence based on proper experimental design procedures to state this conclusively."

A study conducted in Alabama and published in 2016 reveals that Red Light Cameras (RLCs) seem to have a slight impact on the clearance lost time; the intersections equipped with RLCs are half a second less in use compared with those without cameras; and highway capacity manual estimates a shorter lost time and thus may overestimate the intersection's capacity.<ref name="Baratian" />

A 2024 study found that automated traffic enforcement through speed cameras led to more equitable enforcement of speeding rules than police stops. Police stops were substantially more likely to target black drivers than automated traffic cameras were.<ref name=":2" />