Back
EMAIL
CHAPTER 3
Traffic Cameras and Demerit Points
3.1 TRAFFIC CAMERAS AND DEMERIT POINTS
Speeding offences detected by traffic cameras are the major source of demerit points. VicRoads in its submission did not provide the proportion of all demerit points associated with speeding, or of speed offences detected by cameras, but did give evidence (from a sample of 310 licence option letters) of the type of offence involved. This showed that:
... speed offences make up about 75% of listed offences and accrued demerit points in options letters. [1]
From this sample:
* Almost 40% were for speeds from 15 to 30 km/h over the limit; and
* About 20% were for exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/h or less.
However, because the former offence is awarded three demerit points and the latter only one demerit point the 15-30 km/h offence is responsible for more than 43% of all demerit points accrued by those who reach 12 or more demerit points. [2]
In the negotiations prior to the enactment of the Motor Car (Photographic Detection Devices) Act 1985 it was agreed that demerit points should not apply to camera-based offences and, on equity grounds, they would not apply to other speed offences of less than 30 km/h over the limit.
This had the consequence of making the demerit points scheme virtually ineffective.
In 1989 an agreement was reached between the Ministry for Transport, the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services, the Victoria Police and the Transport Accident Commission on a package of measures, including the purchase by the Traffic Accident Commission of about 50 additional speed cameras and creation of a Traffic Camera Office. [3]
The use of speed cameras in Victoria is on an unprecedented scale. Over 25 million speed checks were performed in 1993, so on average each vehicle in Victoria has its speed monitored every six weeks. In 1993 penalty notices were issued for 524 000 speeding offences. In December 1990 about 13% of vehicles were detected to be over the speed (plus tolerance) limit. This has now declined to 3.3% in August 1994, the lowest monthly result on record. [4]
Of particular significance is the marked reduction in the number grossly exceeding speed limits. Appendix G provides further details.
The situation in other States varies widely. South Australia does not currently allocate demerit points for camera offences unless the driver has been clearly identified (eg, goes to Court). In New South Wales the use of speed cameras has been significantly curtailed and a system of cautions introduced. There are only a few speed cameras in use in Western Australia and none in Queensland. In Tasmania demerit points are not allocated for camera offences occurring within 21 days of a previous camera offence to enable adequate time for the first speeding notice to be received. In the Northern Territory there is no maximum rural speed limit and speed cameras are used only in urban areas.
3.2 THE TRAFFIC CAMERA PROGRAM AND ACCIDENTS
One recommendation of the 1991 Social Development Committee's Report upon the Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria was:
That the Transport Accident Commission fund a comprehensive and independent evaluation of the effectiveness of speed cameras. [5]
Subsequently Monash University Accident Research Centre carried out a comprehensive study, funded through the Centre's baseline research program. [6]
Reports on the four phases of the evaluation have now been published and in summary, these studies show:
* Decreases in the frequency of reported casualty crashes which occur in low alcohol times of the week, and also decreases in the accident severity. [7] (These reductions were obtained by comparing time series data, allowing for changes in unemployment rate and using comparable areas in New South Wales as a control figure.) The reductions in crash frequency ranged from 10% to 30%, corresponding with the level of camera enforcement on different groups of roads. [8]
* A significant inverse relationship between casualty crash frequency in low alcohol hours relative to the number of traffic infringement notices issued and Transport Accident Commission publicity, and in injury severity relative to number of traffic infringement notices and camera operation hours. [9]
* A significant reduction in casualty crashes within 1 kilometre of a camera site for two weeks after the issuing of the traffic infringement notices arising from offences detected at that site. [10]
Another Monash University Accident Research Centre study suggested that the speed camera program and associated publicity accounted for about one-third of the total reduction in fatalities and serious injuries in 1990 and 1991 with random breath testing (and publicity) and the economic downturn also contributing about one-third each. [11]
In addition to speed cameras the Traffic Camera Office also operates 35 red light cameras which are rotated through 132 sites within the Melbourne area. [12] About 17 000 red light camera infringement notices are sent out annually. However this represents only about 40% of photographs taken by the red light cameras, which is a much lower level of detection than for the speed (50%) and bus lane (67%) cameras. [13]
A 1988 report by the then Road Traffic Authority revealed a significant decrease of about 30% in right-angled accidents and a 10% reduction in casualties at intersections equipped with red light cameras. [14] Given the demonstrated safety benefits of the program, the Committee believes consideration should be given to both expanding the red light camera program to other intersections throughout Victoria and improving the rate of detection resulting in infringement notices.
3.3 SPEED CAMERA LOCATIONS AND TIMES
Many submissions made reference to the allegedly inappropriate location of speed cameras and the times which they operated. The 1991 Social Development Committee Report upon the Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria examined this topic and quoted the guidelines used by the Victoria Police in selecting sites. [15] Local consultative committees are now involved in the process. Whilst there are broad targets for the number of camera hours of operation per month for each Police district the actual sites used and hours of operation are under the control of district commanders. The Traffic Camera Office produces graphs for each district comparing camera hours by time of day with distributions of reported collisions and serious injury collisions (see Appendix H). [16] The aim is to encourage closer alignment of camera hours and the times when crashes occur.
An aspect the Committee had to consider was whether the speed camera program (being the main generator of demerit points offences) was inequitable to particular motoring groups. In terms of geographical coverage the camera hours are spread relatively evenly across the State, however obviously those roads with higher volumes are more likely to be targeted. Roads in urban areas and in towns are more likely to be monitored. More significant though is the dominance of mid-morning operation, relative to the distributions of both traffic volume and road accidents. [17]
A problem is that in darkness speed camera operations encounter significant photographic difficulties and are rarely used. [18] Given the above it could be argued that some groups of road users (eg. taxi and truck drivers) are actually less likely to be speed monitored than other motorists due to cameras being less likely to operate during their busiest hours. However without detailed evidence of the time distribution of travel of various groups it is not possible to verify this possibility.
3.4 RECENT SPEED ZONING CHANGES AND THEIR EFFECTS
Following the recommendations of the 1991 Social Development Committee Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria, many speed limits were altered during 1993 and 1994. The Victoria Police were questioned by the Road Safety Committee as to what impact this had and whether Police would now review the location of speed cameras to compensate for reduced detections. The Police response was that the impact of the speed limit re-zoning was not yet available and that all speed camera sites were reviewed incorporating an assessment of collision data. These sites were then referred to local community road safety councils for consultation. Any suggestion that the speed camera program was 'revenue driven' was strongly denied. [19]
The percentage of drivers exceeding the speed camera threshold appears to have stabilised at below 4%, suggesting that the zoning changes have had some impact. In order to determine the effect of the speed zone changes on casualty crashes, travel speeds and traffic offences the Committee has initiated a separate inquiry. The terms of reference for the 'Inquiry into the Revision of Speed Limits in Victoria' are listed in Appendix I.
The enforcement threshold for speed cameras was originally the posted speed limit plus 10% plus 3 km/h. It is now 9 km/h (ie. a vehicle is booked at a measured speed of 10 km/h over the posted limit). A machine tolerance of 3 km/h is then applied to reduce the measured speed to the alleged speed quoted on infringement notices. The current policy was introduced by Victoria Police on 14 February 1993 to coincide with the introduction of the 110 km/h rural freeway limit. It does not apply to other speed measuring methods and there are no current plans to change it at this time. [20]
An issue raised in some submissions was accuracy of vehicle speedometers and its impact on speed offences. The Committee received a submission and heard evidence from Mr W.J. McDonald who had been involved for nearly 20 years in the certification and calibration of speedometers for the Police and the then Transport Regulation Board [now VicRoads].
Key points in Mr McDonald's submission were that:
* Many motorists are being booked through no fault of their own and are being placed in a very unfair situation because there is no co-operation or co-ordination within the industry with regard to speedometers.
* Motor vehicle manufacturers have legal protection in that a considerable amount of error (10%) is tolerated in the Australian Design Rules but the driver does not have similar treatment.
* A combination of factors can lead to errors of 15 km/h or more.
* Recently a major motoring organisation, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, conducted a speedometer survey which found 58 out of 60 were inaccurate and an 'error factor' of 5 km/h.
* Some areas for concern which affect speedometer accuracy were:
- changing wheel or tyre sizes;
- changing differential ratios;
- using second-hand speedometers from wreckers' yards;
- different tread patterns on tyres; and
- used car dealers fitting 'anything that works'. [21]
The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria advised that, whilst their survey had shown a high proportion of inaccurate speedometers, most were conservative in that the real speed was less than that displayed by the speedometer. [22]
The Police, when questioned about the problem of speedometer accuracy, responded that if a driver objected to a traffic infringement notice and presented certification that the vehicle speedometer was inaccurate that would be taken into consideration when deciding whether to proceed with prosecution of the speeding offence. [23] The inaccuracy of speedometers was one reason for the use of a tolerance threshold before drivers are booked for exceeding the speed limit.
Following a request from the Committee the Police advised that about 2000 pleas are received each year by the Penalty Review Section claiming a faulty or inaccurate speedometer. The Police advised that:
A caution is usually granted when the speed alleged is 15 km/h or less above the posted speed limit and a dynamometer test report is produced. Where the alleged speed is above 15 km/h over the limit the issue of a warning is determined by a Court.
When assessing these claims, the following factors are taken into account:
(1) The alleged speed in comparison with the claimed speedometer reading;
(2) The evidence to support the claim, eg. repair or test reports/receipts;
(3) Any previous speeding convictions involving the same vehicle; and
(4) Whether or not a reasonable person would have realised the speedometer was providing spurious readings. [24]
The Committee is concerned about the accuracy of speedometers and suggests that means be developed for motorists to readily check the accuracy of their vehicles' speedometers. One possibility is for a speed camera to be linked to a variable message screen located adjacent to a road or on a bridge over the road. Such a device is currently being trialed by VicRoads on the Princes Highway between Melbourne and Geelong.
3.7 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAFFIC CAMERAS
A recent report of the Parliamentary Public Accounts and Estimates Committee noted falling camera revenue-generating productivity in terms of dollar collections per camera hour. This measure has fallen from over $2000/hour to under $1000/hour in 18 months. [25] The report recommended that Police keep under close review the number of traffic camera hours worked and the resulting efficiency and effectiveness of police resources. 26
The Road Safety Committee asked the Police to comment on this and their reply was that camera revenue generation was not an objective of the program. They quoted the multi-party agreement signed in 1989 which said that the Police objective is to reduce the road accident rate and that one measure of this is the percentage of vehicles exceeding the enforcement threshold. [27]
The Road Safety Committee regards the integrity of the speed camera program as an essential component of Victoria's road safety strategy. Questions and comments regarding the revenue raising aspects of the operations of traffic cameras often imply a hidden agenda that camera operations are purely to raise revenue. The Road Safety Committee accepts the Police response that this is not the case.
However, the Road Safety Committee considers there is scope to improve the cost effectiveness of speed enforcement by the Police by using civilian personnel for at least some of the on-road camera operations. Using highly trained police for these on-road operations is, the Committee considers, an inappropriate utilisation of skilled police officers.
The Road Safety Committee asked the Police to comment on the suggestion that trained personnel other than police could set up and/or monitor speed camera operations. The Police have advised that a trial has recently commenced and, if successful and the concept is implemented, it will release about 30 police officers for other duties. [28]
3.8 USE OF SPEED CAMERAS BY LOCAL COUNCILS
The Municipal Association of Victoria argued that speed enforcement on local roads was rarely undertaken by Police. [29] The Association argued that more cost-effective methods of policing current traffic law exist and in their submission urged that councils be given powers to:
- issue traffic infringement notices for a wider range of offences, eg when patrolling school crossings;
- require the owner to identify the name of the driver;
- operate and receive revenue from cameras on local roads; [30] and
- install fixed cameras in local streets, directly linked to a computer. [31]
This issue was also raised during the Social Development Committee's Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria in 1991. That Committee rejected the argument and strongly supported the Police having sole responsibility for enforcing all speed limits. [32] The Road Safety Committee also opposes the concept of local councils using speed cameras and endorses the Police being the sole agency responsible for enforcing speed limits.
3.9 TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT NOTICES AND OWNER-ONUS
3.9.1 Efficiency of the speed camera and traffic infringement notice process
Examination of Traffic Camera Office and VicRoads information suggests that for a number of reasons almost half (45%) of infringements detected do not result in traffic infringement notices being issued.
When questioned about this the Victoria Police advised that:
... verification rejections had now declined to 36% in October 1993 and that operator error has been significantly reduced from approximately 10% to between 1% and 3% over the past 12 months through on-road quality control and counselling. [33]
In addition some 10% of traffic infringement notices issued by the Traffic Camera Office result in unpaid fines of which a significant number are not subsequently collected via the PERIN Court or Sheriff's Office. [34]
The Committee considers it is important for the authorities concerned to strive to minimise the proportion of detections which do not lead to payment of the fine, identification of the driver and allocation of demerit points. This matter is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
3.9.2 Numberplate problems
Obscured, unreadable or missing numberplates are a significant problem for the traffic camera program. The Victoria Police advised that there had recently been an increase in the penalties from $50 to $110 for numberplate offences and they anticipate that as a result there should be a proportionate reduction in the amount of numberplate offences detected. [35] VicRoads have also recently commenced a program to exchange numberplates which have become defective because of faulty manufacturing processes. [36]
3.9.3 Owner-onus
The traffic camera legislation specifies owner-onus for offences. This means that when a vehicle is detected by a traffic camera the owner is initially held liable for the offence and all penalties. The legislation however permits the owner to nominate the actual driver at the time the offence was committed if the owner was not driving that vehicle. The owner-onus situation with regard to the owner being unable to remember who was actually driving is a problem in terms of recording offences and demerit points.
This problem occurs in business and government fleets, rental vehicles and with the family car. The Victoria Police were asked to comment on this situation.
They replied that:
One option, via legislative change, is to require owners of corporate and government fleets to maintain log books or records to identify drivers. Rental companies already maintain records based on payment requirements allowing some tracking of driver details.
Generally, policy allows one caution per driver. One would maintain that a reasonable person would take steps, if previously warned for 'failing to nominate the driver', to ensure that some record was kept in future. If that person again is unable to nominate the driver, then he has the opportunity to have the matter determined by a Court. The obligations of reverse onus then apply. [37]
There is also a particular problem with situations where the towing vehicle is owned by one person/business, the trailer owned by another person/business, and the combined vehicle is photographed from the rear. Identifying the actual driver can be very difficult.
The VicRoads submission proposed that:
... to provide more effective enforcement of vehicle-trailer combinations, consideration be given to amending the Road Safety Act to provide for a legislative mechanism to require the owners of trailers and semi-trailers, and subsequently the owners of the towing vehicle to provide information on the driver of the towing vehicle. [38]
The Committee supports the need for more effective enforcement in this situation but considers that a more direct solution is possible, such as requiring a copy of the towing vehicle's registration number to be prominently displayed on the rear of the trailer (in addition to the trailer's own registration plate if necessary).
It was brought to the Committee's attention that the traffic infringement notices served by the Traffic Camera Office do not provide information to the recipient that section 66 (3) (b) of the Road Safety Act 1986 provides that the owner of the vehicle is not guilty of an offence if:
The owner satisfies the informant by sworn statement in the prescribed form that the owner did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the name and address of the person who was driving the motor vehicle at the relevant time.
The Committee considers that the lack of information provided to vehicle owners about this option could lead to potential injustices and should be rectified.
3.10 TIMELINESS OF TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT NOTICES
A significant public criticism of the traffic camera process has been the time taken to serve infringement notices on offenders. A Monash University study found accident reduction in the vicinity of a camera site closely following time of receipt of notices. Hence prompt infringement notification has accident reducing potential.
The Victoria Police were questioned about the Traffic Camera Office's performance with regard to despatch of notices. The Police replied that the period had been reduced from in excess of 21 days to currently around ten days. The Police objective is to serve notices within seven days. [39] (It is understood that new digital photographic recording techniques have the potential to reduce this period to around five days.)
The Committee believes that though long delays may have occurred in the past the Police target of seven days to despatch notices is reasonable.
3.11 NEW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY
The Committee is aware that the Traffic Camera Office will soon be evaluating new technology speed cameras which take two simultaneous computer images of the offending vehicle; one being an enlargement of the vehicle's number plate area, the second being a wide-angle image. This technology has the potential to significantly improve the rate of identification of speeding vehicles and also reduce the time taken for penalty notices to be despatched.
The Committee is supportive of the evaluation of these new cameras. The Committee is also aware that with current computer imaging technology it is possible to manipulate the details of the image. To ensure public confidence in such enforcement technology and to guarantee the integrity of the traffic camera system any decision to introduce these cameras should be made by the Parliament.
The Committee's decision was made in light of the problems experienced in the recent introduction of new high technology breath testing equipment for use by the Victoria Police.
From the Committee's enquiries it is apparent that there was initially a lack of independent scrutiny and accountability in the testing and certification phases. This was identified during the legislative process and was remedied.
Traffic camera operations have been and continue to be an integral part of the Victorian road safety strategy. Studies estimate that traffic cameras coupled with associated high profile media campaigns have accounted for about one-third of the reduction in fatalities and injuries in recent years.
The percentage of drivers exceeding the speed camera thresholds is now below 4% compared to about 24% when traffic cameras commenced operation in December 1989.
The Committee concludes that the continued successful operation of the traffic camera program is essential and as gaps in the system's effectiveness become apparent they must be rectified.
The Committee finds:
* Questions of 'revenue-raising' from whatever quarter can blur community perception about the intent of the scheme. The level of fines revenue is simply an indicator of the disregard drivers can have towards speed limits and red lights.
* The red light camera system needs to be expanded because of the demonstrated benefit/costs in road safety.
* The cost effectiveness of the traffic camera system could be improved by more appropriate utilisation of civilian (unsworn) members of the Victoria Police force to set up and operate traffic cameras.
* The Victoria Police should continue to test and evaluate new technology cameras but the final decision to implement these cameras for operational use should be made by the Parliament.
* Any concerns regarding speedometer accuracy should be addressed through community education by relevant Government agencies and motorist groups such as the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria.
The Committee recommends that:
2. The Victoria Police (in consultation with relevant Government agencies) expand and enhance the red light camera program.
3. The Victoria Police and VicRoads (together with relevant Government and non-government agencies) develop a public awareness campaign alerting drivers to the need to check the accuracy of vehicle speedometers.
4. The Victoria Police proceed with the trial and evaluation of using unsworn members of the Victoria Police to set up and operate traffic cameras and incorporate the results of the evaluation in the Government's response to this report to the Parliament.
5. The Victoria Police proceed with the testing and evaluation of new technology cameras.
6. The decision to implement these new technology cameras for operational use be made by the Parliament.
7 In the case of vehicles towing separately registered trailers consideration be given to requiring display on the rear of the trailer of a special copy of the number plate of the towing vehicle whilst travelling in Victoria.
8. Traffic infringement notices issued by the Traffic Camera Office be required to state that the vehicle owner has the option to respond to the notice by making a sworn statement that they could not, with reasonable diligence, ascertain the actual driver's name and address.