Speed cameras in the UK have mixed results

Casualty rates at some UK speed camera sites have worsened since their installation, figures out today showed.

But some camera partnership scheme operators have reported a reduction in accidents and injuries thanks to the introduction of cameras.

The mixed picture of the effectiveness of speed cameras came as the Department for Transport (DfT) published speed camera data from schemes in England.

The information included:

:: A camera in Castle Hill, Parkestone, Poole, in Dorset, installed in 2003, where there were three serious-injury and 11 slight-injury collisions in 2009 compared with only three serious and six slight collisions at this spot in 2001 and only three serious and seven slight collisions in 2002;

:: Nine slight-injury casualties at a camera on the A605 at Elton near Peterborough in Cambridgeshire in 2009 - the highest figures for any year since 1990;

:: A camera site in Victoria Avenue in Cambridge where there was only one slight-injury accident in 2009 and only three in 2010 compared with 1997 when there were two killed or seriously-injured incidents and 16 slight-injury incidents in 1997.

Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety said its overall results showed that where cameras were located, vehicle speeds and crashes had reduced.

The Safer Roads Humber scheme said that over the period 2003 to 2010 there had been a 58% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at its camera sites, as well as a 11% reduction in average speeds at the sites.

Links to local authority information are being published on the Department for Transport (DfT) website.

So far 75 local authorities have published some or all of their information showing accident and casualty rates, as well as speeds at camera sites before and after the introduction of the cameras.

But of these 75, only 46 have published full data, with the other 29 publishing partial data. And 72 local authorities have not published any data, or not enough for the effectiveness of the camera sites to be judged.

The DfT said police forces would be publishing the number of prosecutions arising from each permanent or long-term temporary fixed camera site in their area each year, along with the total number of offences recorded by all cameras and the total number of offenders given a fixed-penalty notice, or taken to court, and the number of people opting to complete speed awareness courses.

Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said: "Local residents have a right to expect that when their council spends money on speed cameras, they publish information to show whether those cameras are helping to reduce accidents or not.

"I hope that this information will help local people to make informed judgments about the impact cameras are having on their local roads.

"However, residents can only hold their council to account if it has made information available so I would urge those councils which have not yet published their data to do so as soon as possible."

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said: "This data must be used with care. The best speed cameras deliver lower speeds and fewer casualties without catching lots of drivers out.

"Any camera that consistently issues tickets clearly has location or signposting issues. No camera should ever be removed without a clear education or engineering solution to replace it."

RAC motoring strategist Adrian Tink said: "We're pleased to start seeing this type of information being issued - it's long overdue.

"But unless this information is acted upon by local authorities then it becomes a pointless exercise. We've long called for a full audit of individual speed cameras, ensuring we keep the cameras that make a difference and replace those that don't with other safety measures if needs be."

AA president Edmund King said: "The effectiveness of cameras can't just be judged on site-specific casualty rates as there are wider benefits in changing attitudes to speeding.

"Cameras are acceptable to the public. The last annual AA/Populus poll of 18,251 members showed 75% find the use of cameras acceptable.

"They reduce speeding. Since we have had cameras the proportion of vehicles exceeding 30mph speed limits has decreased. In 2000, as many as 66% of cars travelled at speeds in excess of the limit; by 2010 this dropped to 46%.

"They also have huge local impact on the quality of life for communities spared speeding traffic, a factor which is important in its own right in an age of localism, and this is reflected in the large numbers of communities seeking lower speed limits and enforcement of their limits."