Leading systems suppliers discuss how recent events in Italy have affected the automated enforcement sector and how the situation might be remediated
In our previous article "<%$Linker:The recent events in Italy, where local authorities and systems suppliers have been accused of profiteering, have reverberated right around the globe and provided ammunition for those who oppose automated enforcement. But was it a uniquely Italian problem? ITS International spoke to some leading enforcement systems suppliers and asked for their take on events and what can be done to counter the damage done to enforcement's reputation, as well as what should be done to prevent something similar happening again.
Global issue
"This situation could potentially happen anywhere," says"Most national and established enforcement set-ups which base their enforcement operations on increasing safety will already follow and practice such standards. But it demonstrates the need for national standards or, better, cross-border international standards and settings, since driver mobility now enables travel over many countries, in some cases in as many hours. Cross-border standards could be matched with cross-border prosecution and internationally accepted driver behaviour in an attempt to decrease accident rates, targeting the most vulnerable, young drivers, motorcyclists and pedestrians, particularly at times of the greatest conflict.
"Best practice needs to come from both the national and even international levels, initially encouraging similar-minded jurisdictions to partner. Later, territory-wide schemes could be established and enforced. Better driver education and re-education for both new and experienced drivers would aid overall accident reduction.
"For the most part, homologation or approval of individual systems is already in place where there is a perceived demand for safety camera use supported with fair and reasonable enforcement. Alongside approving the operational standards of enforceable equipment there must be equally strict and definable operational procedures based on the type of equipment being used and the need to set up the instruments in a proper and consistent method, removing any likelihood of unsafe enforceable prosecutions.
"Generally, most countries operate under the same generic safety beliefs, instrumentation requirements and operational rules and time will gradually increase local harmonisation of equipment use and procedures eventually establishing international agreed standards. The VERA project, for example, attempts to move cross-border agreement closer and closer to this goal of a European harmonised standard. However, any 'Gold Standard' needs to be a working two-way system of development between industry and the institutions which set national standards. Currently, the time taken to completely approve equipment often means that it is 'time-expired' before it even reaches the operator's hands. There is very little option to introduce innovation into driver safety in many countries due to the historic regulations which form part of the fabric of approval and testing. Much could be done in this area to speed approvals and make up-to-date equipment available to the users who have a direct effect on casualty reduction."
Less than unique
Robert Ryan, Managing Director at"Nevertheless, the events in Italy have simply served to reinforce 'I told you so'-type criticisms and the actions of those looking to score cheap political points or sell more newspapers only reinforce the public's poor perceptions. For example, where cameras are put in place and there is no instant reduction in the number of road accidents the media will then seize upon this 'failure' or, more worryingly, 'stealth tax' on motorists. However, cities such as London target injury and death reductions rather than accident rates and these have plummeted as a result of camera deployments. Clearly, when comparing 10 road traffic accidents at 50mph against 10 at 30mph the latter will result in considerably fewer serious injuries, yet supporting figures are rarely quoted in the media.
"Education is the way forward. In the US, service providers embark on a public service campaign when installing cameras; using posters, visits to schools and public meetings they seek to educate the public on how cameras work and how they can benefit the local community. If statistical evidence can be used to show reductions in the number of deaths and serious injuries where cameras are deployed and if this information is relative to the local community we can go a long way towards engendering trust. However there must be more transparency with relation to revenues raised and the rationales for deciding camera locations.
"There are other areas where there is potential for legal challenge; the UK and the Netherlands are the only countries to employ secondary check marks on the road when using automated speed enforcement. Given the known deficiencies of radar where the systems are not lane-specific it's perhaps only a matter of time before photograph-only evidence is taken to task.
"An internationally agreed standard for the deployment and operation of cameras may be the way forward.
A voluntary baseline policed by accredited private regulatory bodies similar to the way that the ISO standards are applied across the world could be the answer. Several countries already have rigorous standards in place and if a consensus could be agreed a multilateral baseline standard could be formed. Similar to the way in which ISO 9000 is applied, the rules and regulations do not have to be specifically prescribed but rather a set of guidelines to be applied. This would allow for individual legislation within each country or individual rules specific to local requirements. The standards could be two-fold, governing both the manufacturers and the deploying authorities. This would benefit all parties; in having a single standard manufacturers would not be required to go through lengthy homologation in a number of different countries in order to sell equipment, while the end users would be assured of quality in the evidence provided by the equipment. In agreeing to abide by standards governing the broad use of photo enforcement, such as the employment of secondary check marks, the end users would reduce the risk of a recurrence of the situation which unfolded in Italy."
A question of role
"It's vitally important to understand why any scheme that could result in revenue generation has been installed; a congestion charging scheme is put in place for very different reasons to an enforcement scheme on a route with a significant casualty history. System designers and operators must be clear in what they are trying to achieve and this needs to be clearly and consistently communicated," says Geoff Collins, Sales & Marketing Driector of SCS"If a system is operated to reduce collisions and save lives, the operators of the system and the governmental departments they represent need to make that clear. Similarly, if cameras are operated to manage traffic flows their primary purpose is to ensure that the varying speed limits are obeyed, thus improving journey reliability. This is the 'carrot' to the driver, whilst the threat of possible enforcement is the 'stick'. As long as drivers can see the benefit and don't perceive a high level of revenue generation, they will support camera operation.
"This is not unique to Italy - in the UK, there are many people (encouraged by the national media in particular) who would have you believe that the revenue from safety cameras is purely a 'tax'.
"I would though be wary of having absolute rules to ensure consistency of deployment, as this reduces the opportunity to be creative around individual situations and would make it far simpler for the loophole specialists to determine how any scheme is being operated.
"However, it would be beneficial to have guidelines that suggest an envelope for the use of such a system. A national body could issue guidelines which regional/local operators would be expected to work within. However, an operator should be able to change its procedures if local issues demand it. For example, in the UK the
"My personal belief is that an international standard would be a step too far. Our roads are operated differently, with many variations from country to country. If there was a 'Gold Standard' it would have to be on a purely advisory basis. There are many different deployment types, each of which would probably have a different requirement. For example, a safety-critical scheme could conceivably require a more rigorous enforcement regime than a traffic management one.
"We need greater understanding and consideration by government, regional operators, system designers and suppliers. Public perception is what makes an enforcement scheme work. If you perceive that it is live and there for a good reason, you will probably comply and have a safe, reliable journey. If you perceive that it is trying to tax you, you will resent it, the organisation responsible for it being there and particularly the beneficiary of any revenues raised. Consequently, it is not advisable that any of the suppliers or designers or operators benefit from fine revenues. Even the most effective safety camera will generate some revenue - what happens to that revenue is the key. As long as those involved in the deployment of cameras benefit from high fine revenues, there will be an ongoing problem."
