![]() (2009) study examined effects of a fixed camera enforcement program applied to a 6.5-mile urban freeway section through Scottsdale, Arizona. Recent crash-based studies from the United States have reported positive safety benefits through crash and speed reductions from mobile camera enforcement on 14 urban arterials in Charlotte, NC (), and from fixed camera enforcement on an urban Arizona freeway (). Prior reviewers also concluded that, although the quality of evidence was not high, speed cameras and speed detection technologies are effective at reducing traffic crashes and injuries ( ). Covert, mobile enforcement programs also result in significant crash reductions area-wide (). The best-controlled studies suggest injury crash reductions are likely to be in the range of 20 to 25 percent at conspicuous, fixed camera sites. reviewed 13 safety impact studies of automated speed enforcement internationally, including one study from a United States jurisdiction. ![]() Speed cameras can reduce crashes substantially. “Information on States’ laws authorizing or restricting use of automated enforcement is provided by the GHSA () and by IIHS ()” (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. 3-12), such as Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom (Peden et al., 2004). “Speed cameras also are used extensively in other countries” (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. A compilation of industry listings shows that 92 local governments and authorities had active automated speed cameras as of September 2011, but exact numbers are difficult to obtain because of the lack of federal regulatory oversight (Madsen and Baxandall, 2011). ![]() For example, the Arizona Department of Public Safety allowed a two-year freeway speed-camera program contract to expire in 2010 (city cameras continue to remain in effect). 3-12) because local jurisdictions generally contract private firms for the operation of these systems and contract durations vary. “Speed cameras have been used in 12 States and the District of Columbia (), but not all of these programs may be active at present” (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. Several jurisdictions, including the State of Maryland and Cincinnati, Ohio, that previously adopted speed cameras have repealed or considered repealing or restricting their speed-camera laws, following legal challenges, as well as negative sentiment among constituents (“Speed Camera Repeal Effort an Easy Sell,” 2009). Since then, at least 92 jurisdictions (state and local) have adopted automatic enforcement, although speed cameras are not as widely used as red-light cameras. The first automated speed limit–enforcement program was implemented in Paradise Valley, Arizona, in 1987 (Retting, 2010). (UNC Highway Safety Research Center, 2011, p. NHTSA and FHWA have released speed camera enforcement program and operational guides with information on problem identification and program planning, communications strategies, obtaining community and other stakeholder support, processing of violations, and program evaluation ( ). Speed cameras, also called photo radar or automated speed enforcement, operate similarly, recording a vehicle’s speed using radar or other instrumentation and taking a photograph of the vehicle when it exceeds a threshold limit. Table B.1 - State Laws on Enforcement Cameras, as of December 2011Īutomated enforcement is used in some jurisdictions to reduce red-light running and speeding.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |