Government Guidelines For Placement of Speed Cameras
Where can the police, councils and camera partnerships place speed cameras?
The government have a set of guidelines that
authorities must adhere to when considering the location for a new camera.
There is a slightly different criteria for fixed, mobile,
and digital sites.
Further rules govern visibility and signing - see
the column on the left of this page for details.
Criteria for fixed site cameras (e.g. GATSO)
| Criteria |
Details |
| 1. |
Site length |
Between 400 & 1500 meters |
| 2. |
Number of fatal & serious collisions |
At least 4 per Km in last 3 calendar years (not
per annum) |
| 3. |
Number of personal injury collisions |
8 per Km in last 3 years |
| 4. |
Causation factors |
Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be
included |
| 5. |
85th percentile speed at or approaching collision hot spot |
85th percentile speed at or above ACPO guidance (10% plus 2mph) for free
flowing traffic (excluding rush hour). Partnerships must
have a strategy to move thresholds to the ACPO guidance
level by April 2005 |
| 6. |
Percentage over the speed limit |
At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit, excluding congestion
period |
| 7. |
Site conditions suitable for type of enforcement |
Loading and unloading the camera can take place safely |
| 8. |
Distribution of collisions |
Collisions are clustered close together around a single stretch of road
or junction |
| 9. |
No other engineering solution is appropriate |
There has been a site survey by a road safety engineer and there are
no other obvious practical measure to improve road safety
along this stretch of road. |
| 10. |
Camera visibility |
Enforcement cameras are well signed and highly visible in line with DfT
guidelines |
Criteria for digital enforcement sites:
| Criteria |
Details |
| 1. |
Site length |
Between 3000 and
10,000 metres |
| 2. |
Number of fatal & serious collisions |
At least 5 per
Km in last three
calendar years
along a minimum
3 Km stretch of road
(not per annum). At
least 4 in
previous three
calendar years in
each subsequent
Km (not per annum). |
| 3. |
Number of personal injury collisions |
At least 10 PIA per km in last three calendar years (min 3km). At least
8 PIA in previous 3 calendar years in each subsequent km. |
| 4. |
Causation factors |
Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be
included |
| 5. |
85th percentile speed at or approaching collision hot spot |
85th
percentile speed at or above ACPO guidance (10% plus 2mph) for free
flowing traffic (excluding rush hour). Partnerships must have a strategy
to move thresholds to the ACPO guidance level by April 2005 |
| 6. |
Percentage over the speed limit |
At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit, excluding congestion
period |
| 7. |
Site conditions suitable for type of enforcement |
Location for mobile
enforcement is
easily accessible,
there is space for
enforcement to take
place in a visible
and safe manner |
| 8. |
Distribution of collisions |
Accidents are more likely to be evenly distributed along a route |
| 9. |
No other engineering solution is appropriate |
There has been a site survey by a road safety engineer and there are
no other obvious practical measure to improve road safety along this stretch
of road. |
| 10. |
Camera visibility |
Enforcement cameras are well signed and highly visible in line
with DfT guidelines |
Criteria for mobile enforcement sites:
| Criteria |
Details |
| 1. |
Site length |
Between 400 and 3000 metres (can be linked into a longer route strategy
if more than three stretches satisfy the criteria) |
| 2. |
Number of fatal & serious collisions |
At least 2 per Km in last three calendar years (not per annum) |
| 3. |
Number of personal injury collisions |
At least 4 per Km in last three calendar years |
| 4. |
Causation factors |
Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be
included |
| 5. |
85th percentile speed at or approaching collision hot spot |
85th
percentile speed at or above ACPO guidance (10% plus 2mph) for free
flowing traffic (excluding rush hour). Partnerships must have a strategy
to move thresholds to the ACPO guidance level by April 2005 |
| 6. |
Percentage over the speed limit |
At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit, excluding congestion
period |
| 7. |
Site conditions suitable for type of enforcement |
Loading and
unloading the
camera can take
place safely |
| 8. |
Distribution of collisions |
High density of accidents distributed evenly along a stretch of road |
| 9. |
No other engineering solution is appropriate |
There has been a site survey by a road safety engineer and there are
no other obvious practical measure to improve road safety along this stretch
of road. |
| 10. |
Camera visibility |
Enforcement cameras are well signed and highly visible in line with DfT
guidelines |
For a technical argument of why criteria 5 (the 85th percentile) achieves
the opposite of the desired effect see this
page at Safespeed.org.
The Department of Transport have published a speed
camera evaluation document which contains (from page 31) the full guidelines
on the placement of cameras.
However, since these are only guidelines and not laws the Department for Transport
has said the rules "do not preclude cameras being placed at sites that
do not meet the guidelines if they contribute to the overall strategy aimed
at reducing road accident casualties." The DfT document referenced above
states "Some discretion is allowed to enforce at sites where there is
genuine public concern about speeding and also at roadworks."
So it seems that local authorities can place cameras wherever they please.
The penalties for breaking government guidelines are unknown and it's doubtful
that any action can lawfully be taken against authorities who choose to ignore
them. The only implication, which is a certainty, is that motorist will further
resent the authorities for breaching the rules.
|
Speed Cameras Dot Org
