Seventy (70) percent of survey respondents in Great Britain thought that automated speed and red-light enforcement cameras were a useful way to reduce accidents and save lives.

11 February 2003
Cleveland,United Kingdom; Lincolnshire,United Kingdom; Northants,United Kingdom; Nottingham,United Kingdom; Strathclyde,United Kingdom; Essex,United Kingdom; Thames Valley,United Kingdom; South Wales,United Kingdom

Summary Information

This independent report encapsulated the results of a two year pilot study designed to evaluate safety impacts and customer satisfaction associated with increased deployment of automated speed cameras and red-light cameras in Great Britain. The objective was to measure impacts on vehicle speeds, casualties, and injuries in each city and compare statistics between camera sites, adjacent areas, and the long term trends nationwide. The pilot test was conducted from April 2000 to March 2002 and included 599 sites in eight regions (Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire (Northants), Nottingham, South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames Valley).

The following technologies were deployed:

Speed Enforcement – Fixed mount cameras were installed on roadways (1 km sections) where accidents occurred most often, and machine vision speed cameras were installed on high speed urban roadways where vehicle speeds could be determined from greater distances. In addition, portable (mobile) speed camera systems were set up on longer sections of roadway where accident frequency was less clustered. The portable system; however, required police to be on site during the monitoring to collect video or wet film evidence.

Red-light Enforcement – These fixed mount cameras were installed to collect images of vehicles running red lights. The evaluation of the red light cameras was limited due to the small number of sites available.


Fifteen (15) months after the pilot project began, 2000 people from across the country were surveyed. The following results were presented in the report:
  • Seventy (70) percent of people thought that well placed cameras were a useful way of reducing accidents and saving lives.
  • Only 21 percent of people thought that speed cameras were an infringement of civil liberties.
  • Sixteen (16) percent thought speed cameras were a waste of time and money.
  • Eighty-nine (89) percent said that cameras made them think more carefully about how fast they were driving.
  • Seventy-two (72) percent thought that speeding in a 30 mph limit was a very serious offense.


    Red light camera enforcement was not evaluated due to the small number of camera sites available. The number of crashes occurring at these sites was not large enough for statistical significance.

Benefit Comments

No comments posted to date

Comment on this Benefit

To comment on this summary, fill in the information below and click on submit. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Your name and email address, if provided, will not be posted, but are to contact you, if needed to clarify your comments.


Department for Transport: A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras - two year pilot evaluation

Author: Gains, Adrian, et al. (PA Consulting Group, and University College London)

Published By: Department for Transport, Road Safety Division

Prepared by PA Consulting Group and the University College London for the Department for Transport, Road Safety Division

Source Date: 11 February 2003



Average User Rating

0 ( ratings)

Rate this Benefit

(click stars to rate)


photo enforcement, red light cameras, red light running, automated enforcement, traffic signals, run red lights, RLR, red light runners, photo-red, speed cameras, automated speed enforcement, photo radar

Benefit ID: 2003-00264