Hampshire & the Isle of Wight

Hampshire & the Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership Site and Casualty Information, as at 31 March 2004

Introduction

The national Safety Camera Programme provides financial support for the operation of speed and red light cameras, from fixed fines paid by offenders.

Safety cameras help reduce collisions, casualties and deaths on the roads, by encouraging drivers and riders to keep within speed limits.  Safety cameras are located at locations with speed-related collisions, and at traffic lights with known problems of drivers jumping red lights.known problems of

Safety cameras complement other measures to improve road safety, including physical measures to make roads safer, introduction of 20 mph and home zones, and public information programmes.

Details of the Hampshire & the Isle of Wight Partnership

Hampshire & the Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership entered the programme in April 2002.

The Partnership comprises:

Hampshire Constabulary
Hampshire County Council
Isle of Wight Council
Portsmouth City Council
Southampton City Council
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Magistrates' Courts Committee
Crown Prosecution Service
Highways Agency
National Health Service

The Chairman of the Partnership is Supt Mark Bradford of Hampshire Police.

Further information on the operation of the Hampshire & the Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership is available from:

Dr Marion Sinclair         
Project Manager
Safety Camera Partnership for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight
Hampshire Constabulary
West Hill, Romsey Road                                                    
Winchester
Hampshire                                                          
SO22 5DB

Email:   [email protected]

Other information is available on the Partnership's website.  Visit  www.safetycamera.org.uk

Introduction to the table 

The table was compiled by the Department for Transport from information provided by the  Partnership.

The purpose of the table is to provide core information on:

n        the safety camera sites being operated by the Partnership as at 31 March 2004;

n        the road safety problems which led to their being put in place;

n        and the data on people killed or seriously injured at each camera sites since the Partnership entered the national Safety Camera Programme. 

The table lists camera sites according to how long they have been in operation, starting with any sites which the Partnership was already operating prior to joining the programme.  For 2002-03, the last year for which casualty data is held by DfT, the table first lists sites which were in operation and for which casualty data is available for the full year 2002-03, followed by sites which started operation in the course of 2002-03, with casualty data provided by full quarters, so that the table provides maximum information.  The table finally lists camera sites established in the course of 2003-04, for which casualty data is not yet available.

Updating the table

The table will be updated annually, and further casualty data added. 

Categories of safety cameras    

Fixed speed camera sites, at which cameras are in operation continuously or from time to time.

Mobile speed camera sites - Locations or stretches of road at which mobile speed camera equipment is deployed from time to time.

Red light camera sites -  Traffic light locations at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time.

Fixed exception sites - Partnerships have the discretion to operate 'exception' sites, including 'community concern' sites where there is local concern about speeding.  These are listed in the table.  Some Partnerships also operate mobile exception sites, which respond to changing local needs, and are not listed in the table. 

The use of exception sites - fixed and mobile combined - is subject to a maximum of 15% of the Partnership's total 'camera time'.  

Procedure for the assessment and approval of camera sites

Partnerships submit proposals for new sites in an 'Operational Case' which is assessed by the Safety Camera Programme Board, which comprises representatives of the Department for Transport, the police and local highway authorities, the Treasury and other involved departments, with input from Partnership representatives.  Proposed sites are assessed against DfT guidance and criteria, which has developed progressively in the light of experience since the programme began in 2000. 

The current criteria are contained in the 'Handbook of rules and guidelines for the operation of the national road safety camera programme for England and Wales, 31 October 2003'.  In summary, Fixed speed camera sites are normally expected to have had four or more 'Killed or seriously injured' collisions (KSIs) per km over the last three years, or eight or more 'Personal injury collisions' (PICs) per km, over the last three years; together with documented evidence of speeding.  Mobile speed camera sites, are normally expected to have had two or more KSI collisions per km, or four or more PIC collisions per km over the last three years, plus evidence of speeding.  Camera sites vary in length according to the characteristics of the road, so KSI and PIC collisions per km is used as the standard as the measure of the degree of danger, for the assessment of proposed sites.   

Red light camera sites are expected to have had two or more KSI collisions or four or more PIC collisions within 50 metres of the junction over the last three years.

Sites may be approved for other specific road safety reasons. 

The current criteria for new sites were introduced in guidance from 2002-03, and do not apply retrospectively to sites established before this point.  But Partnerships are required regularly to review the continuing need for each camera site.    

Notes on the table

Table, Column B - Speed limit at site

This column shows the normal speed limit applying at the site, subject to any temporary limits which may be in force, for example because of road works.  Any temporary speed limit will be signed.

Table, Column D and E - Basis for site's approval

These columns provides information on the number of KSI and PIC collisions per km for the three years preceding the site's consideration, taken from the Partnership's Operational Cases. 

For camera sites which the Partnership were operating prior to joining the programme, the Partnership provided collision data for the three immediately preceding years - and not the years before cameras were first used at the site. It should be noted that a comparison of camera site casualty data immediately before and after joining the Safety Camera Scheme is not a full reflection of the effectiveness of safety cameras where sites were installed before entering the programme.  The number of collisions shown in these columns may therefore already reflect the benefits of the installation of the camera.   This data is nonetheless included in the table for information. 

Where columns D,E,F,G and H are 'greyed out' in the table for a site, this indicates a site which the Partnership had established before it entered the national programme, and which it has not re-submitted since then.  These are mainly older sites where the camera is felt to have achieved the desired road safety improvement. Detailed collision data for these sites is not at present provided to DfT.  But speed and casualties at these sites is monitored, and cameras will be deployed as necessary, should problems recur.  

Any camera housing may have a camera operating in it at any time.     

 

Table Column F - Nature of hazard

  This column summarises other qualitative factors relevant to a site's establishment,   viz:    

1.       High KSI (killed or seriously injured collision) per km

2.       High PIC (personal injury collision) per km;

3.       Borderline KSI or PIC per km (1 KSI below or 2 PIC below the present criteria for new sites - i.e. as specified in the Handbook of rules and guidance);

4.       Evidence of speed problem from speed survey;

5.       Evidence that local residents are concerned about speed for example complaints, surveys, petitions;

6.       High casualties spread across a length of a route rather than a specific location;

7.       Proximity to vulnerable road users including children, horse riders, elderly;

Table Column G - Killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties before the site's establishment   

This column gives the average annual number of people (as distinct from the number of collision reported in Columns D and E) killed or seriously injured at the site per year, averaged over the three years before the camera site was established.  Note that the site may have been established after it was initially approved, and the figure in this column may be for a later three year period that that in Columns D and E.

For the camera sites which the Partnership was already operating prior to joining the programme, this information may relate either the three years before the site was re-submitted as explained above in relation to Columns D and E, or to the period before the camera was first installed - as the table will indicate.   

Note that the number of casualties is for the total site, as distinct from the per km figure for collisions in Column F.  Also note that the figure is an annual average over the three year period (as distinct from the three year total given in column F) 

Column H - Year by year KSI casualties since the Partnership joined the programme

This columns give the number of KSI casualties for each full year for which a site has been operating as part of the national programme. 

For the camera sites established in the course of 2002-03, full year casualty figures are not available, but figures are given for the full quarters since the site was established.  For these sites, Column G shows the average 'before' casualties is given in 'per quarter' terms also, for ease of comparison.  Sites for which four quarters of data are available have already been covered in the preceding section of the table.  Some of these sites were established in the course of the fourth quarter of the year - so that no full quarter data is available.  

Department for Transport

June 2004