Editorial: Wise view on speed cameras

Perhaps it needed an outsider, the Auditor-General, to talk sense on the issue of speed cameras. Those closest to the subject - the police, the Land Transport Safety Authority and the Government - are befuddled by it. They seem preoccupied with worrying about how unpopular the more extensive use of cameras would be. Never mind that overseas experience suggests that many lives could be saved if the cameras were used more effectively.

The Auditor-General's report reckons it is time to look at increasing the number of cameras and extending their use. It also wants an increase in the percentage of drivers fined when caught on camera. As it stands this is a scarcely credible 58 per cent because the police issue only tickets they are certain can be enforced.

Perhaps most pertinently, the report backs hidden cameras, even if it stops short of criticising the Government's decision not to take the covert route.

Overseas studies have shown that cameras have had "a significant impact on road safety, though the more widespread use of covert cameras there might make them more effective", says the Auditor-General.

The report leans heavily on Victoria's speed camera programme. This is quite appropriate, considering the success of that programme and the Australian state's determination not to shy away from tough decisions. In Victoria cameras are not signposted, and 85 per cent of drivers caught on camera are fined. Demerit points are also imposed, in contrast to the anomalous situation here.

The upshot of this realistic approach, in concert with the likes of increased random breath testing, has been startling. Victoria's road toll has dropped steadily over 13 years, apart from a disconcerting upward blip last year. In 1998, the state had 1.2 deaths for every 10,000 registered vehicles, a figure placing it on a par with the safety-conscious Swedes. New Zealand's rate was 2.2, putting it ahead of the United States, Britain, Canada and Germany.

Victoria's success has quelled opposition to cameras there. The same would surely happen here. The Auditor-General's report implies that cameras are not taken seriously because of the low rate of prosecution, and because the small number of cameras means there is only a slim chance of being caught.

The report also takes issue with the widespread view that revenue collection is the camera's main objective, saying fines are paid directly to the Crown and are unavailable to the police. But that view is likely to remain unless the money from the fines is poured back into road safety.

The sum, $38.4 million in the last financial year and rising, should be used to improve driving conditions. This should include paying for remedial work at accident blackspots, another part of Victoria's programme.

More effective use of cameras could also be made more palatable by other, equally logical, changes. Take our largely rigid speed limits. A speed that could be dangerous on one stretch of road is commonly seen and relatively safe on another. Greater flexibility in the setting of limits is warranted.

In any event, the Government and other authorities should not worry so much about public acceptance of speed cameras. A survey in 2000 found that 60 per cent of those questioned thought the cameras operated fairly. The opposition is noisy but far from the majority. The Government should listen not to that din but to the sense in the Auditor-General's report and in a Transport Ministry review that found hidden cameras could save 30 lives a year.

And it should concentrate on doing the right thing, as good governments do.