Skip to main content

Automated traffic enforcement – speed or greed?

US research and education charity Frontier Centre for Public Policy has released Speed or Greed: Does Automated Traffic Enforcement Improve Safety or Generate Revenue?, a study on the effects of automated traffic enforcement (ATE). Report authors Hiroko Shimizu and Pierre Desrochers state that the decline of road fatalities by 58 per cent is largely due to better engineered vehicles, seat belts and other safety measures. Although there is little credible evidence, the report says some ATE supporters a
December 9, 2015 Read time: 2 mins
US research and education charity Frontier Centre for Public Policy has released Speed or Greed: Does Automated Traffic Enforcement Improve Safety or Generate Revenue?, a study on the effects of automated traffic enforcement (ATE).

Report authors Hiroko Shimizu and Pierre Desrochers state that the decline of road fatalities by 58 per cent is largely due to better engineered vehicles, seat belts and other safety measures.

Although there is little credible evidence, the report says some ATE supporters assert that lower speed limits, increased fines and rigorous enforcement will improve public safety. Shimizu and Desrochers claim evidence shows that strategies including better signage, longer yellow light times and speed limits that reflect actual driving practices are more effective at reducing traffic violations and collisions.

The authors question the ethics of budgeting fines and penalties as regular revenue sources and the attempt to justify them as public safety measures using rhetoric like ‘speed kills’. Indeed, highly punitive fines are often imposed for very minor offences, leading many to suspect the motivation behind these penalties might be budget shortfalls. An unintended consequence might also be a growing distrust of governmental authorities and politicians.

Shimizu and Desrochers conclude that government's ultimate goal regarding road transportation should be safety, not revenue generation. Further, if there is additional revenue generated, those funds should be dedicated towards promoting road safety and not simply another form of taxation.

The full report can be found %$Linker: 2 External <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?><dictionary /> 0 0 0 oLinkExternal here Visit report page false https://fcpp.org/speed_or_greed false false%>.

Related Content

  • February 14, 2019
    Ride-hailing and taxi drivers could face tougher criminal checks in England
    Drivers who ply their trade on apps such as Uber could be under greater scrutiny as part of proposals being put forward by the UK government. The potential risk to passengers from the explosion of ride-hailing apps, as private-hire drivers are perceived to receive less thorough vetting – for example, to flag up past convictions – has long been argued. Incidents such as the murders of passengers by a Didi driver in China heightened such concerns - although critics point out that a US Uber driver who ad
  • December 5, 2016
    MaaS Markets conference leads delegates from concept to delivery
    MaaS Market is ITS International’s first conference and will provide delegates with the information they need to move from concept to delivery.
  • September 9, 2014
    Noptel introduces speed and classification lasers
    Those wanting to catch up on the latest laser technology should drop by the Noptel booth where the company is highlighting its Speeder X1 and CMP52 laser radars. Speeder X1 is designed for vehicle speed measurement and has two integrated narrow angle laser transmitters allowing measurement of two consecutive overlapping speed profiles from the vehicle. Analysis of the profiles provides the speed, length and height of the vehicle as well as the time and distance to the vehicle in front. With its high
  • May 23, 2018
    AVs could make driving ‘more dangerous’: report
    Automated vehicles (AVs) could make driving more dangerous – that is the stark suggestion from a new report by the International Transport Forum (ITF). The report - Safer Roads with Automated Vehicles? – casts doubt on claims that 90% of road deaths could be avoided because the introduction of AVs would eliminate human error. ITF says such claims are at best “untested”.