Inleiding en context
Donderdagochtend 2 juli, en alweer een verse ´kennisparel´ in de mail. Dit keer een zeer recente onderzoeksynthese over de mate van effectiviteit van roodlichtcamera´s bij het voorkomen van verkeersovertredingen en verkeersongelukken. In een breder kader heeft het WODC onlangs onderzoek laten verrichten naar het Effect van handhaving in het verkeer: Snelheid, roodlichtnegatie, alcohol en afleiding: https://wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/2593-effecten-van-verkeershandhaving-op-kosten.aspx Hoofdconclusie uit dat onderzoek is: HANDHAVING HEEFT EFFECT OP HET NALEVINGSGEDRAG VAN WEGGEBRUIKERS. OP DE HANDHAVINGSLOCATIES ZELF IS DIT AANGETOOND MET OBJECTIEVE CIJFERS VOOR SNELHEIDSOVERTREDINGEN EN ROOD LICHT NEGATIE. UIT HET VRAGENLIJSTONDERZOEK BLIJKT DAT ONGEVEER DE HELFT VAN DE WEGGEBRUIKERS AANGEEFT NA EEN SANCTIE OPGELEGD TE HEBBEN GEKREGEN OOK DAADWERKELIJK HET GEDRAG DUURZAAM TE VERANDEREN. VOOR HET NALEVEN VAN SNELHEIDSLIMIETEN LIJKEN WEGGEBRUIKERS MINDER INTRINSIEKE MOTIEVEN TE HEBBEN WAARDOOR DE HANDHAVING EEN BELANGRIJK MOTIEF IS OM ZICH AAN DE LIMIETEN TE HOUDEN EN WAARDOOR EEN SANCTIE VAAK MAAR EEN TIJDELIJK EFFECT HEEFT.
De echte liefhebber van verkeershandhaving en in het bijzonder het voorkomen van dodelijke ongevallen door rijden onder invloed van alcohol verwijs ik nog graag naar een recent verschenen overzicht van de US National Academies of Sciences (echte kampioen op terrein van kennisvergaring en kennisverspreiding):
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2018). Getting to zero-impaired driving fatalities: A comprehensive approach to a persistent problem. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24951/getting-to-zero-alcohol-impaired-driving-fatalities-a-comprehensive-approach
Maar nu naar de bijgesloten onderzoeksynthese waar op basis van 38 studies een oordeel wordt gegeven over de effectiviteit van roodlichtcamera´s bij het voorkomen van verkeersovertredingen en verkeersongelukken. Ook voor het Nederlandse beleid en de verkeershandhavingspraktijk een ´kennisparel´ om kennis van te nemen.
Cohn, Ellen G., Suman Kakar, Chloe Perkins, Rebecca Steinbach & Phil Edwards (June 2020). Red light camera interventions for reducing traffic violations and traffic crashes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, vol. 16, no. 2, June, pp. 1-52.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1091
Road traffic crashes are a major and increasing cause of injury and death around the world. In 2015, there were almost 6.3 million motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Of these, approximately 1.7 million (27%) involved some form of injury and 32,166 (0.5%) resulted in one or more fatalities (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2016, Traffic Safety Facts 2013: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System). The most common cause of urban crashes appears to be drivers running red lights or ignoring other traffic controls and injuries occur in 39% of all of these types of crashes (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS, 2018, Red light running). While many drivers obey traffic signals, the possibility for violations exists due to issues such as driver distraction, aggressive driving behaviors, or a deliberate decision to ignore the traffic signal. One researcher suggests that eliminating traffic violations could reduce road injury crashes by up to 40% (Zaal, 1994, Traffic law enforcement: A review of the literature ). Red light cameras (RLCs) are an enforcement mechanism that permit police to remotely enforce traffic signals; they may serve as a deterrent to drivers who intentionally engage in red light running (RLR). The one previous systematic review of RLCs found that they were effective in reducing total casualty crashes but also found that evidence on the effectiveness of cameras on red light violations, total crashes, or specific types of casualty crashes was inconclusive.
Road traffic crashes are a major cause of injury and death around the world. Many crashes occur because drivers run red lights. RLCs photograph violators, and are used to remotely enforce traffic signals as part of strategies to reduce RLR and traffic crashes. However, there are questions about their effectiveness, and there have been a number of legal challenges to their use.
This review integrates findings from 37 controlled before‐after (CBA) studies, and one controlled interrupted time series (ITS) study, that examine the effect of RLCs on RLR and various types of traffic crashes.
Included studies measure RLC effectiveness by comparing intersections with cameras to those without them. Studies that examined area‐wide programs, in which RLCs operated at some but not all signalized intersections in the community were also included. Before‐after studies were only included when they had a distinct control group and collected data for treatment and control conditions both before and after RLCs were put into operation. Studies involving additional interventions, such as speed cameras or enhanced police enforcement, were excluded.
This review summarizes 38 studies that contain 41 eligible evaluations of the effects of RLCs on RLR and/or traffic crashes. The studies come from four countries, with the majority carried out in the United States or Australia. Five of the 38 studies were assessed as having a low risk‐of‐bias and eight were assessed as having a moderate risk‐of‐bias.
RLCs are effective at reducing right angle crashes, right angle injury crashes, and total injury crashes. However, they also appear to increase rear end crashes. There is some indication that RLCs reduce total crashes due to RLR, but this effect was not significant. Additionally, there is some evidence, from three studies, that RLCs may reduce violations. Other types of crashes did not appear to be significantly affected by the use of RLCs. The economic implications of implementing RLC programs is not clear as few studies examined this. Overall, the costs of RLC programs tend to outweigh revenue. Studies of the effect of RLC programs on crash costs produced inconsistent results. The potential benefits of a reduction in traffic violations and in some types of injury crashes should be weighed against the increased risk of other crash types.
Investing community and police resources in RLCs will reduce various types of traffic crashes, including total crashes involving injuries, and may reduce red light violations, but will also increase rear end crashes. The majority of the studies examined were found to use weak methods which have a risk of bias. Policymakers and practitioners need to use evidence from better quality studies, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or natural experiments. More high‐quality empirical studies of RLCs are needed. Future research may be informed by the information reported in this review.
Dit keer in het Engels omdat de beleidsaanbevelingen naar mijn mening waardevol zijn, een vertaling naar het Nederlands is dan wat kunstmatig. Several implications for criminal justice professionals, policymakers, and others involved in traffic engineering and enforcement have emerged from this research. Consideration needs to be given regarding whether the benefits of RLCs outweigh the costs. This review suggests that RLCs are an effective method for reducing some types of traffic crashes, including total crashes involving injury, and that they may also reduce red light violations. Given continued increases in traffic volume and increasingly‐limited police budgets, which restrict the amount of time police are able to devote to traffic enforcement, RLCs appear to be a viable way of protecting public health and safety. However, RLCs also are associated with an increase in rear end crashes. The potential benefits of a reduction in traffic violations and in some types of injury crashes should be weighed against the increased risk of other crash types. In addition, policymakers must consider the economic implications of operating an RLC program, including not only the basic costs of installation and operation but also the economic impact of the effects that RLCs have on traffic violations and traffic crashes. Policymakers must also consider public concerns about the possibility that RLCs may invade motorists’ personal privacy, both because RLC data may be accessible to third‐party vendors and because of possible misuse of RLC data by the criminal justice system. Legal challenges to RLC enforcement over these issues as well as possible due process violations may create significant obstacles to the implementation of RLC programs.