Dear Editors, VANCOUVER -- The provincial government and ICBC are currently on a propaganda crusade to convince British Columbians that photo radar is the answer to our road problems. We are sending you the following article in the hopes that by printing it, you can provide your readers with an alternative viewpoint. SEPTEMBER 16, 1995 PHOTO RADAR - THE WRONG TOOL FOR THE WRONG PROBLEM by Ian Tootill and J. Michael Cain In October, the provincial government and ICBC will begin to introduce 30 radar cameras to photograph vehicles exceeding speed limits on B.C. roadways. The government estimates up to 1.6 million tickets will be mailed to vehicle-owners generating an additional $160 million in fines - four times the present amount. This is a grab for revenues and political points by a cash-strapped government preparing for an election. It does nothing to reverse the decline of driver courtesy and competence that are making our roadways something less than the safe arteries they could be. Common sense says drivers want neither to be injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents nor to inflict unnecessary risk upon others. Why, then, are we opposed to the introduction of photo radar Ð a tool we are told will reduce speeding and accident severity? Because we feel the government is attempting to sell the wrong problem to the public. To justify photo radar, ICBC has launched its advertising campaign "Speed is Killing Us", based on the premise that the greater the speed, the greater the damage and injury if there is a collision. The B.C. government says that Australian state of Victoria, a user of photo radar, has reduced injuries by 38 per cent and fatalities by 44 per cent in just five years. Australia boasted that photo radar provided "substantial income for the government." What could be better? Saved lives, reduced costs, more money! What our government hasn't disclosed is that Australia initiated a far more comprehensive and proactive safety program than BC proposes. Among other things, Victoria raised speed limits according to the Inquiry into the Revision of Speed Limits for the Parliament of Victoria. At the outset, Australia had a fatality rate of about 3 per 10,000 vehicles. BC without photo radar has a low rate of 1.72. And while Australia identified excessive speed as a primary cause of 20% of fatal and injury accidents, BC claims only 11.93% for unsafe speed. This leads to the following questions: If speed kills, why did Australia raise its speed limits? And, if our rate is low, how do we improve traffic safety? A suggestion might be to encourage voluntary speed limit compliance while training better drivers. Numerous studies have shown that it is not speed that is a cause of accidents, as much as differing speeds among drivers who travel significantly faster or slower than the majority. Australia found that when the speed limits increased by 10km/h or more, speed distribution reduced and compliance increased. The fastest drivers decrease speeds when speed limits are raised; conversely, lower speed limits are more likely to be ignored. So, while many drivers may slow down in response to continuous enforcement, voluntary compliance occurs when speed limits are viewed as reasonable. Australia recognized that voluntary compliance is crucial for safety. A 1990 US Federal Highways sponsored study determined that, on average, 70.2% of drivers exceeded posted highway speed limits at any given time, consistent with many B.C. highways. Surprisingly, 37% of accidents occurred at 16 km/h or more below the average speed, while only 2% of accidents occurred at 16 km/h or more above the average speed - a direct contradiction to the catchy phrase "Speed Kills." How many times have we all been traveling safely over the speed limit, yet keeping up with the flow of traffic? Traffic engineers worldwide suggest speed limits be set at the level below which 85% of drivers travel. This recognizes that the majority of drivers intuitively determine a safe speed of travel. At its annual meeting this year, the Canadian Automobile Association adopted the following: "Speed limits should be based on the 85th percentile of traffic speed." The meeting acknowledged that "motorists have a right to know when to expect a traffic violation" and "if speed limits are reasonable, they will be respected." Experts claim that highway safety requires two key actions - minimal speed variance and reduced traffic volume. Photo radar's advertised objective is to slow drivers down. However, a Canadian study concluded that strict enforcement forced both the habitually slow and habitually fast drivers to reduce their speed more than those at the median of the speed distribution. In other words, there was no effect on speed variance. They also concluded that, to date, research results did not establish the existence of a direct link between speed limit enforcement and safety. Since slowing traffic down will not decrease speed variance but will increase traffic volume, photo radar in B.C. will be working against itself. While proponents of photo radar correctly point out that speeders are breaking the law, they should first ask who makes the law and whether the law is appropriate. Politicians have far greater influence over posted speed limits than traffic engineers. Why? Because artificially low speed limits appease special interest groups and maintain a profitable revenue stream, in the form of fines and premiums, for the government and insurance companies. Photo radar provides an automated mechanism to facilitate this. Before photo radar is introduced, it is imperative that speed limits on highways be correctly set by independent traffic engineers, not politicians. This will increase compliance and reduce speeding and accident rates. A study of BC driver records published in the Journal of Safety Research this year concluded that drivers at high accident-risk could be predicted by: previous accidents, failure-to-yield-right-of-way tickets, and major then minor disobey-signal-tickets - with previous accidents being number one. Speeding ranked ninth of 15 categories. Yet more than 60 per cent of all traffic convictions were for speeding. Photo radar will mean that up to 88 per cent of tickets will be given to the majority of drivers whose behaviour produces relatively low risk. How can our roads be made safer? To reduce driving to the lowest common denominator is not the answer. Raising driver abilities with higher training, licensing, and testing standards is the key. To encourage courtesy, co-operation and a recognition that driving-is-teamwork is crucial. Better engineered roadways and enforcement proportionate to infraction severity are essential. One could accuse the government of speeding -- speeding to implement a program that the public will ultimately reject just as they have in many other jurisdictions. Photo radar is the wrong tool aimed at the wrong problem. S.E.N.S.E (Safety by Education Not Speed Enforcement) is a group of concerned citizens opposing the introduction of photo radar in British Columbia on the basis that photo radar does not address the underlying safety problems of our drivers and roads. Ian Tootill is a Co-Founder and J. Michael Cain is the Director of Research. [printed: Vancouver Sun, September 16, 1995, and subsequently in other BC newspapers]