Carrot or stick? It’s a common policy debate – do you get the best outcome by punishing or encouraging?
At the moment, it most frequently comes up in political debates over the environment, and in particular recycling. Can recycling levels best be raised by encouragement, such as discounts for recycling more of your waste, or by threats, such as legal limits on how much you can place in your bins?
It is a question that can be applied much more widely, which is why I was interested to see the initiative in Sweden where a speed camera records all the cars keeping to the speed limit with all the legal drivers going into a prize draw for cash prizes.
This neat idea could have a double benefit: tapping into the power of encouragement to get safer roads and also, by recycling the cash from the fines for speeding motorists, it could help rescue speed cameras from the cash cow curse.
That anyway is the theory. It is only a pilot and with different cultural attitudes in Sweden and Britain, what works there may not work here. Certainly worth a try here I think though. If you are involved in traffic decisions and reading this, how about giving a pilot here a try?
36 Comments
Right so now they track people not breaking the law? Excellent idea. Oh yeah, our police have been doing that for years anyway, so let’s make a little prize lottery out of the fact.
The thing is, these cameras are inanimate objects. They cannot tell whether someone is driving well or not, just that they are moving faster or slower than some previously decided limit. The person driving on the limit the moment the camera flashes may still be about to cause an accident…and get a prize Mars Bar for doing so!
Is each vehicle restricted to one entry per draw? Otherwise there is a risk that drivers will try to pass the camera as many times as possible just to maximise their chances of winning.
Simon G: I think so.
Jock: I agree about the need to look after the data safely (and dispose of it promptly after the prize draw). That’s one of the factors to weigh in the balance (how securely can it be done?) versus possible benefits of prize draws – if they are effective. If they’re not, then of course the whole thing is pointless. Though that doesn’t always stop them happening…
Jack, if someone is breaking the speed limit they are, by definition, driving unsafely and they are also wasting fossil fuel and committing a criminal offence. The fact that someone else may be also driving unsafely without breaking the speed limit is as irrelevant as the fact that while one person is shop-lifting, someone else may be pick-pocketing.
Why not remove speed cameras, and enforce the traffic laws through the presence of police on the roads who can make informed, human judgments on the overall safety of a driver’s performance? Or is the real purpose of the cameras not to make driving safer, but to generate revenue?
Jane
“if someone is breaking the speed limit they are, by definition, driving unsafely”
Utter, utter rubbish! It is possible to drive perfectly safely at a speed in excess of the stated speed limit just as it is perfectly possible to drive dangerously at a speed below the limit. Speed limits were decided by political will, nothing more.
However, it is not possible to do either on a road with other cars driving at the speed limit and with pedestrians and cyclists expecting cars to be driving at the speed limit, which is why we have laws about this stuff.
If you want to mess about in a car, go to a private racetrack. If you want to travel, do so at the speed limit. It’s not difficult.
Andrew Suffield,
Ooo now, you’ve jumped to a conclusion there. Jane stated that the very definition of “safe” was driving at the posted speed limit. I was merely pointing out the nonsense of that assertion, not advocating driving at unsafe speeds. There are countless examples where the speed limit in force in no way relates to the safe maximum speed of a road, both higher and lower. Speed limits were set by political will. No account of safety was taken, largely because in the 60s when the speed limits were set, very little was known about road safety. The vast majority of road safety research was done in recent decades.
The national speed limit of 60 MPH applies to all roads that have never had a specific limit set. It applies equally single track country lanes as to wide, straight trunk roads. The safe speed for each of these roads will be markedly different. Driving at a speed less than the legal maximum does not make you safe. Driving at a speed above the legal maximum does not necessarily make you unsafe. There are circumstances where driving above the posted limit, no matter how illegal or morally repugnant or Satanically evil, has a very low objective safety risk.
It is, of course, perfectly possible to drive safely at speeds in excess of the speed limit. However, the number of driers who can actually do this is much smaller than the number of drivers who think they can do this. Speed limits are always somewhat crude and arbitrary, but they are nonetheless useful in at least ameliorating the hazards caused by overconfident drivers.
Jane, as to your invoking the “green” argument, I doubt there are many cars for which optimum fuel consumption occurs at thirty, and even fewer at twenty (and I notice a report on Portsmouth’s 20mph imposition that there have been more accidents since – though of course that’s one year of data and I haven’t read the report just a headline).
Mark, like other sorts of prize draws, can I opt out of it and not be surveilled in the first place, please? Personally I find it not merely intrusive, but something of an insult that I’d want a “prize” for being responsible.
Even if you can only get entered once, it still gives you an incentive to drive past a camera, rather than walk, ride a bike, or catch the bus. A silly idea.
There’s some interesting research to show that commodifying morality often leads to poorer results than relying on honour and duty. See this paper, for example: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Do_Liquidated_Damages_Encourage_Efficient_Breach_Wilkinson-Ryan.pdf
For this reason – not to mention the worrying civil liberties angle – I think this is a very bad idea.
There is always a blurry edge to the speeding debate. I would suggest that speed limits are set for a population of drivers, not any one particular driver. Although i would agree that over the speed limit does not always, and always is a strong word mean dangerous. I would say though if you consider a the full range of drivers.who use a road increased speed increases the risk and the severity of accidents as reaction times reduce and stopping distances increase. Im not convinced that a prize draw would encourage aggresive drivers to slow down. I do like the idea that it might improve buy-in as to there merits, which are numerous. The cash cow arguement is daily mail spin that helps justify to drivers why they are ok for getting speeding tickets. It lets people of the guilt hook for endangering other peoples lives.
Tim: how do you know for sure that’s what would happen? It’s certainly possible, but that’s why I think a pilot has merit. By contrast, from your comment you present that change in behaviour as being certain; is there other evidence you’ve seen?
Mark, what does your support of this idea say about you? Why should I have to drive past the camera to prove that I’m a law abiding citizen? Innocent until proven guilty, isn’t it?
http://libertarianbulldog.blogspot.com/2010/10/mindset-of-libdems-prove-your-innocence.html
My issue with speed cameras has always been that there are many factors that lead to road accidents. Speed is one of them but definately not the only only one. The obsession with speed enforcement over the last few years has been driven more my the ease of enforcement using cameras than anything else. Tail-gating, sudden incosiderale lane changing, eating, drinking, texting, etc at the wheel are a few things that I am sure are at least as dangerous as speeding, but are very poorly enforced. At least where patrol vehicles are used to enforce speeding laws rather than cameras they can take other forms of danegrous driving into account, not just speed
Anthony: but I’ve not said that you have to drive past the camera to prove your innocent, have I? I think your desire to read that into what I wrote says more about you 🙂
Mark: My response is on my blog, where you left a more detailed response. Leaving it here too could become quite confusing 🙂
Mark, although I’m an enthusiast for speed cameras, I wouldn’t support a pilot of the Swedish scheme, because it does mean photographing cars that are not speeding and there is a privacy issue.
I think the real solution is for government to ignore the overly vocal drivers’ lobby and recognise that the majority of the population like speed cameras for the good reason that they are affective in reducing accidents. Financing them from fines is actually a very good way of paying for them.
And, it’s not just a question of road safety. Fast traffic is reducing the quality of life in rural communities all over Britain. There are villages everywhere crying out for cameras.
Colin Green — the speed limit on individual roads is set by the local authority accident prevention officer who has access to data for the road that is not available to the individual driver. In other words the authority’s estimate of the safe speed to drive is more likely to be correct than the driver’s. I would absolutely agree that the national speed limit of 60 is not appropriate for narrow country roads and long overdue for reduction. Anyone who drives above 60 is wasting fuel and needlessly increasing their carbon footprint.
Jane
“speed cameras … are affective in reducing accidents.”
Studies show that they are not, which is why local authorities are starting to reduce their numbers or simply turn them off. The effect seen is known as “regression to the mean” which is a statistical term that describes the actions of low frequency events like car crashes. The BBC website for the programme “More or Less” has a very good description of this very problem.
“Colin Green — the speed limit on individual roads is set by the local authority accident prevention officer”
and yet the overwhelming number of roads in this country are set to the default limits of 30 in built up areas and the national speed limit everywhere else.
According to the DfT, exceeding the speed limit is the second lowest cause of road traffic accidents. The biggest causes of crashes in the UK are not looking where you’re going (35%) misjudgement of other car’s path (20%) Carelessness, poor car control, Defective road surface / environment (15%), driving too fast for the conditions but within the speed limit (7%), Pedestrians not looking, driving too close, sudden braking, Exceeding the speed limit (3%), vehicle defects (2%) [source DfT]
“Anyone who drives above 60 is wasting fuel and needlessly increasing their carbon footprint”
Which is why I drive an eco car and have a self imposed limit of 50 MPH on country roads and 60 or so (what ever the prevailing traffic is doing) on motorways and dual carriage ways. My insistence that exceeding the speed limit is not a big cause of road traffic accidents is not because I like to drive fast – I don’t – it is because that is what the facts are.
Mark – What about a webcam that films pedestrians walking over Waterloo Bridge, and one of them gets a prize if they don’t mug anyone while walking past the webcam?
Tim
Interesting idea but probably not very workable. Those that complain about camera enforcement often cite “creeping big brother” with photos taken by the government as one of the reasons to oppose camera enforcement. It seems like quite a leap to me in that vein to take a photo of every vehicle going through an area rather than just photos of the violators. I am personally more comfortable with having photos limited to the violators and not having photos than are tracking the movements of everyone.
Colin
That wasn’t the finding of the three year study carried out by UCL in 2004 which found a clear correlation between reduction in speed and reduction in accidents at speed camera sites. I’m not aware of any other academic study apart from that one. The only other “study” that I’m aware of is Swindon’s claim that turning off their cameras made no difference — based on six months only which even they admitted was too short a period to judge. Perhaps you could cite the studies you are referring to.
On the role of speed in road accidents, you are not giving the whole picture. According to the DfT, in 2009 exceeding the speed limit was only a factor in 5% of accidents, but those accidents accounted for 17% of the fatalities. Speed, including travelling too fast for the conditions, was reported in 13%of accidents and that accounted for 27% of all fatalities. It is also worth noting that the causes of accidents recorded are the impression of the officer at the scene who is certain to notice if a driver is drunk, for example, but may have much more difficulty estimating what speed they were travelling at. In other words the method of reporting builds in a bias against reporting speed as a contributory factor.
While it is true that the majority of roads in the UK are subject to the national speed limits, I’m not sure that is the case for speed camera sites. I can’t find any figures on this, but my experience as a speed camera campaigner has been that speed cameras tend to be placed at accident black-spots, and because they are accident black-spots they have already been given a lowered speed limit.
This is a very interesting angle, but one of those things that seems silly to reward someone for following the most basic of traffic laws. Let the cameras and our cops do their job and catch the people who feel like they don’t have to follow the law.
It is an interesting idea, but I think the reward for driving within the confines of the law already exists. We avoid paying fines and are less likely to be involved in an accident. That should be enough of an incentive for people. Most are not going to drive the speed limit if they aren’t already for a 1:1.000,000 chance at a prize. The best way to stop negative behavior is with consequences in my opinion.
Nice theory, but negative re-enforcement is the only firm way to deter reckless driving.
Turning cameras into positive reinforcement strikes a key with me – so much out there is negative. I’ve even notice public radio trying this with each donation going into a pool for a great prize. I think cameras work – but this positive twist is interesting.
What a great idea. I love it.
Tim: neat analogy, but you could apply that to any incentive to keep to rules – so does that mean you think any use of carrot rather than stick by the public sector is wrong? If not, what’s the criteria you would use to decide what is and isn’t acceptable?
Luke: I think the main point is that often people do not react symmetrically to the fear of losing money versus the possibility of being giving money – so inducements and fines can have very different impacts.
Okay, I’ve skimmed that article and not read the comments, but….
“Why not make speed cameras reward good drivers?”
Because it’s two sides of the same coin. Whether we make drivers pay through fines, or everybody pays through taxes and the good drivers get their money back, or everybody pays through taxes and a few get far more than their money back (which is the converse of all drivers who break the speed limit being entered into a prize draw to receive a massive fine) the effect is the same. Speeding drivers lose money; the rest benefit (in the current case, through money going to the public authorities).
Of course, it is superficially attractive to wave a carrot and not a stick, but the reality is that the difference is just window dressing.
Tom: if you’d not skim read, you might have spotted the point I was trying to make 🙂 Which is that often people don’t react in symmetrical ways to risk of losing money or possibility of getting money. So even if the financial situation overall is the same, that doesn’t mean the effect is the same. Even as simple differences as switching a booking system between having a late payment penalty and an early payment discount can cause people to behave in different ways (even if the cost paid on any particular date is exactly the same and it is only the description that has changed). That’s why carrots vs sticks isn’t just window dressing; it’s also about the different ways people’s behaviour changes.
would be a good idea but I dont think it would work in reducing traffic accidents. Lets be for real here. Anyone that breaks the law should get a ticket.
While I am a fan of positive reinforcement- I don’t think it has a place in traffic laws. The positive side of following traffic laws is that you don’t get a ticket and when you stop and think about it- that is a pretty positive thing. The people that can’t see the value in NOT getting a ticket, will hopefully see the deterent in getting one.
We don’t reward people for not murdering others, so why should we reward people for not breaking laws on the road? Seems to me that we need to make sure people obey laws that keep others safe, and doing so needs to be our priority. Safe streets are better for everyone.