In this article, the ideas behind two different speed camera systems in Australia, Victoria, and Sweden are explored and compared. The study shows that even if the both systems technically have the same aim--to reduce speeding--the ideas of how that should be achieved differ substantially. The approach adopted in Victoria is based on the concept that speeding is a deliberate offence in which a rational individual wants to drive as fast as possible and is prepared to calculate the costs and benefits of his behaviour. Therefore, the underlying aim of the intervention is to increase the perceived cost of committing an offence whilst at the same time decrease the perceived benefits, so that the former outweigh the latter. The Swedish approach, on the other hand, appears to be based on a belief that road safety is an important priority for the road users and one of the reasons to why road users drive too fast is lack of information and social support. In order to evaluate road safety interventions and how their effects are created together with the ambition to transfer technology, there is a need for a comprehensive understanding of the systems and their modi operandi in their specific contexts. This study has shown that there are major differences between the ideas behind the two speed camera programs in Victoria, Australia and Sweden and that these ideas have an impact on the actual design of the different systems and how these are intended to create road safety effects.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.