A new document titled The Supervision Procedure for Road Safety will soon replace the existing Administrative Regulations for the Supervision of Safety Requirements for Road Users. It is currently open for public comment. The overall objective remains the same: to make roads safer. Several key provisions have been corrected and clarified to improve enforcement and outcomes.
One notable revision appears in paragraph 43, which governs the installation of cameras to enforce violations. The change signals an increase in the use of video surveillance on the roads. Previously, cameras tended to be concentrated in so-called accident centers. The revised approach shifts attention toward areas designated as pre-foci, defined as locations where a single accident does not yet justify an incident center. For clarity, a hot spot is a place where three or more accidents of the same type or five or more accidents of any type occurred within a reporting year, resulting in injuries or fatalities.
Under the new rules, cameras will also be placed in places where two accidents of the same type or four accidents of any kind have occurred, causing injuries or health damage to at least one participant in any case.
What does this mean for everyday drivers? The prospect of more cameras suggests higher potential fines, but it may also drive improvements in road safety through greater deterrence and more consistent enforcement.
Expert perspective
A spokesperson from the public movement Blue Buckets, and a leading figure in the motorists rights work group, explains the implications. He notes that quantifying the exact number of pre-accident sites is challenging, yet the expansion is evident in many regions. He recalls government statistics showing that a region once had a certain number of focal locations and a much larger count of pre-focal sites, indicating a broad growth in surveillance coverage. The same data, however, shows that the marginal effectiveness of cameras can decline over time as drivers adapt.
These observations point to the reality that cameras have reined in traffic and delivered a measurable safety benefit in the past, though their impact has leveled off in recent years. This raises questions about who stands to gain from the revised framework. Some stakeholders may have strong commercial interests in installing, maintaining, and operating camera systems. In periods with multiple accidents, speeding may not be the sole cause; other factors such as road surface conditions or traffic management quality can contribute to incidents.
Further discussion of these and related topics appears in the material on “Supervision of Compliance” published in the July issue of the magazine Behind the Rulem. It is expected to be available soon.
The latest issues of the magazine are typically available in marketplaces.