posted 4 years ago

Speed Cameras Accepted by Motorists

The vast majority of people are in favour of speed cameras, according to research by The Institute of Advanced Motorists.

The vast majority of people are in favour of speed cameras, according to research by The Institute of Advanced Motorists. In fact, eighty-two percent say that it is 'acceptable' for authorities to use them to enforce the law. However, forty-five percent of respondents believe their main purpose is to raise money rather than reduce speeding. Furthermore, eight-five per-cent say that speed cameras have contributed to the fall in road deaths since the nineties - and seventy-two per-cent believe speed awareness courses are a 'good idea'.

IAM Chief Executive, Simon Best, said: 'Simply catching and fining drivers does not change drivers’ awareness of the hazards of excessive speed. The popularity of speed awareness courses show that the public think training is the best option.' He continued: 'Speed cameras are an essential part of the policing tool kit and are becoming more and more accepted - but it’s clear that some people need reassuring about their purpose and funding.'

The perception of speed cameras varies throughout the UK. As such, thirty-two per-cent of survey respondents in Wales consider their use 'unacceptable'. This falls to twenty per-cent in England and fifteen per-cent in Scotland. Interestingly, Wales has the highest percentage of camera related convictions in the UK. Twenty-seven per-cent, in fact, have either been convicted – or know someone in their household who has been convicted – within the last three years. This falls to fourteen per-cent in Scotland and nineteen per-cent in England. As such, people in the part of the UK with the least camera convictions most accept their use.

Its been proven that they don't save lives atal, they raise revenue for Councils and Police Forces and are therefor another form of taxing the already overtaxed public, they are an unnecessary tool. And if you interviewed 2 million British drivers 85 % would say, scrap them.

It's a stupid, unanswerable question. If they asked: Are you in favour of cameras sited where the speed limit has been set correctly using scientific principles at genuine accident blackspots then most people might answer yes. On the other hand if they asked them if they were in favour of cameras sited on safe straight roads where the limit has been set far below the maximum safe speed then they would likely all say no. Just asking if people are in favour of cameras is far too simplistic and meaningless.

Where do these plonkers do their research? And how many people questioned were seasoned drivers? Not many I would think. Surveys like this can be so easily manipulated to get the correct results, and if 82 percent of people questioned agreed that it is acceptable to use speed cameras then most of them who were questioned were not regular drivers. I would suggest that any fall in road deaths is due to better vehicle design, rather than the threat of a hidden camera. It also depends on who's survey and who's statistics you are reading, as only a few weeks ago on this page there was a survey stating that road deaths had gone up. Statistics are meaningless unless backed up by facts. Like how many of the road deaths were not the fault of a vehicle driver, or how many road deaths were caused by immigrants and unlicensed or uninsured drivers, and how many were killed as a result of a police chase. None of these questions will be answered by the authorities, and until they are surveys by self promoting bodies like the IAM or the AA are quite meaningless.

I think they only good if they place them in the right areas, where kids and people about, not in dual carriageways???

I support the use of speed cameras in principle, if you abide by road traffic law then you have nothing to worry about. But it does sometimes seem that they are put in the most profitable places rather than the most dangerous places. It took many serious collisions to get a camera in our area, where as another was installed on a different road, having had no serious incidents at all. The criteria for installation should be made known to road users and always used to install them. This might give us more confidence in the strategy.

I agree with Peter; of course they are for revenue collection. Up in Durham we have just one mobile Camera, usually employed at genuine 'Blackspots'yet one of the lowest accident rates in the UK.

The law relating to these cameras has changed in recent years - authorities are only allowed to install them on roads with a high accident rate. Official figures confirm that cameras have reduced the accident rates on these roads. This certainly did not apply ten years or so ago. There were roadworks on a stretch of the M6 that I drove on daily. The traditional warning sign that you were three quarters of a mile away from a 50MPH limit was dispensed with. The roadworks started immediately after the peak of an uphill stretch. By the time you saw the 50MPH sign it was impossible to slow down from 70 to 50 without braking. 100 yards after the start of the 50 area was a bridge. Immediately behind the bridge was a camera. This camera was clearly there for no reason other than to make money. Contrast that with the present situation - when the coalition came to power they said they were going to reduce the number of cameras because they cost the taxpayer too much money.

i wanted to challenge oneNIP as i felt it had flashed the car on my leftAFTER my car had passed the camera .The police photo was poor but thye declined to waive penalty .To challenge the NIP i would thus have had to go to court and use expensive services of a Solicitor (the better the solicitor the higher the price)and then run the risk o court costs and higher fine as courts tend to favour the police. I thus reluctantly paid the original fine1

Speed Cameras have always been about making money,you tel because they never place them in high risk areas as the motorist will naturally go slower. To many are on good roads going down hill.

So far as NIP'S are concerned if it first went to the owner of the vehicle e.g. a car hire company who disclosed your details to the police I'm afraid the NIP would be valid if it was served on you outside the 14 day period

Speed cameras are mere cash cows. They don't have common sense and so the rigid speed regulations are applied even when they are not necessarily required e.g. during all the hours of the night and this is ridiculous!

I am a driver of 30+ years i have been twice caught in the last year doing 35 mph by cameras both on 4 lane roads coming off of a 40mph section with poor signage. I am a safe driver whos only crime appears to be traveling in areas i do not know.

Its not speed that kills, it's untrained drivers, and dithery old fools, who have no idea of today's highway code and the capabilities of the cars they drive.

Simon RutherfordSimon - If the NIP arrived at your address after 14 days, it is no longer enforceable. If you do go to court, you should state this immediately, and the case will be dropped.

Speed camaera are cash cows for continually mugging the motorist. They are hazardous and also placed where they can make the most money. This survey must have been limited to less than a dozen people and is meaningless everyone I know thinks there money making. Training and speed warning signs are more effective

Cameras slow down some of the dangerous speed lunatics. If cameras were removed there would be carnage on our roads for sure.

I think these cause accidents or lots of near misses because drivers suddenly stand on the breaks when they see them not taking in to account those behind them Also they are money makers for the councils and insurance companies!

very few cameras are for safety. I have seen many cameras AFTER cross roads. Entry speed far more important than exit speed. Why are there cameras on new/re-built roads?

I agree with most they are just cash raising machines. Like all comments most know where they are and most are hidden by foilage etc. Then wheres the justice a camera is instant, yesterday i was overtaken by a vehcle doing more than the legal HGV speed limit under a bridge with a police car on top and with half a mile past a laybye with two more parked up no reaction what so ever.

signs warning you (or thanking you) of your speed are much more effective in making drivers aware of their speed By implication they signal that the driver is entering an area where there are more hazards and he needs to take more care. Surely someone has compared the effects of speed wearning devices (which slow down a driver) and speed cameras (which penalise a speeding driver but too late to make them safe) - or is it really a case of wanting to make money?

Speed cameras really are a waste of time - the dangerous drivers know where they are or simply don't care if it's a stolen or uninsured car. Placing a speed warning device to let drivers know they are going too fast (works for me every time!) and then a speed camera if they haven't taken heed. The no excuses of it being a cash cow etc if that is done, and better its stops a speeding driver there and then rather than a few weeks later. Penalties could then be made more severe as the driver had been warned.

In my opinion the majority of speed cameras are used to raise money and not to improve safety. If used inteligently they are acceptable but are rarely seen in accident "black spots" or outside schools for instance. Speed does not kill - it is the inappropriate use of speed that is dangerous.

I agree with Gordon Bennet on this subject, they are cash Cows and most of the time do not work? according to local knowledge!

Instead of focusing on catching the speeding motorist, focus on improving driving standards! I regularly drive in Europe and in comparison, the UK has the most selfish and fickle drivers.

I entirely agree with Charles Stephenson regarding the speed awareness course and with Paul Milner that signs displaying your speed are far more effective than speed cameras. I was caught doing 36 mph and offered a course but the notice did not come until 10 days after the incident. In the meantimeI was caught just five days after the first occasion in the same spot. If there had been a sign showing my speed I should have known immediately and slowed down the first time and should have been ready the second time. So how did the camera help in avoiding accidents if that really was an accident black-spot as I am told is supposed to be the reason for putting cameras? The speed awareness course seemed designed to put fear into one which isn't calculated to make for a safe driver, and to make one,as Charles Stephenson says, to look at my speedometer and for cameras rather than pay full attention to the road. We were actually told to keep looking down at the speedometer! But in those seconds the road conditions can change.

I have very mixed feelings about this one. Yes they do slow the traffic down BUT they are also bloody dangerous. I regularly travel 'On the limit' with the cruise control on fully aware of what is going on when an overtaking vehicle suddeny pulls in front and slams the brakes on because they have spotted a camera car on and overbridge. On one occasion the muppet went from 70+ to 50 fo no obvious reason. How I missed rear ending him I'll never know.

Anyone who thinks these are anything other than cash raisers is blinkered. Simply look at the places with zero history of any incidents related to speed, they are located at. Why put a speed camera on a long straight section of Dual Carriageway or Motorway, other than to collect cash. Even if people do speed on such roads it's not a high risk. In town or through small villages or even near schools OK but the rest are just cash cows.

I'm sure that there are some speed cameras designed for reducing accidents. But many seem to be there to trap the unwary and therefore raise funds. I have only been caught speeding on one occasion in forty years of accident-free driving. And that on a country dual carriageway, when proceeding at 61 mph in very light traffic in daylight. By a hidden camera. Almost everyone I know has been on a speed awareness course, and all declare it a waste of time and simply a way to raise more money. It taught me nothing new; I'm a safe driver who was caught in a trap. Are there figures published which show the number of drivers who have had no accidents and yet have had to attend one of these courses? I didn't think so. They are targetting people who'll pay up, not those who are dangerous. I've now changed to a driving style which consists mainly of looking at the speedometer and cameras rather than the road. Thanks for making me so much safer.

When you have cameras hidden by foliage or at bottom of hills with no junctions for miles how are these safety camera, several times a month the policewait with camera as the personnel from the local military camps knock off, pick on people you know can pay

I am being taken to court now for an alleged speeding incident of 35 in a 30 zone in Swansea. It supposedly happened on the 11/07/2011. How am I supposed to recall that far back? The only image is of the back of a car with black windows!!! Tell me this is in the public interest? Speed cameras are a stealth tax always have been always will be.

I think same as Paul they are better 100% if anything having a big flash that blinds you is no good and if u do see it panic and slow Down it take 1 person to not see me slow down and hit me I'd replace them with the show speed display things

I think that the signs which display your speed as you approach them are far more effective in slowing drivers down.

The only speed cameras near where I live (South Norfolk) are in areas where, to my knowledge (I've only lived here 28 years) there have been few accidents and even fewer where there was injury, let alone fatality. Now convince me that they are truly SAFETY cameras!!