Skip to main content

Less support for speed cameras in 2013

The use of speed cameras are supported by the majority of the motoring public, according to the latest research published today by road safety charity, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, with eighty per cent of motorists accepting their use. However, this is down one per cent on last year’s survey. Seventy nine per cent think that speed cameras are useful to reducing injuries, a fall of six per cent from the 2012 findings. There is still scepticism amongst the motoring public. Over half of drivers (
November 19, 2013 Read time: 2 mins
The use of speed cameras are supported by the majority of the motoring public, according to the latest research published today by road safety charity, the 6187 Institute of Advanced Motorists, with eighty per cent of motorists accepting their use.  However, this is down one per cent on last year’s survey.  Seventy nine per cent think that speed cameras are useful to reducing injuries, a fall of six per cent from the 2012 findings.

There is still scepticism amongst the motoring public.  Over half of drivers (52 per cent) do not believe that cameras are only sited at locations where accidents happen.  Almost half of drivers think that raising money is the main purpose of safety cameras.

Scottish motorists are the least likely to have someone in their household with speeding points but they are also the most against speed cameras and speed awareness courses.
Support for speed awareness courses has increased.  Three quarters of motorists support the use of speed awareness courses up from 70 per cent in 2011.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: Speed cameras are a successful road safety solution at key crash sites and it’s important that the government and safety camera partnerships work to maintain a positive view so that the rising suspicion amongst motorists does not become a trend. During times of austerity, drivers are increasingly seeing speed cameras as revenue raising apparatus and are sceptical of their importance for road safety.”

Related Content

  • July 13, 2012
    Lenient sentences for dangerous drivers in the UK criticised
    The average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in the UK is just four years – 62 per cent shorter than for manslaughter, according to road safety charity the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists). While the average sentence length of manslaughter is 6.6 years, those sentenced to prison for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving are given an average sentence of 1.3 years. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs has an average sentence of 4.3 years
  • November 7, 2016
    UK’S infrastructure on the up, but now it’s all about delivery – CBI/AECOM
    Almost half of firms believe the UK’s infrastructure has improved over the past five years, but only a quarter think it will pick up in the next five years, and two thirds suspect it will hamper the country’s international competitiveness in the coming decades, according to the 2016 CBI/AECOM Infrastructure Survey.
  • May 30, 2013
    A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe
  • December 4, 2012
    Assessing the potential of in-vehicle enforcement systems
    Jason Barnes considers the social and ethical ramifications of using in-vehicle safety technologies to fulfil enforcement functions. Although policy documents often imply close correlation between enforcement, compliance and safety – in part, as a counter to accusations that enforcement is rather more concerned with revenue generation – there is a noticeable reluctance among policy makers and auto manufacturers to exploit in-vehicle safety systems for enforcement applications. From a technical perspective t