Close Close
Fleet Events
Fleet News

IAM poll shows London motorists least likely to support speed cameras

Londoners and motorists in the North-East show the highest levels of resistance to the use of speed cameras than other parts of the country, research suggests.

The survey by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) polled 1,000 drivers of all age groups across Britain and asked whether they accepted the use of speed cameras.

Nationally, 79% said they were, but only 69% of Londoners said it was acceptable, down from 85% in 2011.

The North-East has also seen a decrease in acceptance in the past year, down from 84% to 70%. 

When asked if they agreed with the statement: “Speed cameras are only sited at places where accidents are happening,” again there was a sharp decrease in people in the North-East and London agreeing with it. Only 37% of those polled in the North-East agreed, down from 69% between 2013 and 2014. In London the numbers agreeing fell from 46% to 28%.

The IAM also asked if they agreed with the statement: “Raising money from fines is not the motive for speed cameras.”

There was a sharp fall in those in the North-East and London agreeing compared to 12 months ago, and a gradual fall over the past four years. In 2011 48% of people agreed with this statement in London, which has dropped to 29% last year. In the North-East those agreeing with the statement dropped from 58% in 2013 to 30% last year.

The West Midlands and London are the only regions where the overall trend since 2011 indicates that more drivers believe raising money from speed cameras is the motive (from 37% in 2011 to 56% in 2014 for London, and from 51% in 2011 to 58% in 2014 for the West Midlands).

With deaths on UK roads having fallen from around 3,600 in the mid-nineties (when speed camera use became widespread) to 1,713 in 2014, respondents were asked: “To what extent do you believe speed cameras have helped in this decline?”

While there is a very high agreement across the country for this statement, the North-West is the only region to see a consistent year-on-year decrease in those who believe speed cameras have contributed to the decline in road fatalities.

And there was a sharp fall in those in the North-East in the past year who agreed with the statement that speed cameras have helped in this respect, from 91% to 57%.

In its manifesto, the IAM supports the use of safety camera systems at collision hot spots, on roads with a bad crash record and at areas of proven risk, such as motorway road works. 

However, the IAM states that it is vital for their credibility and road safety policy that their use is concentrated on these areas, directly linked to speed related crashes and casualties.  It also suggests that cameras should be seen as a temporary solution until long term engineering improvements can be implemented to solve the problem permanently.

Sarah Sillars, IAM chief executive officer, said: “It is clear that most drivers accept that speed cameras are effective in reducing the numbers of people who are killed and seriously injured, but for many there is still an unfortunate link to revenue raising and a perception they are not always in the right places. 

“Public support is very important when it comes to effective speed camera operation. They will respect them if they can see their effectiveness and worthiness, and these regional variations highlight where extra work is needed to convince drivers of the benefits and to counter media perceptions and urban myths around cameras.”

Leave a comment for your chance to win £20 of John Lewis vouchers.

Every issue of Fleet News the editor picks his favourite comment from the past two weeks – get involved for your chance to appear in print and win!

Comment as guest


Login  /  Register

Comments

No comments have been made yet.

Compare costs of your company cars

Looking to acquire new vehicles? Check how much they'll cost to run with our Car Running Cost calculator.

What is your BIK car tax liability?

The Fleet News car tax calculator lets you work out tax costs for both employer and employee