Safe Speed Forums

As many as 81% of drivers said they looked at their speedometers rather than the road when a camera came into view

Speed cameras 'cause bad driving'

As many as 81% of drivers said they looked at their speedometers rather than the road when a camera came into view, the poll by insurance company LV= revealed.

And 5% admitted to braking suddenly when in sight of speed cameras, risking rear-end shunts.

The poll, of 1,532 drivers, also showed that 31% had witnessed an accident or a near-miss as a result of drivers' erratic behaviour when faced with a camera.

Almost half (46%) of those surveyed reckoned cameras diverted attention away from other areas of their driving, while 11% believed cameras actually increased the risk of an accident.

Also, 46% reckoned they existed only as a revenue raiser for the Government.

As many as 91% of those polled confessed to speeding, with 15% exceeding limits on a regular basis and 69% travelling at an average speed of 81 miles an hour on motorways. Only 9% said they never went over the speed limit.

LV= insurance managing director John O'Roarke said: "Speed cameras have been a feature on UK roads for almost 20 years, yet the feedback from drivers is that while they may reduce speed they also appear to impair driving ability or, at the least, concentration on the road.

"As this report shows some drivers behave erratically and, at worst, dangerously around speed cameras."

AA president Edmund King said: "We believe that far more crashes have been avoided as a result of cameras than the few that might have been caused by sudden braking."

New research from car insurer LV= reveals that many motorists admit to behaving erratically in front of speed cameras with thousands confessing to slamming on the brakes or looking at their speedometer as soon as a camera comes into view.

This erratic behaviour could be leading to the number of accidents which occur around speed cameras with the research showing that at least 28,000 [1] road accidents have been triggered by speed cameras since 2001, as motorists slow down ahead of them and then speed up once they are clear.

Among all motorists, eight in ten (81%) said they instantly look at their speedometers instead of the road when a camera comes into view and one in twenty (5%) admitted to braking suddenly, risking losing control of their vehicle or causing a rear-end shunt from the vehicle behind.

Rear-end shunts are the third [2] most common type of car crash and blame is nearly always attributed to the driver who hits the rear of the car behind. Nearly one in three motorists (31%) said they had witnessed an accident or near miss as a result of other drivers’ erratic behaviour when faced with a speed camera.

Despite over 6,000 speed cameras across the UK [3] , more than nine in ten drivers (91%) admit to going over the speed limit, with one in seven (15%) speeding on a regular basis. Motorways see the highest proportion of speeding drivers, with close to three quarters (69%) of motorists travelling at an average speed of 81 miles per hour. Less than one in ten (9%) motorists said they never speed.

Many drivers are sceptical as to the impact of speed cameras on motorist behaviour. Close to half of motorists (46%) believe they divert attention away from other areas of their driving, while one in ten (11%) claim that speed cameras increase their risk of an accident.

Motorists are also cynical about the reasons for speed camera implementation, with close to half of drivers (46%) believing them to exist only as a revenue raiser for the Government.

John O’Roarke, managing director of LV= car insurance, said: “Speed cameras have been a feature on UK roads for almost 20 years, yet the feedback from drivers is that while they may reduce speed they also appear to impair driving ability or at the least concentration on the road. As this report shows some drivers behave erratically and at worst dangerously around speed cameras.

“When driving it’s important to maintain a constant speed within the legal limits on the road. Excessive speed contributes to 12% of all injury collisions, and we’d encourage drivers to stick to all speed limits and not wait for a camera to reduce their speed suddenly.”

AA president Edmund King said: "We believe that far more crashes have been avoided as a result of cameras than the few that might have been caused by sudden braking."

presumably [- 54% don't]?

Anyway, there's a relatively simple solution: Hide/conceal all the cameras. Problem(s) solved!

I see that you support Frank Skinner in his Times column today.

Presumably indeed!
Do you know what the other options were to that question? Afterall, "(81%) said they instantly look at their speedometers instead of the road when a camera comes into view".


Then folks will permanently be gazing at their speedo.

There are other, better ways of solving the 'problem', like using real trafpol instead who consider mitigating/aggravating circumstances, as well as making speed limits reasonable to begin with.

Why would anyone have to "permanently be gazing at their speedo? Just the odd glance every now and then to check you're within the limit is all that's needed. Takes about half-a-second.

As for traffic police, they ARE out there catching speeders (and drink/drug drivers and uninsured and/or unlicensed drivers etc, etc). You make it sound as if there aren't any!

The police themselves say that cameras compliment what they do AND gives them additional time to focus on all motoring offences.

As for the 81%; just about everyone knows where the cameras are situated in the areas where they live and on the routes they regularly use (and even on those they've only used once or twice before), and I hardly think they have to " instantly look at their speedometers".

I suspect the question they were responding to was: 'Do you look at your speedometer when approaching a camera?' and, as one would expect, the vast majority said 'Yes'.

I suspect the question they were responding to was: 'Do you look at your speedometer when approaching a camera?' and, as one would expect, the vast majority said 'Yes'.

Why would anyone have to "permanently be gazing at their speedo? Just the odd glance every now and then to check you're within the limit is all that's needed. Takes about half-a-second. Most people who have been driving for a while know more-or-less how fast they're going approximately, so it's just a case of checking now and then. And I'm sure just about everyone on these forums knows that cameras are set to trigger at 10%+2mph above the given speed limit, so as long as drivers keep to round-about the posted limit it's unlikely they'd go over the threshold and get clocked (and I'm NOT saying that everyone should stick to exactly the speed limit all the time.....there are times/conditions when a slower speed is necessary).

Steve wrote:
One of the issues is how often the speedo is checked. The figure for the average 'time between glances', on a specs enforced section of road, is 11 seconds [table 7, speed cam tech at roadworks]. And the total time for a speedo glance takes more than half a second, don't forget that one has to refocus, check where the needle is between the graduations and check their associated number, then refocus on the road ahead.


Who says it's 11 seconds? As for how long it takes to glance at a speedo........I'm not forgetting anything, I'm just telling you how long it takes me. I don't have to "refocus", and I don't know anybody who does......maybe you should get your eyes checked.


Steve wrote
No. Only you inferred that - wrongly so!


So what were you inferring when you said: "There are other, better ways of solving the 'problem', like using real trafpol instead".


Steve wrote
Did you know that it was the intention for cameras to replace trafpol!

Never heard that one before. What is your source?

Steve wrote:
Did you also know that trafpol numbers have reduced, even though traffic levels (and the revenue from) has increased?

Yes, they were cut from around 16,500 to around 7,500 between 1987/88 and 1996/97 (when the Tories were in power). Shame on them!

Steve wrote:
And did you know that in the real world there is only so much budget to go around? What do you prefer, more trafpol and less cameras, or more cameras and less trafpol? Like I said to you earlier in another thread: that's a tricky one!


Well the 'real world' appears to be that we're gonna get less of both in the forseeable future (as for you saying something to me in another thread, that's an impossibility cos this thread is the only thread I've been on).


yes, they don't 'have to instantly look', but they invariably will!

So what's the problem with them glancing at their speedos?


Steve wrote:
The overall point being: your "presumably 54% don't" doesn't necessarily follow!

OR -Another question that could be asked "Do you brake first ,then check your speed when approaching a camera site" - of 100 drivers asked ,I 'd suggest that a high percentage said that they did . You know that you're not exceeding the limit( or if you are ,not by much)-but the thought of the £60 tax, means that you reduce first and check after . What always puzzles me is that once past the first marker or two on a gatso , It's OK to speed up - I've gotten up to a tad over with no flash .



So there we have two side effects of cameras - not exactly producing safe road conditions .

1) - Taking eyes of road in a danger area( well it must be ,otherwise the camera wouldn't be there)
2) - random braking at a danger area ( as defined in 1)


Any more side effects , not exactly producing safe road conditions----

Yes, I saw the results of the survey. And that's why I said what I said in my initial post - ie the solution is to hide/conceal all the cameras.


.

I think you've very neatly highlighted one of the main problems with cameras!

Picture the scene. You're driving into an unfamiliar city centre in the rush hour. You're due for a meeting right in the centre and it's an important one. You're naturally a bit stressed trying to get in the right lane all the time and find your way about - perhaps even without the aid of a sat-nav! Everyone around you is in a hurry to get to work. You're getting tailgated, carved-up right left and centre and maybe even tooted. You're doing your best to stay within the speed limit - you know there are bound to be cameras about, and you're trying to spot signs and road names.

The road you're on is an urban dual carriageway. it has just gone down from three lanes each side to two. The speed limit has changed from 60 to 50. A bit further on, there's a roundabout. The speed limit changes to 30. You come off the roundabout and it's still dual carriageway, but now with a 40 limit. You're doing as much over 40 as you dare (whilst still doing all the other tasks) and you've now got one of life's "winners" right up your ar5e in his BMW. Suddenly, you see a camera...

Is the limit still 40? Has it changed to 50 and you hadn't noticed? Perhaps it's changed to 30 without you noticing? PANIC! You need your licence for your job (you're a rep after all) and you've already got 3 points. What to do? Well, you can't afford too many more points - best check the speedo and brake down to 30 just in case...

That precise situation has happened to me before. (except the bit about being a rep and already having 3 points). What's more, I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one! Yes, in an ideal world, what you say above is quite true - I DO generally know to within about 15-20% how fast I'm going, and I DO try to stick to the posted limit (or just over) in towns...

...but the trick is knowing what the posted limit is, because these days, it's not like it used to be - they're up and down all over the place!

Who says it's 11 seconds?

As for how long it takes to glance at a speedo........I'm not forgetting anything, I'm just telling you how long it takes me. I don't have to "refocus", and I don't know anybody who does......maybe you should get your eyes checked.

So what were you inferring when you said: "There are other, better ways of solving the 'problem', like using real trafpol instead".

The police themselves say that cameras compliment what they do AND gives them additional time to focus on all motoring offences.

Yes, they were cut from around 16,500 to around 7,500 between 1987/88 and 1996/97 (when the Tories were in power). Shame on them!

Never heard that one before. What is your source?

Well the 'real world' appears to be that we're gonna get less of both in the forseeable future

(as for you saying something to me in another thread, that's an impossibility cos this thread is the only thread I've been on).

So do you prefer a speed camera that gathers evidence of one mere technical infringement and allows the determined criminal evade justice, or a trafpol that detects any tell-tale sign of anti-social bad/careless/reckless/dangerous driving, for all road offences, and halt it there and then and not let the determined criminal get away with it?

So what's the problem with them glancing at their speedos?

Sorry, but I don't follow (it's been a long day). Could you elaborate.

15-20%? That's interesting. For me it ranges from about 10-12% in 30mph limits and around 8-10% on a motorway (I tend to drive about 60mph on motorways - ie stick to the inside lane - not that I have need to use them very much).

Yes, I take your point, and I'm going to sleep on it (but not just yet!) and get back to you as soon as may be.

.