Young motorists most supportive of safety cameras says IAM

[Darren]

------------------------
Young motorists most supportive of safety cameras says IAM

Young people have a more positive attitude to safety cameras than older drivers, according to the latest survey of driver opinions on safety cameras from the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists). The results, published today, show that 17-24 year-olds give the best approval ratings overall while older drivers tend to be the least supportive, with drivers over 45 giving the lowest approval ratings.

Neil Greig, Director of Research and Policy at the IAM, said: “Young people don’t tend to drive as frequently or as far as the average driver, and they have also grown up in a surveillance society, which could explain why they show less objection to safety cameras – older people are more likely to resent being monitored in this way. With this survey we now have 10 years worth of motoring opinion on the most contentious issue on the roads today.

The study also found that women have been consistently more supportive of safety cameras than men, although this support has fluctuated over the years. Support from men has declined from 83 per cent in 2002 to 66 per cent in 2009. “On average, women commit fewer traffic offences than men, so they may see cameras as less of a threat” said Mr Greig.

Very high mileage drivers (those driving over 20 thousand miles a year) were shown to be the least supportive of safety cameras. Mr Greig said: “20,000 miles is an unusually high distance to cover in a year, so the driver would typically be driving on business. Time is money for these drivers, they are more likely to be in a rush so more likely to get caught by safety cameras or be late because of them. They may blame the cameras for being late, rather than their unrealistic schedules”

The data, collected over 10 years, includes opinions on developments in safety camera policy and operations and acceptability of safety cameras.

Safety cameras had a 75% approval rating in 2009, compared with a 92% approval rating in 1999. “Support has declined gradually but consistently over the last 10 years, but overall speed cameras have maintained a good level of approval among the motoring public” added Mr Greig.

“However the firm belief remains that safety cameras are primarily for raising revenue. Until that link is broken it will remain very difficult to convince all drivers that safety cameras really do deliver fewer deaths and serious injuries”
------------------------
Comments?

[dmp]

I drive 30000 odd miles a year, and my last speeding ticket was in 2000. I don't like speed cameras and I think they're dangerous, only today, wet road 50 mph speed limit and the car I was following was doing 45, driver saw the camera and slammed on the brakes, luckily I'd left a good space between us and his actions didn't affect me, but someone driving closer would have rammed him. Not even sure why the camera was in the location it was, very wide road with plenty of view, accident black spot, I doubt it.
Dave

[jont]

Neil Greig, Director of Research and Policy at the IAM, said: “Young people don’t tend to drive as frequently or as far as the average driver, and they have also grown up in a surveillance society, which could explain why they show less objection to safety cameras – older people are more likely to resent being monitored in this way.

So conditioning people to accept a surveillance society is a good thing? Not to mention youngsters being brainwashed from a young age that speed kills and nanny knows best, so blindly do as you're told and there won't be any trouble. Or maybe it's just youngsters having learned to drive with cameras around have got used to spotting yellow boxes at the side of the road as part of their hazard perception development so don't see them as a problem? I wonder if the survey differentiated between clearly marked, fixed location cameras as opposed to mobile scamera vans (or horseboxes etc etc)

[daz6215]

Speed doesn't kill!!!! Stopping does!

[fungus]

Typical answer from a pupil when asked," what's the hazard ahead?" and we're driving in the vicinity of a speed camera, would be, SPEED CAMERA.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[Angus]

“However the firm belief remains that safety cameras are primarily for raising revenue. Until that link is broken it will remain very difficult to convince all drivers that safety cameras really do deliver fewer deaths and serious injuries”

Which would explain why when Essex installed cameras & reduced police patrols road casualties increased?

[Angus]

Almost every time I see an utterance from the IAM I feel they've lost the plot.

They don't seem to be interested in driving, drivers and education, just cowtowing to the government, producing reports to make the DoT smile or agreeing with the DoT/governments's latest ridiculous idea

I don't want to slag off the IAM, but I'm finding it harder not to. Since the increase in fees, our group has had no new associates, and I suspect most people who pass don't renew.

Does anyone know how many members there are now?

The only reason I continue my membership is for the discount on insurance

[kfae8959]

The only reason I continue my membership is for the discount on insurance

Ditto. I do encourage members to write and voice their objections, though: as yet I haven't, so the Institute has every reason to assume that it is speaking for me. Let's let them know that isn't the case

David

[Big Err]

Almost every time I see an utterance from the IAM I feel they've lost the plot.

They don't seem to be interested in driving, drivers and education

That'll be that Mr Grieg again

[TripleS]

Speed doesn't kill!!!! Stopping does!

Sometimes. It depends on how quickly you stop, and by what means.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Almost every time I see an utterance from the IAM I feel they've lost the plot.

They don't seem to be interested in driving, drivers and education

That'll be that Mr Grieg again

It looks to me as if the IAM hierarchy in general, and that man in particular, have no interest in encouraging any enthusiasm for driving and raising standards that way - which to my way of thinking would be the best way to do it.

They now seem to regard themselves as a business, presumably making their money through fleet training etc. and toadying up to the government at the same time.

It's quite sickening to see, and I don't know how the hard working people at local group level have the stomach to put up with it, but all credit to them for doing so, and for the results they achieve, but IAM HQ can take no credit for it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[zadocbrown]

Oh dear, here we go again! Cue speeding, cue pointless stats, cue if we smack enough bottoms people will revert to walking on all fours to make it easier for us to smack them some more........

1. I'm rather dubious about the stats. What does 'approval' mean anyway? Does it mean 'I think cameras should be everywhere' or 'I think they have potential in some situations' or 'I like them so long as I don't get caught' or even 'I don't like to admit to not liking them'

2. I have a theory about why older drivers are less keen: they've done more miles and therefore had more tickets Do the maths!

3. Maybe the reason people don't believe they work is that they know how much effect they have on their own behaviour - i.e. very little.

4. Personally I don't think cameras are a money spinner (though I'm sure the government is aware of this pleasant side effect ) I think the policy is well intentioned but hopelessly misconceived. I don't object to a few cameras in places where speed would be particularly problematic, such as at awkward junctions. I can't see the point of putting them on straight sections where most people just slow down then speed up again and the only people who get caught are a few inattentive tourists.

[daz6215]

That bottom smacking sounds good!

[TripleS]

That bottom smacking sounds good!

It rather depends on the bottom, I would say.

On the other hand if we're talking about arse kicking we have more candidates to choose from.

Best wishes all,
Dave.