Safety cameras change driver behaviour
Written by author on October 12, 2010
A recent independent survey, commissioned by the Scottish Safety Camera Programme, has confirmed that safety cameras are having a positive effect on driver behaviour.
800 drivers, across Scotland, were asked for their opinions on safety cameras and speed related issues. The survey concluded that awareness and understanding of safety cameras is high with the majority of motorists saying that being detected speeding by cameras has changed the way they drive for the better.
91% of speeding offenders stated they were more aware of their speed as a result of being detected and 39% said they no longer speed.
When asked what makes drivers speed, almost half of the respondents said that they believed it was because they were either in a rush or impatient.
The Scottish Safety Camera Programme Director, Jim Dale said: “We are encouraged by the results of this survey; it demonstrates that the public are supportive of safety cameras. People believe that if they speed they will arrive at their destination quicker, in reality they will probably only save a couple of minutes but in the process they are putting themselves and other road users at risk. Whatever the argument for or against safety cameras; the fact is that speeding is dangerous, antisocial and illegal.”
The survey also looked at what would help prevent drivers speeding in the future and the top two responses were for more driver training and more safety cameras.
Jim Dale continued: “The work of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme is not just about enforcing speed limits, a great deal of work is undertaken to educate drivers about speed limits and the dangers of inappropriate speed.
“Regrettably, a high proportion of the public still believe that safety cameras are there to make money. This is not the case, since April 2007, safety cameras north of the border have been funded directly from the Scottish Government and all fine revenue goes directly to the UK Treasury in Westminster.”
The survey illustrates that there is still further work to be done to educate drivers about speed limits. 1 in 10 drivers believe that the speed limit for a car travelling on a single carriageway road is 70 mph, a whole 10 mph above the national speed limit.
The research also identified that three quarters of respondents regularly see safety cameras at the roadside. This includes fixed cameras, mobile cameras and average speed cameras. The main aim of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme is to influence driver behaviour by the targeted enforcement of speed limits at locations where there is a history of fatal and serious accidents and also an identified problem with speeding.
Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer at RoSPA Scotland, added: “Drivers need to appreciate that when they see a safety camera sign they are on a stretch of road that needs particular care as there will have been a high number of serious crashes. We fully support safety cameras as part of the solution to making our roads safer for all.”
Genie Balfour On October 20, 2010 at 10:39 am
Safety cameras may or may not change driver behaviour for the better. It’s just another tax on the motorist.
What I find is most effective in correcting me if driving above the speed limit is the signs that flash my speed as I approach them. That is information I can act on, and I do.
I’m sure I’m not alone, but I’m not aware of any studies to compare “safety” cameras vs these flashing speed indicators.
Genie
Andrew Fraser On October 14, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Dear Sirs,
I have just read this survey which, having been commissioned and, presumably, paid for by the Scottish Safety (sic) Camera Programme is, obviously, NOT independent.
That said, it is difficult to understand your (correspondent’s?) assertion that the survey confirms that [camera enforcement] is having a “positive” effect on driver behaviour.
While it may provide some not very useful indications of drivers’:
* levels of awareness of speed limits
* thoughts on why they “speed” (whatever that means – it isn’t even defined)
* levels of awareness of the existence of certain “partnerships” and the “programme”
* levels of awareness of the existence of camera traps
* level of ignorance as to why cameras have been deployed
* various experiences of being trapped
as far as driver behaviour is concerned, it provides NO evidence of a “positive” change in driver behaviour, whatsoever.
It suggests that, after being trapped, drivers think that certain changes may take place. But that’s all. They aren’t necessarily “positive” changes, in terms of accident reduction, and we don’t even know how long they last.
Regarding the “programme’s” ability to “change their driving”, one wonders why the report fails to emphasise that 75% of drivers do not believe that the “programme” can do anything to “change their behaviour”. There’s a ring of truth in that!
Under “helping drivers to cope with speed limits”, it is sad to see such a public display of drivers’ (perfectly understandable) ignorance of road safety matters (more signs are just about the last thing they need). Note the neat statistical lies included at this point, and elsewhere throughout the reort – if the reader isn’t careful, s/he might think that 82% of drivers in the sample want more signs of various types. In fact, it’s only about 21%, (Yes – I know that the “base” is declared in tiny lettering at the bottom of the diagrams, but there is a potential for confusion, which a careful author would have been at pains to avoid.)
And then we come to advertising – wherein we discover that “partnerships” have been observed using bus backs, billboards and roadside advertising amongst their media. Presumably, the “partnerships” are unaware of the long growing concern over driver distraction by such activities. Why? Especially when we read that 69% of drivers, who recalled advertising, claim that it has NOT affected their “driving behaviour”.
I won’t waste time with the “outcomes”, but go straight to the conclusions of what now refers to itself as “research”.
One cannot deny that camera enforcement is having effects, but these have still not been thoroughly researched and the leap to the statement that the clients should be encouraged by the “outcomes” of the “survey” is not justified.
As to what appear to be the “conclusions”, it is not clear why core messages (aren’t we all bored to death by these?) should focus on perceived rather that real reasons for speeding (see the wealth of academoc research on the matter). Nor is it clear why the “programme” should take cognisance of the ignorance of the few who think that more signs, more training and more advertising will solve the (unstated) problem.
This report is of little merit and public funds should not have been wasted on it.
A little investigative journalism might be in order ….. who is making money out of bullying drivers? Are there not better ways to achieve the results intended? Where are all the detailed studies of the various camera sites that ought to have been carried out before a decision was made to install cameras? Are the speed limits involved really appropriate, anyway?
Let’s make automatic indiscriminate enforcement by camera as unacceptable as drink-driving, and let’s be very sure that we aer applying the best solution to each accident problem, before resorting to the bully-boy tactics that cameras represent.
Yours faithfully,
A road safety engineer with a reasonable record who has yet to find it necessary to install humps or cameras – anywhere. (Maybe I’ve just been lucky!)