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 20,000 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 per cent approval rating in 2009, compared with a 92 per cent 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. 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." added Mr Greig.
Katherine Barrett of the Kent & Medway Safety Camera Partnership said: "These findings reflect what we have seen in our local public perception surveys."
The Partnership’s independent survey of 1,000 Kent and Medway residents showed that 75 per cent of 17 to 24 year olds agreed that fewer crashes were likely to happen where cameras are installed compared to 57 per cent of drivers over 65. Conversely, 54 per cent of 17 to 24 year olds thought the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives, compared to 71 per pent of over 65s. On average 65 per cent of all ages believe that they are an easy way to make money from motorists, and a third were unsure whether safety cameras are situated at crash hotspots.
"We want to change negative perceptions of cameras because they are a casualty reduction measure – only one tool that is being used in the countywide strategy to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. The Partnership is a local operation to tackle local issues on the road, and none of the money comes back into the Council. To us, the most successful camera is one that does not issue any tickets as it means no one is breaking the speed limit." added Ms Barrett.
"By law we do not have to put the black and white signs up, paint them yellow, or publish all the locations on our website. We are trying to highlight to drivers that these are crash hotspots and they should stick within the limit for their safety and the safety of other road users. There is a 10 per cent plus 2mph threshold on all cameras so we start enforcing at 35, 46, 57, 68, 79mph."
"These are the messages that we are promoting locally and despite some negative perceptions, over 50 per cent of those surveyed in our county would welcome a safety camera in their area."