| Public Opinion Survey |
|
This report details findings from the Annual Road Safety Camera Survey which is undertaken by the Tayside Police Performance and Planning Unit on behalf of the Tayside Safety Camera Partnership (TSCP). This survey has been conducted every year since the start of the Partnership in 2003. The reports have been compiled and the results laid out in the following sections, showing the trends in public opinion on safety cameras Tayside over the last 8 years. A total of 1500 questionnaires have been distributed by post together with the Public Perception Survey. A random sampling methodology (where respondents were selected dependent on their geographical location) was used to identify a representative sample from the edited electoral registers for each of the three Council areas within Tayside. The response rates have been between 28% - 33%. The following pages outline responses for each of the core questions along with trend data collated between 2003 and 2010. Statistical testing was performed on the results and where the findings proved significant, these have been highlighted at the end of the appropriate question.
Question 1Q1. Fewer accidents are likely to happen on roads where cameras are installed. Figure 1
Base: All respondents Trend data shows that despite a peak in 2003 of 84% falling sharply to 72% the following year, public opinion remained fairly consistent between 2005 and 2009. Results for 2010, however, indicate a downturn in opinion to its lowest level of 72% mirroring the result obtained in 2004. Further examination of the data evidenced that female respondents were more likely to agree (75%) than males (66%) that fewer accidents happened on roads where cameras were installed. Question 2Q2. The primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives. Figure 2
Base: All respondents Following a peak of 88% in 2003, the above chart indicates that opinions in relation to the primary aim of safety cameras have fallen steadily over the years, despite a spike of 83% in 2009, culminating in a result of 78% in 2010, slightly above the lowest recorded agreement result of 77% in 2007. Additional analysis of the data showed that those aged 45 and over were less likely to agree (79%) than those aged under 45 (68%) that the main purpose of cameras was to save lives. Question 3Q3. Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are now more likely to get caught. Figure 3
Base: All respondents
It can be seen from the above chart that 68%, 282 of 412 respondents perceived that dangerous drivers were more likely to be caught if cameras were present. Results have remained fairly consistent over the past seven years at around 70% although the 2010 figure of 68% suggests that public agreement in relation to dangerous drivers being caught is at its lowest level since the Road Safety Camera survey began. Female respondents proved most likely to agree (74%) that drivers would be caught by the presence of cameras compared to males (60%). Question 4Q4. There are too many safety cameras in our local area. Figure 4
Base: All respondents
In figure 4, 13%, 49 of 388 respondents agreed that there were too many cameras in their local area. This represents an increase of two percentage points compared to the 11% who provided the same response in 2009. Opinions in this regard have remained fairly steady over the years, peaking at 16% in 2008 and culminating at 13% in 2010. Further analysis of the data highlighted a significant difference in gender opinion in relation to the number of safety cameras in local areas whereby male respondents were most likely to agree (21%) than females (6%) that there were too many cameras in their area. Question 5Q5. Cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits, not punish them. Figure 5
Base: All respondents
86%, 355 of 411 respondents felt that cameras were meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits rather than punish them. This figure represents a downturn in agreement compared to the 88% who held the same view the previous year. Examining the results over time indicates that agreement with this statement remained fairly buoyant across the years levelling off at 85% between 2006 and 2008 before a spike of 88% the following year and falling back to 86% in 2010. There were no statistically significant differences between age, gender or location for this question. Question 6Q6. The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties. Figure 6
Base: All respondents
The above chart indicates that 88%, 357 of 408 respondents supported the use of safety cameras as a means of reducing casualties. This represents a reduction of three percentage points compared to the 91% who provided the same response in 2009. From a peak of 95% in 2003, positive opinion has gradually reduced through time to a low of 88%, just slightly above the lowest level recorded for this question of 87% in 2008. Further examination of the data indicated that agreement with this question was greatest amongst residents within the Dundee area (92%) compared to Perth and Kinross (82%). Question 7Q7. Cameras are a way of making money out of motorists who break the law. Figure 7
Base: All respondents
Figure 7 illustrates that 48%, 191 of 399 respondents believed that cameras were a way of making money out of motorists who break the law. Results tended to follow the same upward trajectory from 32% in 2003 finishing at 48% in 2010, with a few improvements (2006 and 2009) peppered throughout the time frame. Male respondents were more likely to perceive safety cameras as a means of making money out of motorists who break the law than females, 56% compared to 40% respectively. |
PO Box 59
West Bell Street
Dundee
DD1 9JU
