Home Life & Style UK’s ‘busiest’ speed cameras – check if your area is on the...

UK’s ‘busiest’ speed cameras – check if your area is on the list of shame


The UK’s “busiest” speed cameras have been revealed – with more than a third of drivers in one area caught out.

Whether they are installing new cameras at the roadside or lowering limits on a wide range of roads, various parts of the country are trying to tackle cases of speeding that causes accidents and injuries.

Now an online price comparison service has shared a list of the worst counties for speeding across England.

Greg Wilson, CEO of Quotezone, highlighted that the company’s study found that the offence is an issue for a large number of drivers across England.

He explained: “With such a high number of offences across different areas of the country it’s clear that speeding is still very much an issue that’s not going away anytime soon. For one area to record almost 4 in 10 of its population being caught speeding is quite shocking – speed limits are vital for everyone’s safety.”

According to Quotezone’s study, which was gathered from 39 territorial police forces across England, the worst county for speeding offences is Warwickshire.

Located in the very centre of England, the company found a total of 210,393 speeding offences, accounting for 38% of the county’s population.

In previous studies, Warwickshire Police has highlighted that the data shows the force is one of the most proactive at capturing offending motorists in England, whilst working alongside Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership to educate drivers of the devastation that speeding can cause.

Other hotspots for the common driving offence highlighted in Quotezone’s study include Lincolnshire, where nearly 95,000 cases were recorded.

West Yorkshire also saw a high amount, with cases of speeding reaching 10.8% of the relatively large capita of over 2.1 million.

The Metropolitan Police area in London had the highest number of recorded speeding offences at 757,375, however an equally high population meant there were 8.5% of cases per capita.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here