Surely this isn't something we need to guess at, there are roads with such systems and similar roads without and those can be compared.

Also I would think the majority of cars have cruise control (the last three cars I owned were all less than £2000 second hand and all had it) - driving at a specific speed is a button press away.

> Surely this isn't something we need to guess at, there are roads with such systems and similar roads without and those can be compared.

It's mainly done for political reasons or money raising reasons rather than safety. These cameras are usually on motorways which are the safest roads to drive on. It's all just for show, it doesn't actually make us any safer.

At least in Scotland, they're predominantly used during road works (and they do vanish afterwards). I can imagine they're worried about incidents especially when there's at times only a line of cones separating cars from workers.

Or they could just, you know, use cruise control.

I almost never touch the gas pedal once I've reached the speed limit: I just turn on cruise control and focus on the road, rather than my speedometer. Makes me a far safer driver, with the added bonus of also being a law-abiding one.

I would also say Cruise control results in more dangerous driving. If you're traveling at a constant speed, things get boring FAST. It's easy to just get bored, stop paying attention and zone out.

Cruise control isn't as big a thing in the UK. We have bendy roads and drive manual cars not automatics.

My suggestion for people who find cruise control makes driving boring, disengaging, and thus more dangerous is to instead focus on other aspects of driving - perhaps unobvious ones. It's surprisingly effective.

Personally, I use cruise control very often, and the attention freed up by it I typically put toward maintaining lane position and checking my mirrors more often. It keeps the trips engaging and makes me a safer, more consistent driver.

I'm also convinced that traffic flow would be much better if people used cruise control more often. Speed variability seems to cause excessive lane changes as a driver inadvertently slows down and the cars following attempt to pass so that they don't have to slow down too.

I rarely ever use cruise control. I actually find it useful to be able to modulate the speed of the vehicle via the accelerator. I find that not using it also helps me to adjust to potential situations that may be developing ahead e.g., letting up on the accelerator to reduce speed before even having to apply the brakes). I also will speed up while passing in order to reduce the time I have to spend in the passing lane.

I don't know whether or not this is related to the use of cruise control, but I have observed many drivers using their brakes on the highway even when it's clearly not necessary. For example, they'll slow down behind a car before switching lanes instead of anticipating the traffic situation and either letting up on the accelerator before catching up to the vehicle in front of them or adjusting their speed and moving into the adjacent lane to pass.

Some of this is simply the fact that it's still the case that many cars in Europe don't have cruise control: it isn't driver perception, it's simply the car not having it. On many cars it's something still restricted to higher trim levels or an optional extra.

I'll also say that by and large my experience in the UK is on most motorways traffic is sufficiently busy that cruise control is of relatively little use: there's enough variability in the speed of the traffic in front that you can't actually stay at a constant speed and there's enough traffic that you can't just pull out to overtake.

"Lane changes" aren't really much of a thing in the UK either.

Firstly, in the UK they aren't 'equal' lanes. They are for overtaking only. Undertaking is illegal. So we don't just change lanes willy-nilly. We change lane to overtake someone, and then change back.

Secondly, only motorways and dual-carriage ways are multi-lane. Most roads are single lane.