Every motorist dreads that moment when he sees the flash in his rear windscreen.
The speedometer has been rising and the speed camera has done its job, costing the errant driver another #60.
In total, motorists in the West Midlands last year paid #2.7 million for speeding.
However, the true cost is more than double because not only do they receive a fine and penalty points on their licence, but they are further penalised by their insurance company.
Research published by insurance company swiftcover.com today reveals the additional cost of insurance for drivers caught by speed cameras is more than #3 million - meaning speed cameras cost West Midland's drivers #5.7 million each year.
The research also says the speed camera culture has encouraged a new driving phenomenon - the yo-yoing driver.
This trait is seen where erratic motorists speed up and down between cameras, to avoid being flashed.
According to the survey, more than half of motorists in the Midlands admitted to speeding after passing a camera and then slamming the brakes on when they see the next one.
It also found that nearly eight in ten drivers (78 per cent) are focusing more on the speed camera than on the road ahead.
Andrew Blowers, chief executive at swiftcover.com, said: "The plague of speed cameras on the nation's roads hits the motorist in the pocket. Getting flashed by a camera is a double whammy for many, as not only are they hit with the fine, but the conviction can lead to an increase in insurance premiums."
The company said 211,061 people are caught speeding in the region every year, of which 41 per cent were caught by a camera.
However, three quarters of these drivers have a clean licence when they are caught. The number of convictions has more than trebled (328 per cent) in ten years - driven by the increase in cameras - from 519,000 in 1993.
The report also shows Midland motorists are fed up with speed cameras, revealing 65 per cent of drivers caught by them thought they were driving safely for the conditions on the road at the time. A further 67 per cent believed cameras were mainly used to generate revenue.
Mr Blowers added: "This widespread condemnation of the speed camera is to be expected when they seem to be springing up on every corner and one in ten motorists is stung with a conviction every year. With this in mind, it isn't surprising that the vast majority of the Midlands' motorists believe they are ineffective and are nothing but a distraction leading to erratic and potentially dangerous driving."
Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA Motoring Trust, said roads where speed cameras were present had been made safer by their presence.
He added: "Government research shows that cameras have reduced casualties. These interpretations that motorists are doing dangerous things are not borne out by casualty statistics."
Roger Vincent, of the Birmingham-based Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "If people were keeping within the speed limit in the first place, this yo-yoing wouldn't take place. These are people who are putting others in danger.
"Speed cameras are placed on roads where there has been an accident problem, so if the camera wasn't there, people would be driving at higher speeds."