Editorial
Trapped by speed
The Transport Ministry's statement last week saying it did not, rather would not, interfere in decisions related to where speed cameras were placed and what limits were imposed sounded hollow to anyone who knows how its hands-on minister and his men operate. What they are trying to do is distance themselves from the controversy - they are certainly no strangers to this - that such a move inevitably creates.
The ministry included in this statement a line saying that its only directive to the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) in this regard was to make the roads safer. And if lower speed limits and cameras were effective in this regard, it would not get involved. If one were to pursue this unrealistic line of logic to its warped conclusion, then if the ADT decided that banishing traffic altogether would make the roads safer, there would be no interference either.
Poppycock.
No one objects to safer roads. But the means by which this should be achieved have to be balanced against a practical need to get from point 'A' to point 'B' in a relatively short space of time. This is already difficult enough in a congested country like Malta, so much so that most of the new speed cameras will be redundant during the times of day (i.e. the rush hours) that most people travel.
The first point to address is why a decision was taken to place them at these specific points. According to one local traffic expert, it was certainly not to prevent serious accidents - since few occur in these areas. The overwhelming conclusion, therefore, is that it is for the same reason the position of most of the others was chosen: major thoroughfares are the easiest areas to collect the most money.
However, there are numerous other areas where accidents do take place where cameras would be much better suited, like roads in residential areas. St Anne's Street in Floriana is one of the most conspicuous since it is not only a place where people cross the road, but also one where motorists jump red lights. Like this there are many others, yet the authorities decide that priorities lie elsewhere.
The second issue is the speed restriction imposed on the main roads where the cameras have been placed - which, at 60 kph, is 20 kph below the national limit. Again, as a traffic expert told The Times: "These roads were built to take speed. A (limit) of 60 kph, is childish."
The speed limit that has been set is below even the secondary speed limit that the UK imposes for residential areas (64 kph), and just 12 kph above the limit for its most densely populated places where people are expected to be crossing the road on a regular basis.
Add to that the fact that motorists will generally approach cameras at a speed well below the imposed limit, and it becomes obvious that our major thoroughfares are set to become snail-like.
This is not just frustrating, but it will also have a detrimental impact on our environment - in terms of emissions and of consumption.
What is worse is that some motorists will inevitably seek alternative routes that do not have cameras - which will see more people driving through residential areas. This will not just defeat the object of building main roads, but also raise safety issues in our towns and villages.
So perhaps the ministry can intervene after all.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
Frustration over fuel price increases
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
Frustration over fuel price increases
Migration challenges must be addressed
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Leonard Griscti
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:27
Congrats to the newspaper for the courage to publish this article. It is obvious that the installation of these cameras has only one scope, that of making money, despite all the counter-arguments made by the ADT. Is it possible that the only option we (the tax-paying and law-abiding citizens) have is that of passively submitting to the dictats of this bureaucratic authority? If studies on the impact of the new speed limits have been carried out, why weren't their results published prior to the installation of the cameras? It is not difficult to predict what will happen now during certain peak times of the day, when the usual traffic jams will be further aggravated.
joe Garzia
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:59
Great editorial. You've hit it on exactly as it is in the first paragraph. I would only add one thing. I would not mind these speed limits if I 'was driven by someone else in a GM licensed super car. In fact, last Thursday on of these GMs passed like a tornado through the Sta. Venera tunnels as if law is not equal for all - not that I ever believed it did mind you.
jcmicallef
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:29
Excellent editorial, I have little to add except to voice my disappointment at discovering that after all, the ADT is in fact run by a bunch of 'dilettanti'.
And as you said, the 'higher authorities' poor imitation of Ponzius Pilat eonly goes to show that they are trying to avoid facing the issue.
These speed traps are becoming more dangerous as drivers going at 80kph suddenly slow down to 60kph, to the horror of the drivers following them.
My compliments to the other bloggers - they have raised very good points.
My final comment - why are obvious VRT failures still roaming our streets? Why are commercial vehicles still left to dangerously use our roads while in poor road-going condition?
lgalea
Feb 22nd 2009, 17:01
"Why isn't a tolerance, as elsewhere, of say 10%be adopted before a fine is issued. "
Because that would reduce the income the various entities get from drivers fines.
Joseph Cauchi
Remember what to write on your vote at the local councils elections to get your message through.
Local councils together with the ADT and the wirdien companies are drivers robbers.
James Green
Feb 22nd 2009, 14:35
If these roads, where the speed cameras have been installed, had been designed for traffic to proceed at 80kph, why now suddenly is it neccesary to restrict traffic to 60kph or even less. If these roads had been badly designed why has it taken to long to realise this?
And if these roads have been badly designed why not rectify any defects to permit traffic to flow at a speed which is proven to be the most economical and pollutes the least, rather than install cameras with a 60kph or less limit?
Again I ask why is there no tolerance? Is the ADT or whoever is behind this installation 100% convinced that all speedometers on this island are 100% accurate? Why isn't a tolerance, as elsewhere, of say 10%be adopted before a fine is issued.
Joseph Cauchi
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:31
Dear Editor,
Very good editorial.
As already stated by certain traffic experts that these speeds are “childish” and that these speed-cameras are merely “Cash-Traps” is correct.
The question you have imposed why the Ministry does not want to get involved may have many interpretations! I leave that to your readers.
However, I have already asked in this column, the question to the stake-holders of this system, i.e.
a) Local Councils/Joint Committees
b) Operators (Guard & Warden) + … and
c) ADT
To kindly furnish us, the motorists, with the BREAKDOWN of the fines collected, among the above stake-holders, in percentages, please!
This silence is deafening, and frankly speaking, I am certain that such answer won’t be forthcoming, for obvious reasons!
Many believe that the bulk of this revenue goes to the Local Councils! Does it?
Let’s all remember, that this system is run by a private commercial company, and like every commercial company, it has to make profits!
Therefore, it stands to reason that this system is intended mainly to generate enough revenue to justify the investment and NOT and repeat NOT for safety reasons!
“FROM A FAT COW YOU GET MORE MILK”!
../..
RLongo
Feb 22nd 2009, 11:01
Some questions for the Geniuses at ADT:
1.Do speedcams differentiate between different types of vehicles? If they don't ,they are discriminating against a class of motorists.eg: Mriehel bypass 80k/mh.....A driver in a car doing 81 K/mh gets booked....A truck /bus doing 79 K/mh.....goes scot free, when the highway code clearly staes the heavy vehicles should not be doing more than 60 k/mh.
2.Qormi on the way to Zebbug: The most dangerous feature is the way traffic joins the main road on the OUTSIDE lane!!!!!....right after a bend......if you really want safety, eliminate that ramp , not install a ridiculous 60 k/mh on an uphill gradient.
3.St.Venera tunnels: I believe there is a sign prohibiting cyclists from using the tunnels, there are no pedestrian crossings..so how else not to consider the cams a cash cow.Most of the accidents in that area occur due the terrible design of the "S" bend thay leads over the Valley road bridge not at the exits of the tunnels.
4.Why are fines not proportional to the excess speed?
5.The 85th percentile: When exactly where the measurments taken? what was the average gap (in seconds) between vehicles....