Walter Camilleri, Mellieħa
Muddled arguments on speed and taxation (1)
I have always enjoyed Lino Spiteri's Monday Talking Point articles, and I continue to look forward to doing so. But on reading the article on speed limits and taxation (March 2), I find I have to take issue with him in a number of areas.
In the first place, it is not necessarily "speeding" - a very loose term in itself - that causes accidents, but excessive speed and bad and/or dangerous driving for the conditions. Exceeding an unrealistic speed limit may be an infringement but is not, in itself, necessarily "speeding", as he terms it. Neither is it necessarily irresponsible.
His argument about the minimal time saved by increasing an average speed by a given factor is "mixing apples and pears" and not up to his usual high standard. Travelling times are not dependent only on speed but on road, weather, traffic and any number of other conditions. A very simple example will suffice.
A 16-mile trip from Mellieħa to Valletta during rush hours on a weekday can take more than an hour - say 25.7 km/h. Would the slow speed make it a safe journey? Most emphatically it would not - think traffic jams, time lost from work, stress, front-to-rear collisions, whiplash injuries, roundabout carve-ups, road rage and so on.
The same trip on a leisurely Sunday morning to hear Sunday Mass at St John's Co-Cathedral would take 30 to 35 minutes - say an ambling 48.3 km/h. Would it be safer? Certainly - but to achieve this safe journey one would have probably safely gone over continuous white lines to avoid the proverbial Sunday driver with his freehold lease on the geometric centre of the road.
Conversely, and here I tend to agree with Mr Spiteri, to increase this average speed even by 16 km/h on the quiet Sunday morning would be very difficult and probably hazardous, and achieve little, while to attempt a 48 km/h average on a weekday would be next to impossible and potentially suicidal. But a spot speed of 60 km/h on a deserted bypass off peak hours is very slow indeed, and even on the Msida/Pietà seafront, a good double carriageway that allows a free flow of traffic, a good proportion of the traffic moves at between 70 and 80 km/h in safety.
Again, the method used to achieve the quoted "85 per cent of the average speed" used to set these speed limits is open to question. Over what period was the average speed computed? The average speed of rush hour traffic, moving at the speed of the slowest commercial vehicle on the road, is vastly different to that of traffic on the same road off peak hours. So is one speed safe and the other unsafe?
This brings me to my third point of divergence - that the whole thing is nothing else than a thinly veiled fund raising exercise. It is the general opinion that the ADT, in saying that its only interest is road safety, is being, if not totally mendacious, certainly politically economical with the truth. A sober 40-year-old on a deserted highway at 65 km/h is not unsafe while the majority of inebriated youngsters leaving Paceville in the early morning are potential fatal accidents. Any policeman or motor insurance claims manager will confirm that the overwhelming proportion of serious accidents happen to young men under 25 or 30 years of age, after midnight.
Presumably, the ADT are not aware of this, because if they were there would be policemen stationed outside Paceville, Buġibba and Marsascala with breathalysers at the ready. But then breathalysers and mobile police patrols cost money, while speed cameras, once installed, continue to operate at no cost, and are excellent earners.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
S. Calleja
Mar 7th 2009, 00:08
@ Matthew Borg Cardona
Thanks. I think the people who are arguing against speed cameras are irresponsible, because it's not just their safety that is at stake by driving at 80km/h on a 60km/h road, but also that of other commuters or passers-by.
I suggest you guys go abroad to see what 80km/h - 120km/h roads look like. Nothing that would resemble anything you'd see in Malta. If you like fast driving (like I do), do it responsibly. Drive in highways abroad. Alternative get a 100cc 2-stroke Go-Kart, which can go up to 70km/h in less than 5 seconds, and drive it on a designated track. Nothing beats the thrill!
Matthew Borg Cardona
Mar 6th 2009, 12:56
@S. Calleja Yourself and I are very much of the same opinion on this matter. It's nice to see that there are other persons that realise that the Mriehal bypass may be an 80km/h road but parts of other roads contain curves, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, cyclists, etc . Hence parts of other roads need lower speed limits and speed cameras to penalise abusers. In my opinion, authorities should remove "driving licence points" rather than impose fines. This will stop speed cameras being seen as cash cows.
Alex Ellul
Mar 6th 2009, 11:09
@Walter Camilleri: Suppose your wishes are acceded to, how much earlier would you get from point A to point B?
Why is it that we alwys have to find fault in all the regulations that our regulators introduce? Weren't we saying the same thing with the introduction of the VRT testing? What was the outcome. Much safer vehicles, even though we have not reached the optimum yet.
S. Calleja
Mar 6th 2009, 10:59
Come on guys let's be realistic. We don't have highways in Malta, only a few bypasses. The rest of the roads have side-streets, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and a thousand other slaloms, such as motorcycles and the occasional bicycle. We do you insist of disregarding this argument? Speeding might not be the cause of most accidents, but it is certainly the cause of the most serious accidents that leave people permanently disabled or even dead.
If you like to drive at 100km or even more, go to Sicily and go have a thrill in the highways. There might not be the obstacles, so it's a lot less fun, but it's way safer!
ANdreas Reiff
Mar 6th 2009, 10:15
I agree with all your arguments except one: how can speed cameras be fund raising machines, when each and every speed camera is, and by law, has to be, announced by signs?
How stupid, or inattentive, does one have to be to miss these signs? If one is either one or the other, then one should not drive a vehicle with a weight 1200kg or more. Try a bicycle instead.
jcmicallef
Mar 6th 2009, 10:01
Valid arguments, Mr. Camilleri.
One hopes that these speed limits will really work to make roads safer after all.
But a couple of issues remain - those that abuse are the very dangerous ones - just like the distracted drivers, and those that think that theey are the only ones on the road.
Some people are dangerous even when standing perfectly still, imagine them at 80kph.
But since we have for so many years had a driving test which was even better than one of Dave Allan's jokes, this is what you get - bad driving habits. Moreover, the poor public transport service is making every idiot who can barely distinguish between the front from the rear of the car eligible to drive.
Can everyone play the piano?
Can everyone swim?
Can everyone sail a boat?
Can everyone cook?
The fact that someone needs to go from A to B every day does not mean s/he needs to drive a car.
So why is it that everyone thinks s/he can drive? That's giving a someone the licence to hold and use a potential lethal weapon.