The Malta Transport Authority does not exclude installing dummy speed cameras to slow down traffic or move present cameras around without notice "in the interest of safer roads".
Speaking to The Times, the authority's traffic expert, David Sutton, said that in Malta, unlike many other countries, motorists were given clear advance warning of a speed camera and the speed limit.
"This in itself is probably too generous as it transmits the counter idea that it is ok to drive at speed where there are no cameras. This is why several traffic enforcement authorities in Europe move cameras around without warning or put up fake cameras in full view of motorists who slow down because of the risk of being fined even if, unknown to them, such risk does not exist. ADT has not yet adopted these practices in Malta but does not exclude doing so if these are found to be in the interest of safer roads," he said.
Mr Sutton staunchly defended the ADT's decision to install eight new speed cameras in five localities.
Speed cameras captured 27,349 over-speeding cars on film, leading to the collection of €2.17 million in fines. The number of fines dropped slightly to 25,123 in 2007 and again to 17,477 in 2008. A total of €1.5 million and €1.4 million were collected in fines in 2007 and 2008.
Mr Sutton explained that 17 per cent of the revenue levied from speeding fines was re-invested in road safety advertising campaigns.
Shrugging off criticism that the speed cameras were cash cows, Mr Sutton said the sole purpose was to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents. Research into long-term trends in the UK has shown a 33 per cent drop in accidents at sites where fixed-speed cameras were installed, he said.
He said that, since 2005, the ADT received 50 applications from local councils for the installation of speed cameras. After assessing the proposed locations rigorously, only 13 sites have met the required criteria to date.
Also defending the speed limits chosen, Mr Sutton said the ADT had carried out 85th percentile speed tests using a speed radar gun in free-flowing conditions. He explained that a speed limit was set to the speed that separated the bottom 85 per cent of vehicles from the top 15 per cent.
Replying to criticism that the ADT did not stick to the results of such tests when setting the speed limit at just 60 kilometres an hour, specifically on the Tal-Barrani Road, Mr Sutton said: "The 85th percentile is an indicator of appropriate speed but not the last word on what limit should be imposed".
He confirmed the installation of other speed cameras on the St Paul's Bay Bypass and the Coast Road.
EU estimates indicated that excessive speeding was the cause of one third of all fatal or serious road traffic accidents. EU member states, including Malta, were committed to halve the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads by next year.
The use of speed cameras was recognised throughout Europe as an effective way of reducing road traffic fatalities. In France, for example, a fixed camera safety scheme was introduced across the country in 2003 and inter-city fatalities dropped by 34 per cent, he said.
The speed cameras that were first installed on the island brought about a decrease in average speeds in the areas where they had been mounted.
In Malta, motorists who surpassed the speed limit by up to 15 km/hr paid a fine of €34.94 and those who went beyond this 15 km/hr mark were fined €68.88. He said such fines were among the lowest in the EU, adding that some countries, like France, levied fines of between €90 and €3,800 for individual speeding offences with a possibility of imprisonment.
"I think I can speak on behalf of local councils and the ADT when I say that we are not at all interested in the monies levied in fines and would rather have cameras with the effect of preventing speeding altogether rather than fining people who speed. People who are fined may be discouraged from speeding again next time but when speeding happens the risk of accident is there anyway," he said.
He quoted foreign studies showing that about a third of all road accidents would have been prevented had the speed been controlled. At higher speeds, drivers' reaction times are slower and the momentum of vehicles is higher. He said the Joint Transport Research Centre of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development found that with a speed of 80km/hr on a dry road it took about 22 metres to react to an event and a total of 57 metres to come to a standstill.
"If a child runs onto the road 26 metres ahead, the driver would most likely kill the child if driving at 70km/hr or more, hurt the child if driving at 60km/hr and avoid hitting the child if driving at 50km/hr."
Mr Sutton said the speed cameras were not causing congestion. Reacting to the argument that the cameras are increasing emissions, he said studies by the UK Department of Transport showed that the optimal speed of cars in terms of emissions - the speed at which cars should ideally drive to emit the least harmful emissions - was 60km/hr.
mxuereb@timesofmalta.com