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.