Burning issue: Should average-speed cameras be installed across urban areas?

Published on Sunday 23 March 2008 20:09

YES Geoff Collins, sales and marketing director, Speed Check Services

IN AN urban environment, anything that moderates excessive speed and prevents stop/start driving is going to be beneficial. Environmentally, driving at a steady average speed will produce lower emissions and burn less fuel. Speed humps and chicanes could be removed from routes that need to be accessed by the emergency services. Also, it could be the spur that allows parents to encourage their children to cycle on the roads in the area where they live, breeding a new generation of road users with practical, first-hand experience of the road, before they fearlessly get behind the wheel of their own cars.

Average-speed cameras are unpopular with the anti-camera lobby, probably because they work; offence levels are very low and compliance is extremely high. Drivers understand that their speed is measured over a length of road, and if they aren't looking out for physical measures – be they cameras, chicanes or humps – they can focus more on their driving, allowing them to concentrate on the road, and hazards around them.

The first Specs cameras were installed in 1999, and since then more than 70 permanent schemes have been used. Anyone who has driven through a roadworks average speed enforced zone will notice the calming influence on driver behaviour, resulting in a smooth and safe flow of traffic. This influence is equally true in urban situations, resulting in moderated speeds and a significant reduction in the likelihood of collisions. Where they are used, average-speed cameras make drivers more attentive and roads safer.

NO

Neil Greig, director, Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust

THE 20mph zones that are now a common sight in Scotland by and large work. Speeds are reduced and accidents are less frequent. The best zones are in residential areas where they are self- enforcing. These roads are only used by locals, a few dead ends cut out rat-running and the comparative narrowness of the roads does not encourage speeding. With investment in environmental improvements alongside the 20mph limit a win-win scenario soon develops, with children allowed to play outside and increased walking and cycling.

The Institute of Advanced Motorosts' Motoring Trust does not believe that the wholesale spread of average-speed cameras into our towns and cities is the best way to reduce accidents and improve the environment. Research shows that most drivers don't tend to break limits but also shows that they set their speed by the visual clues around them. In most cities, particularly on main routes, it is clearly quite safe to drive at 30mph. If, however, there are parked cars, schoolchildren, narrow streets or congestion we all slow down anyway. If average-speed cameras are used to impose an unnatural limit that is a recipe for frustration and resentment.

Average-speed cameras are very expensive to install and maintain – the A77 system cost 775,000 and an urban area scheme of eight cameras could cost about 250,000.

In our view this money would be better spent on streetscape improvement and walking and cycling facilities as well as improving traffic flow on main routes to keep drivers away from the areas people live in.