SPEED-DETECTION CAMERAS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS (Hazard to motorists)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the speed-detection cameras installed along expressways will pose a hazard to motorists as some drivers suddenly reduce speed after seeing the camera box.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together as they are related?

Mr Speaker: All right.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, speed detection cameras are a means to curb and deter speeding. Their mere presence does not render a road suitable for its speed limit to be raised. On the contrary, it is at locations where vehicles frequently speed and where accidents are more likely to occur as a result of speeding (for example, Holland Road) that speed detection cameras are installed.

Recently, separate from the question of speed detection cameras, there have been suggestions in the press that existing speed limits be raised. Others, however, have argued that the present speed limits are appropriate and should remain.

The departments concerned, ie, Traffic Police, PWD and ROV, take great care in recommending speed limits for our roads. The maximum speed we can allow on a particular road would depend on all the factors that affect traffic safety, ie, the physical nature of the road itself such as its width and existence of bends, presence of merging lanes, slip roads and centre dividers, the general traffic volume of different classes of road users and vehicles and also, in general, the behaviour of road users including the level of road courtesy.

In the past, Singapore had only two speed limits - 50 km per hour for most roads and 70 km per hour for the larger and wider roads. 80 km per hour was introduced when expressways were constructed. At some portions of expressways, the speed limit is lower (70 km per hour) for safety reasons, eg, in the Central Expressway tunnel. These speed limits are reviewed periodically. Based on the above factors, setting appropriate speed limits is a matter of judgment. The professionals have, all things considered, advised retaining the present speed limits. We should abide by their judgment.

While some motorists, eg, those who drive higher capacity cars, may feel safe driving at speeds above the present speed limits, we must not forget that there are many other road users who drive smaller cars or who are relatively inexperienced. At higher speeds, they would have less margin for avoiding accidents. The Commander of Traffic Police informs me that high speed compounds the effect of other causes of accidents, such as skidding, failure to have proper control of vehicle, overtaking dangerously, changing lanes without consideration for other road users and tail-gating. At high speed, a driver is less able to have complete control of his vehicle; he also has less time to react to changing traffic conditions and potentially hazardous situations. An accident which occurs at high speed causes greater damage and injury. Death is also more likely in high speed accidents.

Studies in the United States in 1990 show that raising speed limits have led to increased road casualties. Their figures show that when some 38 states raised their speed limits from 55 miles per hour to 65 miles per hour, deaths rocketed by 34% compared with the previous four-year period. In eight states where the limits were retained, the increase was just 8%.

I am concerned with what our statistics show. Since 1992, there has been an increasing trend in fatal cases in speed related accidents. In 1992, there were 93 cases. This rose to 96 cases in 1993 and 118 cases in 1994. Do we want the number to go higher? The answer must surely be no.

Let us not forget that we live in a largely urban environment. Our roads and expressways are not as long as the highways of other countries. Our expressways have slip roads at relatively short intervals. It is not advisable to have too many different speed limits on different stretches as this will lead to confusion. The PWD who are the experts in road engineering have also advised that the speed limit of 80 km per hour is an appropriate speed limit for our expressways. In the interest of traffic safety, we should not increase our speed limits.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked whether the speed detection cameras installed along the expressways would pose a hazard to motorists, as some motorists might suddenly reduce speed after seeing the camera box. Such a situation should not occur if motorists travel within the speed limit of the road at all times. However, I am not saying that the problem highlighted by Mr Low could not happen. Nevertheless, I hope that he is not suggesting that we do away with the speed camera on this account. Speed cameras, in the long run, would save more lives by deterring speeding on our roads and expressways.

It is not Traffic Police's intention to catch the motorists by surprise. Traffic Police have provided full details of the locations of these cameras. In addition, there are prominent signs to give sufficient advance warning to motorists on the road. Over time, as motorists get used to the idea of the speed camera and, more importantly, comply with the speed limits on our roads, even in locations without cameras, the problem highlighted by Mr Low should not occur.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny the fact that there is a possibility of such a hazard, would he suggest any measure to reduce the hazard, if possible?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think the so-called hazard that Mr Low has mentioned arises essentially from the newness of the scheme and the fact that drivers are not keeping to the speed limits. Therefore, when they are approaching the camera, they slow down. If this exercise has its desired impact of reminding Singaporeans that there are speed limits, it is for their benefit as well as for the benefit of public safety to keep to the speed limits, when this gets to the ground over time, this so-called hazard that Mr Low mentioned will not be present any more.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, if the motorists are familiar with the location of the cameras, they reduce the speed at that stretch of the road, but after that they increase their speed again. How do you achieve the purpose of installing the speed detection cameras? You have to install cameras for the whole stretch.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It would seem that Mr Low is actually suggesting the installation of more cameras.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Are you going to do that?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: This is a pilot project. Six cameras have been installed all over the island. The Traffic Police says that after another five months, they would review. Should the pilot project prove successful, yes, indeed more cameras will be installed. Whilst that will deter speeding in most areas of Singapore, I think the ultimate message must really be that Traffic Police is not out to catch motorists. And that is why great pains have been taken, both in the press and also on location on the ground, to let motorists know where the cameras are. The exercise is to remind Singaporeans that speeding is something that all of us should not do and the cameras reinforce this message.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider having speed regulating strips at the stretches where there are cameras so that the cars will slow down?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I am not sure whether motorists will really like that because they will talk about possible damage to their vehicles' tyres. And also that will be an overkill because once you have the speed detection cameras, they know that the message is for them to stop speeding. I think that will suffice. We do not want to impose too many different types of mechanisms.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the general feedback is that 50 km per hour is unfair?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Unfair to whom?

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is too low for the motorists.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we must bear in mind that Singapore is an urban setting where our roads are used not just by motorists who have high capacity cars like Volvos and Mercedeses but also motorists who drive smaller capacity cars. Also the types of drivers in Singapore are of such a wide diversity. Some are more experienced, perhaps like Mr Chiam, and others are less experienced. All things considered, it is better to heed the professional advice of the Committee and keep the speed limits as they are.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that along Holland Road, whenever motorists approach the speed detection camera, they will slow down? As soon as they pass this camera, they will pick up speed again, defeating the purpose of this camera.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We cannot control, as it were, the specific behaviour of the road users. But I think we must keep in mind the larger objective of these speed detection cameras which is to reinforce the message that speeding is an offence and that they are for the benefit of motorists themselves. As the press reports have said, now less people in fact speed along that stretch of road. I think that is evidence that the message is filtering down to the ground.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the pedestrian's well-being is a primary factor.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I said just now, there is a wide diversity of people using the roads, including not only motorists but pedestrians, cyclists and even drivers of lorries and trucks. Given this situation in Singapore, let us be conservative. Some may argue that 50 km per hour is low. But I think we should be conservative, play safe and make sure that the central message of public safety for all concerned gets through. That is important.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the diversity of people using the roads. Pedestrians are supposed to use the pedestrian crossings or overhead bridges. As for lorries, they have their own speed limits, have they not? Why is it that you are blanketing the speed limit to 50 km per hour?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, we are not blanketing the speed limit to 50 km per hour. Even though different road users may have primary access to different areas of the road, the Member cannot deny the fact that there will be cross-fertilisation. Pedestrians have to cross the road and lorries have to move across the road whenever they turn right. I think it is a very simplistic view to say that different road users use different areas and therefore different speed limits apply, and everything is all right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, is it true that for the speed limit of 50 km per hour, the Police shall only take action against motorists who exceed 60 km per hour?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think I should say this. The Traffic Police has taken a pragmatic approach towards enforcing speed limits. In other words, consideration is given to people who may exceed the speed limits by a certain amount because, after all, sometimes we have to speed up when we overtake. There are situations when we may exceed the speed limit. I think this is something that I am sure Mr Chiam will agree - that it is good judicious enforcement.