Proceeding contribution from Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 66 moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The Safer Streets Coalition also supports this amendment. It points out that the logic that argues for a ban on devices that can detect operational equipment also applies to GPS-based technology used to alert drivers to the location of safety cameras. In both cases, the devices encourage drivers to remain within the speed limit only where they know there is a risk of detection. That reduces speed limit compliance rates and increases the risk of crashes away from camera sites. If drivers stuck to the legal speed limit, they would not need equipment that detects speed cameras.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c453
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Alcoholic drinks Breathalysers Cars Cameras Bicycles Licensing Fixed penalties Exemptions Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Police Protective clothing Lighting Motorways Safety Safety measures Roads Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:46:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260895
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260895
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260895