Dear Editor:
Some advocates and detractors of ASE (automated speed enforcement) cameras fail the public when they refuse to acknowledge the valid concerns of the other side.
Dave Adsett’s recent editorial (Reel it in, Aug. 14) raised important questions about process, but he also echoed familiar talking points used by ASE critics without recognizing that the cameras do help slow traffic.
This one-sided framing results in the kind of unchecked narrative we saw in Steve Di Pisa’s letter to the editor (Special placement, Aug. 28), which included comments that I think crossed the line of civil discourse.
Both sides – those for and against ASE – seem unwilling to admit what the evidence shows: road design influences how fast people drive.
Research consistently shows that for every additional foot beyond a 10.5-foot lane, vehicle speeds increase by about 1.6km/h, leading to higher crash rates regardless of the time of day. Belsyde Avenue in Fergus has 15-foot lanes. That’s an estimated 8km/h speed increase simply due to lane width.
Has the County of Wellington acknowledged this? Not publicly.
Yes, ASE cameras work – because there’s a financial penalty. But if we want the “softer” approach to speed reduction that Mr. Adsett advocates, it will require redesigning roads like Belsyde Ave., not having “functional times” for speeding.
Redesigning roads costs money. So why not use the revenue from ASE cameras to build safer roads – ones that don’t need cameras to keep speeds in check?
Perhaps that’s a point both sides can agree on.
John Scott,
Elora