Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 62:"Page 21, line 8, leave out ““detection”” and insert ““jamming””" The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 62, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 and 76. I helpfully tabled Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 to bring the Bill into line with what the Minister said at Second Reading. I am grateful for the helpful letter that the Minister sent to all Members of the Committee. It certainly clears up the point. My amendment would make it clear that a jamming device would be illegal, whereas a detector would not. The Committee may wonder why speed cameras are made highly visible. Surely, that is to act as a warning to an alert driver. A detector would only do the same thing. Cameras are supposed to be placed only at locations with a bad accident history. Therefore, why does the Minister want to stop an alert driver hearing a warning? It is surprising that the authorities do not place a decoy emitter to simulate a speed camera at high-risk locations. Amendment No. 76 would take that a bit further, as it provides for what I call an ““electronic traffic sign””, the definition of which is in subsection (6) of the amendment. It is a little radio transmitter whose output is modulated so that suitable equipment on the vehicle will readily reveal the prevailing speed limit. That is a prerequisite for adaptive speed control and could be useful at high-risk locations, such as outside schools. Many motorists find it extremely difficult to adhere precisely to a speed limit—especially at 30 miles an hour and even more so at 20 miles an hour. It is difficult, but if the speed limit is 20 miles an hour, it is usually very important that it is adhered to. Electronic traffic signs would make it much easier to comply with speed limits. I do not believe that in volume production, such devices would be expensive—certainly no more expensive than a free-standing conventional traffic sign. There are alternatives, such as GPS and even electronic maps showing where all the signs are. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will shortly speak to his amendment to ban equipment providing warning of the location of cameras. The amendment does not refer to GPS, but it does so implicitly. I cannot support the amendment as drafted, but it might be sound to allow a device that reveals the proximity of a camera if—and only if—it also gives an audio-visual warning that the speed limit is being exceeded. The topic is linked to Amendment No. 168, which was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and which the Committee will consider later. It covers vehicle data-recording devices and links into the issue of road-user charging, which is receiving much inaccurate and unhelpful comment from the media. We are near to providing assistance to motorists so that they can easily comply with speed limits. The Minister will resist my amendments, but there is a lot that we can do in this area. I beg to move.