A bill currently before the Pennsylvania Senate that would place speed cameras in active work zones along state highways and the Pennsylvania Turnpike does not come without risks. But the program deserves approval from lawmakers and a trial period to prove that it can avoid the pitfalls which have befallen other states’ camera systems.

There are valid points both for and against using traffic cameras to enforce speed limits and catch drivers who run red lights. Proponents say the devices have a demonstrable impact on driver behavior when and where they are used effectively. And a 2015 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety agrees.

Researchers compared the automated speed enforcement program in Montgomery County, Md., with the traditional, officer-driven enforcement programs of Fairfax and Arlington counties in Virginia over an 8-year period, from 2006 to 2014.

Over that time, researchers said, the speed cameras in Montgomery County were associated with a 10 percent reduction in average speed on the road, and a 19 percent drop in crashes resulting in fatalities or incapacitating injuries. Overall, the study said, motorists in Montgomery County were 59 precent less likely to exceed posted speed limits by 10 mph or more because of the cameras.

That’s a powerful result, and goes a long way to support the argument that speed cameras are an effective way to make highways a safer place to drive and work.

Nationwide, speed is a factor in 50 percent of fatal crashes. In Pennsylvania that rate is only slightly lower, at 42 percent according to PennDOT’s compilation of crash statistics for 2015. Any mechanism that effectively and fairly reduces drivers’ penchant for speeding would be a good thing.

A keystone of that equation, however, is the word ‘fair’ — and that’s where opponents of traffic cameras have their own compelling case to make. There is a list of well-publicized issues where the devices have been implemented long enough to prompt many states to ban their use entirely.

A Federal study in Virginia, Florida, California and Illinois found that the cameras can reduce right-angle collisions, but actually increased rear-end collisions, casting doubt on their public safety value. There are also issues with farming the installation, maintenance and operations of these cameras out to private companies. It invites corruption and unfair enforcement as companies compete for lucrative contracts and are evaluated on their systems’ effectiveness.

Nowhere is that more clear than in Chicago — home of one of the nation’s largest traffic camera operations — where the former deputy secretary of the city’s Transportation Department was convicted earlier this year of a decade-long bribery scheme with the company, Redflex Traffic Systems, contracted to run the city’s system. The investigation also uncovered unfair enforcement practices associated with the cameras.

Given these widespread issues, it’s clear that approving the use of traffic cameras in Pennsylvania represents a risk. But supporters of the effort do themselves and drivers a disservice by claiming that it’s not about the money.

PennDOT paid nearly $5.7 million in overtime costs for state police to patrol work zones in 2011, according to a report by the state’s Transportation Advisory Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee estimates a 5-year pilot program would cost $1.25 million to $2.25 million.

Legislators are already pilfering hundreds of millions of dollars from the state’s infrastructure improvement fund to pay a portion of PSP’s budget, so the value of that trade off should be clear.

Can this system really cut costs and make work zones a safer place for people to drive and work? There’s only one way to answer that question: give speed cameras a chance.