Ken Livingstone has provoked a fresh row with the motoring lobby by calling for speed cameras to be installed in every residential neighbourhood in London.

Twenty-four hours after the government asked for a review of how Britain's 6,000 speed cameras are being deployed, Mr Livingstone has signalled that he would seek to rip out many of the speed humps in London and replace them with more cameras.

He argues cameras are effective while humps cause too much inconvenience to law-abiding motorists and do little to deter persistent offenders. But motoring organisations are horrified at the prospect of more cameras and more fines.

Mr Livingstone, speaking at a city hall conference, said: "I think we should have speed cameras in every residential neighbourhood so we can fine people going too fast and don't inconvenience those obeying the speed limits."

He said the imposition of 20mph limits in some London neighbourhoods had already changed behaviour. "The vast majority of motorists cooperate and don't drive over the limit. Where we have worked on this in cooperation with the boroughs, accidents have been cut by 60%."

But Lynne Featherstone, chairwoman of the transport committee at the London assembly, said the mayor must reconsider his advocacy of more cameras. "To have a blanket response across London with speed cameras as a one size fits all solution seems inappropriate. The mayor needs to work with the boroughs and communities to find out what method of speed control is best suited to each location."

Rebecca Rees of the AA said motorists would strongly oppose such a move. "This would be extremely unwelcome. Speed cameras are already a very controversial issue, and while there is a need for them on certain routes there is a massive suspicion that many cameras are only there for revenue."

Kevin Delaney of the RAC Foundation said the mayor had misunderstood the distinction between cameras and humps. "Humps are there to reduce vehicle speed in residential areas and they are very effective. Cameras are there to reduce death and injury. What the mayor is saying will make already cynical drivers even more convinced that the cameras are merely being used to raise money."

As part of its review of speed cameras, the government asked the agencies which administer them to ensure they were being used in the correct places.

At the heart of the debate in London is not just the number of drivers fined but also the growing unpopularity of speed humps. The London assembly is conducting a study which suggests that humps not only annoy drivers but damage vehicles, and in extreme cases cost lives.

The London ambulance service claims up to 500 people die in instances where emergency vehicles are slowed by speed humps or because the journey is too bumpy for staff to administer the necessary treatment. The Metropolitan police says response times are affected and humps can cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to vehicles.

In Barnet, north London, the council has begun removing speed humps. Brian Coleman, of Barnet council, said: "As we resurface roads, we take them out and ask the residents if they want us to put them back. They rarely do.

"We began ripping them out 18 months ago and have taken out over 100. Things have reached the point where the same residents who campaigned to put them in are now keen to take them out."