SIR, Messrs Thornley and Noy (Letters, April 18, Speed is not an issue') both attack the use of speed cameras and I would not normally respond to the standard arguments they proffer. However, as a photograph of an officer using one of the laser cameras used by the Cumbria Safety Cameras initiative - similar to one used in an earlier news item - accompanied the letters I would like to challenge some of the views that were published.

First, speed is an issue. Pilot projects carried out over the past two years have demonstrated how successful the safety camera concept is. (See http://www.roads. dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/cameras/redlight/pdf/cameras.pdf )

Strathclyde achieved a staggering 67 per cent reduction in death and serious injuries over a two-year period; Lincolnshire was close behind with 62 per cent; and Cleveland managed an impressive 53 per cent. Between them, the pilot schemes have prevented 280 deaths and serious accidents over a 24-month period.

Second, the county council, the Highways Agency, Cumbria's Magistrates Court Service and Cumbria Constabulary, have financed the Cumbrian Safety Cameras scheme. Under rigid guidelines laid down by the Department of Transport, the programme cannot profit from fines raised by motorists caught by the safety cameras. We can claim back a proportion of the initial investment only if we comply with strict criteria, so the old chestnut that we are an income generation initiative doesn't hold water.

Third, the Cumbria Safety Cameras programme is completely overt. The cameras are housed in highly visible vans; there are distinctive signs at least one kilometre before the sites where the vans are located; we have published full details of the 47 accident hot spots where the vans will be operating; and we publish weekly schedules stating when the vans will be at specific sites.

Naturally, we are open to further suggestions to raise the profile of the camera vehicles.

Although the Cumbria Safety Cameras initiative is in its early stages, officers using the equipment have reported a lower than expected number of drivers exceeding speed limits. This is precisely what we are hoping to achieve.

Also, a survey carried out by the county council revealed that almost 80 per cent of residents were in favour of speed cameras; 71 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that fewer accidents were likely to happen where safety cameras were installed; 79 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that safety cameras were to encourage motorists to stick to speed limits and not to punish them; 72.7 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that the primary aim of safety cameras was to save lives.

Finally, we have received letters from members of the public requesting cameras for their areas as they see speeding as a form of environmental pollution that poses a danger to residents, especially the young and the elderly, and reduces the quality of life.

While we cannot respond to all requests for deployment of safety cameras we will examine and consider all requests from our supporters who, quite frankly, seem to be in the majority.

Steve Callaghan

Manager, Cumbria Safety Cameras

May 2, 2003 13:00