SIR, So the scourge of the revenue collection speed

camera finally descends on Kendal - it was only a matter of time! Here are 10 reasons why this form of policing is completely unacceptable.

1 It does not work! For 30 years the accident rate on UK roads steadily declined, and it would be reasonable to expect this to continue, with safer cars, more stringent driving test, and better road engineering. But over the last 10 years since the mass introduction of speed cameras this trend has stopped, and in many cases accident rates are now on the up.

2 Speed Kills' is at best an over-simplification, and at worst a downright lie! From the police's own statistics only 7.3% of accidents are caused by excessive speed, yet we are brainwashed into thinking that if everyone slows down then accidents will miraculously cease.

3 Speed cameras do not address real accident causes such as careless driving, reckless driving, drink / drugged driving, tailgating and so on.

4 Speed cameras discourage proper observation by drivers. Instead of looking for hazards we are now continually looking at our speedometers,

or scanning the verges for concealed revenue

collectors, when we should be looking ahead for

potential dangers.

5 Speed cameras encourage complacency in responsible drivers: instead of considering each hazard and choosing an appropriate speed to approach it, they now incorrectly think they must be driving safely simply because they are obeying the speed limit.

6 Speed cameras encourage recklessness in irresponsible drivers, who believe they can drive as fast as they like, as long as they slow down when passing the cameras. And with fewer proper' police patrols this is a reasonable assumption.

7 As more and more responsible drivers are entrapped by inappropriately low limits and hidden cameras the stigma attached to speeding diminishes. Speeding fines become accepted as a

rite of passage', so no longer are people socially expected to have a clean licence, or to strive to maintain one.

8 Speed cameras encourage complacency in the authorities. By incorrectly blaming accidents on excessive speed the real issues are ignored.

This removes the justification to spend money on schemes to actually save lives, such as improved driver training and safer roads.

9 Unfairly targeting motorists for tax collection with speed cameras diminishes the credibility of the police force, to the detriment of all. Our country is policed by public consent, but if the police continue to become another arm of the Inland Revenue they will lose this vital public co-operation. Few people like vandalism, but how many can suppress a quiet smirk when they hear of yet another speed camera being vandalised?

10 The law dictating that the keeper of a vehicle must identify the driver and can be prosecuted for failing to do so introduces a dangerous legal precedent and needs to be opposed, as it allows the courts to prosecute without need for proper evidence. Not only does this contravene the European Charter of Human Rights, but it also tempts drivers into committing perjury in order to protect their licences.

It angers me that the roads are becoming less safe for me and my family for the sake of stealth taxation, and that essential road improvements are being turned down, whilst our boys in blue boast about the revenue targets they expect to raise from each latest camera scheme.

This rather proves the point if speed really was the issue then surely their aim would be to catch less people speeding, not more?

To register your protest join the Association of British Drivers at http://www.abd.org.uk or call 0800-358-9955 for the third of the cost of your next speeding fine you could just make the difference that saves lives!

John Thornley

Kendal

n SIR, A police spokesman seemed happy to appear on Border Television recently boasting how, in one 12-hour period, they had managed to catch 250 drivers for speeding in South Lakeland (Letters, April 4 and 11). Perhaps he and all the others who think speed cameras are a good thing might like to consider the following figures produced by the Department of Transport:

In 1999, there were 455,300 drivers prosecuted for speeding; the revenue raised in fines was £20.3m; there were 166,916 killed or injured on the roads.

In 2002, there were 656,100 drivers prosecuted; the revenue raised in fines was £28.4m; there were 171,123 killed or injured on the roads.

In 2001/02 the number of cameras has vastly increased. The revenue raised in fines and prosecutions has soared and yet the number of accidents and injuries has still increased.

It begs the simple question, if speed cameras are so effective in reducing vehicle speed, why are so many drivers being prosecuted for speeding past them?

It is hardly surprising the number of accidents has increased if drivers are being forced into watching their vehicle speedometers for fear of being caught doing a few miles per hour over the limit instead of being free to concentrate on the road ahead and react to any hazards as they arise.

Surely it is high time motorists took speed cameras for exactly what they are 24-hour cash machines for the authorities, nothing else - and started to protest.

For my part, when the next election comes round and the canvassers come knocking at the door for my vote, it most certainly will not be for any party that advocates the use of speed cameras as a means of promoting road safety.

B.B. Noy

Somerset

April 17, 2003 12:31