THE proponents of speed cameras and their supporters, such as W R Potter of the Lancashire Cyclists Action Group (Letter, June 6), fly in the face of the facts.

"Speeding" -- that is driving at a speed inappropriate for the prevailing conditions -- and exceeding an arbitrary speed limit are two totally different things. Indeed an appropriate speed can often be even lower than the posted limit.

The Transport Research Laboratory reports that speed is the sole cause of just 4.3% of urban road accidents, and one of up to four contributory causes of another 7%. So, even if it were possible to equate speeding and the speed limit, this campaign addresses 11.3% of the problem and totally ignores the remaining 88.7% which the TRL attributes to driver or pedestrian errors of judgement and poor road engineering. Indeed 84% of collisions between vehicles and pedestrians are caused by the pedestrian.

Reducing speeds in order to merely maim people rather than kill them is hardly progress. Why are the authorities not improving driver and pedestrian education and making roads safer by design in order to prevent the collision in the first place?

To properly address the real causes of the problem they would have to spend money -- doing it their ineffective way raises money. No wonder they prefer it.

Since this misguided campaign was introduced -- replacing police officers stopping drivers who exceeded the speed limit and represented a danger -- just how many drivers without insurance or a driving licence or under the influence of drink or drugs or driving in an aggressive manner have been detected by these cameras?

Meanwhile the esteem in which the police were held by the law-abiding majority, on whom they depend in order to maintain the tradition of "policing by consent", has been massively eroded. Even if this campaign were justified, would that be an acceptable price to pay?

Richard Hook,

Devonshire Road,

Blackpool.