REGARDING the increase in the number of speed cameras from 69 to 320 in Lancashire (LET, August 14), I agree that safety must be first and foremost, but the Government states that a survey must be carried out in advance to prove that they are needed on safety grounds.

So how do the police know an extra 251 cameras are needed? This suggests that such surveys will only be 'playing the game' and a complete waste of money, as the locations appear to have already been decided.

And if these so-called 'blackspots' are already known, then does it not smack of apathy by the police, not to have addressed them previously, because if they are bad enough to justify a camera, surely they were bad enough to warrant some normal safety measures prior to this new government legislation.

Or do they mean it's not that unsafe if it costs money, but it is very unsafe if it will make lots of money?

It would be interesting to produce a league table showing motoring offences' injuries against non-motoring offences' injuries (crime). The latter would far outweigh the former, which should tell the police where their energies should be concentrated and to stop bashing the poor motorist.

The majority of motorists are responsible people who do not drive dangerously or seriously exceed the speed limits. We are told that hitting a pedestrian at 35mph will kill, while hitting them at 30mph will not. We cannot dispute that, but the point that seems to be missed is why is that pedestrian in front of a car travelling at 30/35mph in the first place? Are these cars driving on the pavement?

If the motorist is unfortunate to hits an irresponsible pedestrian who has walked into the road, without looking, PC Plod will descend on the driver armed with breathalysers, cameras, tape measures, note books etc.

In the meantime, the pedestrian who caused the accident by 'crossing the road without due care and attention,' whether seriously hurt or not, will be on his way to hospital, via 'Claims R Us,' of course, and wallowing in as much sympathy as anyone will throw at him.

The police will, of course, test him for walking in the road with more than the legal amount of alcohol on his breath (I don't think) -- the legal limit for pedestrians being about four buckets of bitter per millilitre of gumption. As we all know, he will probably get off scott free.

It seems easy to change laws and pass new legislation where motorists are concerned, but when it comes to changing a law, as in a recent case, which makes an old lady who has been broken into several times remove the barbed wire from her fence because it might hurt an intruder, the politicians are all conspicuous by their silence.

There are genuine needs to improve safety, but has everyone who drives suffer because of the inconsiderate minority? I am afraid this government is so anti-motorist it has lost its sense of priority.

MIKE CATTERALL, Badgers Close, Accrington.