REGARDING your report 'Former bobby calls for halt to traffic calmers' (LET, April 23), since first challenging the construction and attitudes behind some traffic-calming measures two years ago I have written many letters on the subject, but, instead of offering me constructive replies, all I have received from councillors and officers of Hyndburn Council are sound-bites, one-liners and generalisations.

All these accompanied with words to the effect that all traffic-calming measures are constructed via consultation and with the approval of the police.

Is that really so? How come, then, that in your report, Superintendent Eddie Walsh, Blackburn divisional commander is quoted as saying it was not ultimately the police's decision to give them the go-ahead?

While we are being given these differing versions, it is obvious that someone is also playing with life and death, as well as possibly bringing the law into disrepute.

Two months ago, I sent a list of 30-plus reasoned road safety questions both to Supt Walsh and Mike Chambers, Chief Executive, Hyndburn Borough Council. Neither of them has bothered to reply. An acknowledgement, yes, from the police, but that's all.

Let me give you a possible reason, with an example from just two out of the 30 questions which suggest possible illegality, hypocrisy and discrimination in certain traffic-calming measures.

One of my questions reads: "All 'round' traffic signs give orders (mandatory) and if the sign has a blue coloured background then the sign says 'must do' as depicted on the sign. On the immediate approach to a mini-roundabout (and there are hundreds of examples) there is a sign which orders all motor vehicles to go around the mini-roundabout yet, in many cases, because of the narrow road, it is physically impossible.

In some cases, the height of the 'hump' has even been reduced to allow vehicles to conveniently go over the top of it. The Highway Code and the traffic laws governing and explaining road traffic mandatory signs apply to all motor vehicles and road users unless otherwise stated on the sign. Upon whose authority is it then that permission be given to enable certain unnamed vehicles to break the law - even if they have to?"

I also asked: "On the immediate approach to several road hazards in Hyndburn (typical example, Milnshaw Lane/Eastgate, Accrington - near the roundabout) several red strips of tarmac have been laid across the carriageway. In the gutter are the words 'Look Right.' Pedestrians, not surprisingly, assume wrongly that these red strips are official and lawful crossing places.

Where in the Highway Code and/or road traffic law does it state that red strips represent road crossing places?

One has only to observe this location for about 15 minutes at busy times to witness quite a number of vehicle and pedestrian near misses. I am also sure that there have been plenty of 'damage only' accidents for which no records are kept. It is only a matter of time before a pedestrian is either killed or seriously injured

My questions are difficult, but they still need to be faced up to. All that I ask for the public services to answer some straightforward questions and show some accountability.

ADRIAN SHURMER (retired police driving instructor), Lyndon Avenue, Great Harwood.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.