AS a recently retired Police officer, I was unsurprised to read the letter from David Delaney arguing the case against speed cameras.

This is the usual diatribe one expects from the ill-informed 'speed brigade' who use a couple of reports that appear on first glance to support their cause, but will not listen to the views held by law enforcement officers who witness the appalling consequences of speeding.

Perhaps, Mr Delaney would like to comment on the recent report showing the huge reduction in the numbers of people killed or injured at mobile camera sites in Gwent?

Those authorities involved should be congratulated, as a huge number of families have been spared the appalling despair of being told their loved ones have been killed or seriously injured in road traffic incidents: an experience I always found deeply disconcerting, despite the wealth of experience.

If only all motorists would pay due heed to all the rules of the road and demonstrate greater courtesy and drive with more care and attention to potential problems, our roads would become much safer.

Alas, I fear that both mobile and fixed traffic cameras will increase, as the standards of so many drivers are atrocious.

The only way to deal with such miscreants is to film their misdeeds, deal with them, and if they fail to mend their ways, eliminate them from the equation by suspending their licence to drive.

A recent survey by a neighbouring constabulary to examine complaints from residents in an area served by a straight road with many side turnings, which passed a primary school in a 30mph zone, found that 72 per cent of motorists exceeded the speed limit.

These speeding motorists also produced some more interesting statistics: 37 per cent failed to wear seat-belts, 41 per cent failed to observe prohibitive traffic signs ('No Entry' and 'Stop'), 11 per cent were using mobile phones and eight per cent failed to stop for the School Crossing Patrol!

It is well known by police officers that speeding motorists are also most likely to abuse other rules of the road.

If they believe they can escape punishment speeding, they will also pay little heed to many other motoring requirements.

These are the people most likely to place their own and other road users at risk.

If Mr Delaney believes that the rules of the road should only apply to him on his own selective basis, then he should do us all a favour and cease driving.

Better still, re-educate himself by watching some fire brigade and police video footage of the absolute carnage caused by speeding motorists.

RICHARD DAVIES,

Holywell Crescent, Abergavenny.

Your correspondent Mrs Jackson mentions the excellent work done by Roadpeace to help victims of 'road accidents'.

I hope that many readers will send donations to Roadpeace. They could also write to West Mercia Police, Hindlip Hall, Worcester, to complain about the lack of traffic law enforcement.

Most 'accidents' are caused by excess speed. (This may be contentious)

But when drivers going too fast although below the speed limit are included, plus drunken and tired drivers who should be travelling at 0mph, plus drivers following too closely (they get too close by going too fast), it is surely true.

The motor car is not exempt from the laws of momentum. Yet the police do almost nothing to stop this. West Mercia Police have discretion in how they spend public money.

Instead of investing it in hidden cameras to catch speeding criminals, they waste it on 'community policing' (officers strolling around the city centre in the sunshine).

I am a law-abiding driver. I feel sick when I see these 'beat bobbies'.

Every pound spent on them is a pound not spent on traffic law enforcement ('saving lives').

Thousands of pounds spent on community policing means, sooner or later, more 'accidental' deaths.

COLIN ALTEN,

Luebeck, Germany.

THE prospect of an increase in the number of police speed-trap cameras in Herefordshire is not a happy one.

Every motorist knows that on any road, the safe maximum speed at any time depends on a whole range of factors, density of traffic, weather and light conditions, frequency of junctions, houses, etc.

On the open road the legal limit is 60mph, but while in the 'right' conditions it might be perfectly safe to travel along a particular stretch at 70mph or even more, on the same stretch in the wrong conditions 50mph, even 40mph could be dangerous.

We all know this, and we regulate our speed accordingly rather than trundle around a t a steady 60mph regardless.

Speed cameras take no account of the above, and as a result are greatly resented by the majority of ordinary motorists who may be driving safely and sensibly but get trapped by a camera and then fined and penalised.

That resentment is even greater when people realise that the cameras are not doing anything to curb dangerous driving, which we all regard as a menace, but just sit there raising revenue by turning normal law-abiding people into law breakers.

What's so clever about that? The police should tread lightly, and remember their unspoken contract with the local population. They are there to protect us from criminals, not to turn us into criminals.

The more speed cameras are installed, the more the police will be resented by ordinary motorists.

Is this healthy? I think not.

D A DARWIN, Church Road,

Kington