SIR, I refer to Mr Callaghan's letter (Letters & Opinions, May 2), in which he raises three points in support of the current speed camera "blitz".

His opinions are based on an exhaustive 70-page study into recent speed camera trials, and indeed on face value his claims sound quite convincing. Until we look a little more deeply, that is.

Taking the first point about speed and casualty reduction, he congratulates Strathclyde, Lincoln-shire and Cleveland on reducing accidents at their 103 camera sites, which represented roughly one sixth of the total number in the trial. However, he neglects to mention that at 316 Thames Valley and Essex sites, which represented more than half of the trial, the number of injury accidents actually increased!

His second point regarded revenue collection, in which he points out that the local authorities don't stand to make a profit from the speed camera scam. This is indeed quite correct, and I entirely agree that once they've covered their expenses the rest does indeed go straight to the Government.

His final point covered public acceptance of the scheme. Referring to the same DfT document, we find that their figures are based on a national survey of just 2,000 people, which is statistically equivalent to conducting a survey in Kendal and asking just one member of the population!

However, even this unrep-resentative sample clearly demonstrates two interesting trends, which are that (a) public support for speed cameras diminishes the more they are deployed, and (b) belief that cameras are an easy form of tax collection increases.

Perhaps this explains the irony of his letter claiming local majority support being immediately followed by four letters from local residents complaining about this very form of policing!

Sadly, it seems that there is no limit to the extent to which facts will be twisted in order to support the proliferation of speed cameras,

John Thornley

Kendal

May 9, 2003 14:00