Dear Editor, In support of Swindon banning speed cameras, Association of British Drivers spokesman Brian Gregory said: “Most accidents are caused because drivers are unable to concentrate on the road because they are looking for speed cameras”

Given that there has recently been a report that some 50 per cent of drivers are seriously distracted by in-car technology, would the Association of British Drivers support a move to ban all in-car technology? Not least the mobile phone.

Texting while driving has been shown by the Transport Research Laboratory to slow a driver’s reaction time by 35 per cent. Reaction time for drivers at the drink drive limit is slowed by 12 per cent (80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood being the legal limit).

One milligram of alcohol over the limit – effectively 12 per cent slower reaction time – means a 12-month driving ban. So shouldn’t the 35 per cent slower reaction time of texting while driving mean a three-year ban?

If pulling down speed cameras is “about establishing respect with the motorists”, as Anthony Harris, transport chief for Walsall Council, (also considering a speed camera ban) puts it, how would he get motorists to respect the mobile phone ban and respect vulnerable road users?

Dave Jones,
Radcliffe.

* Daughter, 15-year-old Natalie, killed by speeding driver. Being the third speed related death on the road, and after a long, emotional and dedicated campaign, it now has a speed camera. To remove it would effectively make my daughter’s life – and the efforts of many – worthless, and give her killer a pardon.

-----

Speeding ahead to carbon catastrophe

Dear Editor, If the nation follows Swindon’s lead in banning speed cameras, won’t it mean money “donated” to central government by irresponsible drivers – last year it was £104 million – being lost from government coffers, only to be replaced by responsible drivers and indeed all other law-abiding citizens?

Higher taxes, higher fuel duty maybe.

Then given that experts on global warming have said we now need to reduce Co2 emissions by 80 per cent (previous figure being 60 per cent) on account of polar icecaps melting faster than was previously thought, it is hard to make sense of banning technology that can help achieve this figure.

What’s the point of insulating our homes to the highest standard and building wind farms if drivers are going to get a free-for-all?

Banning speed cameras is surely a licence to speed. So as well as scuppering our attempts to reduce our carbon footprint, won’t it increase demand for petrol, which will surely play into the greedy mitts of oil-rich countries.

With oil prices falling Opec are looking to cut oil production in a bid to push prices back up. How mean and inconsiderate is that?

From a vulnerable road user’s point of view and that of the millions suffering fuel poverty, banning speed cameras is downright mean and inconsiderate, if not downright irresponsible.

Take it from a responsible, fuel poor, zero emission cyclist, the vast majority of drivers have no respect for speed limits and not much more for their fellow road users.

So what sort of future do we have? What sort of future does Britain have, without speed cameras?

Allan Ramsay,
by email.

-----

Town on right road with camera ban

Dear editor, Well done Swindon. Finally some common sense when it comes to the roads.

We surely are the only country in the world that would put up with speed cameras, speed bumps and all the other paraphernalia that goes to make up the road furniture that Britian’’s motorists have to endure.

Traffic flows speeding up and slowing down erratically, testing the patience of the most calm and sensible drivers and taxing them for nipping over the limit by the smallest amount without any common sense being applied whatsoever.

People who drive recklessly or drive too fast and endanger the lives of others should be prosecuted obviously – but after being stopped by a police officer who can apply the law effectively and with the sense of a human being rather than a flashing robot.

Michael Raybone,
Alcester.

-----

Is the new Post just a cost-saving exercise?

Dear Editor, I have now received my third day’s copy of the “new” Birmingham Post.

What a disappointment so far.

My first impression is that the revamp has been used to drop certain items with a view to reducing costs.

For example, the sports pages of the first edition contained several pages devoted to rugby and football, but the minor sports appear to be totally ignored.

In the past you have always covered the weekend’s golf tournaments but this edition, apart from recording the results, completely ignored the tournament held in Portugal.

My wife likes to do the quick crossword and the number puzzle (Kakura), both are absent from the new paper.

There was an opportunity to extend the puzzle page to two pages, but instead, you have cut the content and reduced it to one small page.

I note that you manage to retain two full pages of pictures of so-called Post People which can only be of interest to those in the pictures, most of whom probably don’t read the Post at all.

E W Hudson,
Sutton Coldfield.

* Editors’ note: Mr Hudson will be pleased to learn that a quick “coffee break” crossword puzzle has been reinstated.