JOHN Turner (BEN: February 20) is not convinced that the lowering of the speed limit and the installation of speed cameras, is responsible for the great reduction in accidents on St Peter's Way.

He says that unless we analyse road accidents, cynical measures such as speed cameras and negative installations in the form of speed humps, will persist.

Well let's talk about speed humps first. I wrote to the BEN in February, 1998, applauding the council on the introduction of speed humps, after reading that in the 300 places where these had been introduced, in other areas, accidents -- especially to children -- had been reduced by as much as 67 per cent. I would have backed the council had that been just seven per cent.

It's sad that we need to spoil our roads and waste tax payers' money through installing these things. If we could trust all motorists to abide by the speed limits, we wouldn't need to.

I wrote to the BEN in July, 1998, backing the council in their proposal to lower the speed limit on St Peter's Way.

In September, 2000, I congratulated the council and the police for their splendid work in having reduced accidents on St Peter's Way, by a massive 60 per cent, with the reduced speed limits and speed cameras. Of course the staggering reductions in accidents along this once notorious road, could be partially due to the road works slowing down traffic and the banning of cyclists, or that pedestrians have been prevented access, but only partially. There is very little doubt that the measures introduced by the council, and backed by most motorists are responsible for a very large percentage of the reductions.

Responsible motorists need not fear speed cameras and if all motorists were responsible, we wouldn't need them.

Brian Derbyshire

Ribchester Grove

Bolton