I HAVE read with interest the various contributions to the speed cameras debate and am in no way surprised at the groundswell of opinion against the policy which Lancashire Constabulary is currently implementing.

Like Stephen Sadler (Letters, July 17) I watched the 'Dispatches' TV programme and this only served to confirm my own belief that the current use of speed cameras is a stealth tax masquerading as a road safety policy.

Indeed, for a body which is supposedly committed to improving road safety I find it incredible that the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety should express one of its future targets in the form of speeding fines revenue rather than in the form of reduced deaths/serious injuries.

In the light of the above points, perhaps Mr Ian Bell (Letters, April 24) and Mr A Emberton (Letters, May 9) might wish to reconsider the accuracy of their respective contributions.

Given that the Transport Research Laboratory indicated that in the year 2000 excessive speed was a factor in only seven per cent of road deaths, it does seem bizarre that, apart from the annual pre-Christmas drinking and driving campaign, Lancashire Constabulary appear to be giving speed cameras 100 per cent of their focus.

If the statistics for deaths and serious injuries are examined, I believe that the major arterial routes in the county account for a substantial proportion of these, which further calls into question the justification for the proliferation of speed cameras in urban locations.

It is significant that Superintendent David Mallaby (Letters, May 7) is entirely comfortable prosecuting motorists travelling at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, yet offers no statistics to tell us how many people have been killed by drivers travelling at this speed who would have survived had the vehicle only been moving at 30 mph.

While I am entirely comfortable with any law enforcement policy which seeks to reduce the incidence of crime, even if this verges on 'zero tolerance,' this is only on the basis that it is applied in equal measure across all crimes and not, as appears to be the case at present, to one sector in isolation.

In my opinion, one of the factors which influences motorists' views on speeding fines is the fact that, unlike most other crimes, speeding, in itself, does not involve a 'victim.'

What often further annoys the motorist is that, for a number of minor crimes, first-time offenders can often receive some leniency in sentencing, but this flexibility is not available under the current 'fixed penalty' system without opting to go to court.

MICHAEL CROASDALE, Hob Green, Mellor, Blackburn.