AFTER reading the comments by Mr Emberton (LET November 13) I found myself amused, to say the least, since apparently 80 per cent of the public now accept speed cameras (in proportion, how many letters in the Evening Telegraph support the use of cameras).

Of those questioned, considering that only half of the British public drive, how many were actually drivers and how many of the total percentage have done any research beyond the rhetoric and propaganda that is 'speed kills.' I wonder if this percentage also includes the 75 per cent of drivers recently polled who would not report someone they witnessed vandalising a speed camera.

In previous letters, I have discussed camera schemes introduced under the cloak of camera partnerships and the fact that the road death rates have hardly been affected even though to date the total spent on such schemes exceeds £150million.

Government figures show that if electronic aids were fitted to vehicles, allowing digitally enforced speed limits, the number of deaths could drop by up to 1,000. This means speed cameras do not make people slow down, since if they did, then there would not be any need for this type of device and a corresponding reduction in deaths (not lives saved?) would have already been achieved.

Research reveals that the highest risk group for speeding and dangerous driving is males under 25 but the majority caught on camera are in the middle age group, leaving those drivers that pose a greater risk through dangerous driving, which represents a higher proportion of the total death rate going unchecked.

I would suggest to Mr Emberton that whilst funds continue to be wasted on measures that are barely having an effect that the £150million could have been put to better use elsewhere within the realm of road safety, although the investment return probably would not be as good.

IAN TALBOT, Radcliffe, Manchester.