ANTHONY Mann, in his letter "The problem with speed cameras is that they simply don't work" (February 25) appears to have a complete understanding of speed cameras. However well-meaning, he is far from accurate.

For a start, their proper name is safety camera, and their principal aim is to make the roads safe, not simply to catch speeding drivers. This is why cameras are so blatantly obvious (Auto Express have even published a guide showing where every roadside trap in Britain is located).

They are intended to change driver behaviour. Few, if any, are set to go off at the speed limit, but rather well above it. So how much fairer can the system be?

Safety cameras are installed, maintained and monitored by the National Safety Partnership, which comprises more than 40 different partnerships throughout the UK. There are some 6,000 sites where cameras are permitted (either mobile or fixed). Four hundred requests a month for cameras have to be rejected because not enough people have been killed or injured at the site where the communities - fearful of speeding drivers - want them. Evidence then, that many are convinced that cameras do work.

Except in special circumstances, there has to be four fatal or serious injuries per kilometre in the previous three years before one can be installed. It's rather like someone with a heart complaint not being able to have a by-pass until they have had four heart attacks. How sad is this?

Research from 14 separate studies from around the world, carried out by the University of the West of England and University of Bristol, showed deaths can be reduced by up to 71 per cent around cameras.

Drivers in Greater Manchester were fined nearly £3 million in the year up to April 2004. According to the DfT, each road death costs the nation around £1.5 million (there were 113 deaths on Greater Manchester's roads last year). It can hardly be claimed, then, that cameras "make money". In effect, they make heavy losses. More conclusive when you add the 957 serious injuries.

The bulk of the money from speeding fines goes to the Safety Camera Partnerships to cover running costs. This includes wages, rent, film, chemicals, surveys, maintenance, installation etc. The remainder, something like 15 per cent goes to the Treasury and into the public purse, therefore reducing our tax burden. The most successful cameras, if they serve their purpose, don't collect a penny.

Despite their proven success at "blackspots", however, it is clear they aren't a cure for speeding in general. According to a recent RAC survey, Britain is suffering from a "speeding epidemic".

So why isn't the advanced and sophisticated technology that makes cars fast and powerful, yet safe for their occupants and secure from thieves, going into making roads safer for the most vulnerable - the pedestrians and cyclists?

The motor industry were quick to develop the "speed trap detection system" to protect a driver's licence. So why are they so slow to introduce the like of the Intelligent Speed Adaption System to protect the most vulnerable, and which could make safety cameras a thing of the past?

Fast and powerful motor cars have progressed to their limits, so isn't it time road safety caught up? Why isn't it being allowed to?

Perhaps it's because the powerful motor lobby manages to convince politicians that you can't curb the freedom of motorists too much. It's not a vote-winner; it's not good for the motor industry. Therefore, a few sacrifices need to be made in order to stay ahead of the opposition.

For law-abiding people who want a safer world, there is nothing to fear from safety cameras; they are simply another use of technology. If used responsibly it improves the quality of life. Cameras just need improving and fine tuning - like cars.

MOST VULNERABLE