REGARDING the letters attempting to justify demonising motorists, who, it would appear, by breaking the speed limit are now, according to recent writers, responsible for all the pedestrians who are injured or killed in a road traffic accident.

In attempting to justify their actions, they make frequent referrals to "the relatives being told that their children have been injured or killed" and can only be referring to them as pedestrians.

The majority of adults and children are injured in a road traffic accident because they have run or walked out into the road without looking.

The inference of previous letters is that the motorist is always at fault and this is the justification for speed cameras. But I believe a check would show that less than 10 per cent of motorists are prosecuted over accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians.

I have telephoned several junior schools and all have said that the policeman visiting the schools regularly to teach basic road safety is a thing of the past.

Surely, it would be more cost-effective to return to basics, teach the children road safety, educate the public through the national media and overall improve the image of the police.

If regular visits to the schools were made, where the police officer talked to the school children about road safety and other matters at a very early age, before the barriers are set, I feel that it may bear fruit in other ways.

Why do they not do this -- because prevention is not measurable for statistics, but speeding fines are. Statistics are the be all and end all to justify anything. Speed is only one of many factors in a road traffic accident, but is the only one readily measurable in certain conditions and produces revenue.

Could it be that the intention is to have everyone with points on their licence and very near a ban, thus making people drive more carefully? Policing by stealth?

ROBERT IRWIN, St Mary's Drive, Langho.