IN response to Adrian Shurmer's remarks in 'Speeding prosecutions are hypocrisy' (Letters, April 29), I say: 'Bravo!'

Only last week I wrote in like terms to the fixed penalty office, the Chief Constable and the MPs for Chorley and Wigan.

One point not mentioned by Mr Shurmer is the fact that the 'alleged' offences take place over a distance of the order 25 metres and in a time of approximately 1.7 seconds.

On the 'Kilroy' TV show on April 26, on theft from stores and shops, a participating police sergeant stated that he would not expect someone to be prosecuted for minor theft for a first offence. A caution would be given, provided that the culprit admitted guilt.

But that's not so for the generally law-abiding motorist who has no choice, except court action, than to accept the authorities' word and inevitable fine, plus licence endorsement. I question whether, in fact, an offence has been committed in every case.

Of course, the answer lies with central government and its zero tolerance of violent crime. The zero tolerance 'sound bite' has been applied to motoring speeds and the authorities are either prevented from using common sense, or are using zero tolerance in order to fill their cash reserves, knowing full well that most law-abiding people do not readily challenge authority.

Why don't we, law abiding motorists, continue to drive sensibly, but start to drive at, say, two below the relevant speed limit. This would show them -- far less income from fines, jammed-up roads, town centres and motorways and probably an increase in accidents caused by those drivers, who Mr Shurmer clearly described, and who do deserve to be prosecuted.

ARTHUR SLATER (Mr), Gerrard Close, Aspull.