One Fort in the Grave, with KEITH FORT

HANDS up all those who have not been booked for speeding in recent months. Mmm . . . not many of you, I see.

I ask because almost every driver I know, or speak to, seems to have received a love letter from the Criminal Justice Support Department over recent weeks awarding them three points on their driving licence for a fee of £60.

Now all these people seem to have three things in common. They would all regard themselves as good, law-abiding citizens. They had all been driving for quite a number of years and had never fallen foul of the law. Almost all felt their booking was unfair.

So I decided to conduct a sort of unofficial survey of my own to find out what seems to be going on.

Undoubtedly, in the interest of road safety, the police have been tightening up their tolerance of conduct on our roads. Not before time, I believe many of you will say. Speed has been restricted on more of our urban roads. More cameras (or camera signs) have been appearing along our streets.

And more drivers, many more drivers, have been falling into speed traps. My mini-survey revealed two distinct attitudes. Firstly, a growing anger, resentment and bitterness against the police, at a time when I thought a reverse is needed. Secondly, an almost universal agreement that speed cameras are a good thing and are needed.

How do you reconcile these two opposing attitudes?

I believe the first stems from a mixed feeling that most drivers do not set out to break the law but that the police have somehow used stealth or trickery to trap them. Many drivers had been using the same roads for years without a blemish on their driving copybooks and yet suddenly they find themselves facing a penalty. Having been caught, most drivers find themselves unable to argue against the need to slow down traffic and reduce serious and sometimes fatal accidents. No one would be more upset than these selfsame drivers if they were involved in such an accident.

It doesn't stop them feeling bitter. One elderly man I spoke to -- a churchgoer who does a lot for his community -- was smarting because, after 40 years' driving, he claimed he had been booked for doing 33 mph in a 30 zone, his first ever offence.

Another first offender was angry at being booked for doing 35 mph on a newly introduced 30 zone on a road where he had lived all his life, also a first offence.

I think these people who had a feeling, given the fact that they had been brought up in a country which prides itself on the fairness of its judicial system, that they were caught in a reversal of the system in which a camera found them guilty unless they could prove they were innocent. Or unless they were unable to remember who was driving at the time.

Another man, also booked for doing 35 in a 30 zone, retraced his journey from home to the camera that clocked him, a distance of three miles, to discover he did not pass a single sign informing him of the speed he was required to keep within.

I found that the resentment of these drivers was also increased because, like the rest of us, they experience getting flashed, abused and insulted for going too slow by young tearaway drivers, and not a few van drivers, who roar unchallenged around our urban roads and are left wondering if they, too, ever get "caught".

Then there is the question of the multiplicity of speed signs, changing from 50, to 40 to 30 and back to 40 on the same stretch of road. Whitebirk Drive, Blackburn, is a good example where, joined from the M65, there are repeated 50 signs all along this wide, dual carriageway road, despite several sets of traffic lights . . . until you near the end, where, without any change in road character, the speed suddenly drops to 40. And guess where the police are waiting! What's wrong with 40 along its entire length?

Such experiences lead drivers to allege the police are using tactics against easy targets just to boost the coffers with hundreds of £60 penalties.

Lancashire County Council is currently co-operating with a university study into the attitudes of drivers caught "speeding". They might be better advised to use their precious resources in co-operating with the police on a wholesale survey of the multiplicity of signs of street furniture cluttering our roads.

With all manner of signs -- from green to blue, black, white, red and even brown -- and further part-worn directions appearing on the carriageway, it's no wonder drivers can miss speed signs, particularly if they are strangers trying to find their directions or addresses.

Clearer and constant speed "zones" should be introduced, particularly in town and village areas, reducing the need for many signs. And there may be a case for introducing speed limits for classes of roads similar to the 70 limit for motorways.

I think two other measures ought to be considered. "Police camera" signs should always carry the speed applying to that section of the road. And when new speed restrictions are introduced the police could operate an amnesty period, sending out warning letters initially to drivers who overstep the mark, to give them a chance to adjust, so reducing resentment. Not use the change to trip them up.

There is no question that there is an urgent need to reduce speeds and accidents on our roads. The big question for the authorities to consider is what are the best tactics to achieve this without alienating large numbers of the population.