I WRITE in reply to Mr Bailey's letter -- Speed Ramps give me the Hump -- to put a balancing opinion against his view that speed humps on Fulwood Hall Lane are unnecessary.

I also write from a professional viewpoint, in that I travel the country from court to court involved in the reconstruction of accidents.

Contrary to Mr Bailey's letter, Fulwood Hall Lane is not a rat-run. This is residential road, a fact ignored by more than a few speeding golfers and many residents (not all, but many), on a daily basis.

If, as Mr Bailey suggests, speeding is not a problem, why have vehicles been clocked doing in excess of 60mph along this residential road? I also continually hear that speed humps damage the suspension of cars. Remember, this only happens if you drive at speed over them.

Having six children, like others on Fulwood Hall Lane who have children too, we have concern for their and our own safety.

In my job I meet relatives of those who have had loved ones killed in road accidents. I see the despair in their faces and the horror and guilt in those who have cause that death.

I have no doubt that unless speed humps are implemented on Fulwood Hall Lane such consequences will occur on this residential road. I therefore ask Mr Bailey, and those who take the attitude of opposing speed humps because of the 'not in my back yard' philosophy, to consider the following question. Are you prepared to have on your conscience the death or injury to a young child who resides on or near Fulwood Hall Lane because you do not want speed humps?

Are you prepared to explain to the relatives, who would have to live with it for the rest of their lives, that such a tragedy could have been avoided, but the inconvenience of speed humps was too great?

Gordon Humphreys, via e-mail.