Try looking both ways for speed solution

I've read with interest about Councillor Anthony Harris's much-publicised campaign to oust "unsightly yellow speed cameras" from Walsall.

He claims that the cameras do not cut accidents but are simply "cash cows" targeting motorists to raise money for the Treasury.

I ask myself what action has been taken, as part of his review, to consult residents who may have campaigned for a camera to be erected? Also, if the cameras, which are set to catch people exceeding the set speed limit, are to go, then by implication he believes the speed limits on those roads must be set too low?

So what does he propose the new speed limits should be on these roads? Perhaps he feels there should be no limits. If the limits are, however, to remain because they are felt to be right in the circumstances, how can he claim that the cameras are just cash-raising items?

What deterrent does he see being used to ensure drivers stick to a speed determined as "safe" for the prevailing road conditions?

We've all seen people driving at stupid speeds, without any thought for other road users or pedestrians.

Personally, I have little sympathy with many of the drivers caught speeding (some on several occasions).

They can clearly afford to be hit in the pocket by a speeding fine.

I know it is a popular view to dislike speed cameras (even being promoted by some as clever to vandalise them) but I wish we could have a rational debate about their use.

I have written to Councillor Harris seeking answers to my questions but have received no reply. I wonder what he attributes the continuing decline in road deaths (the lowest since 1928) to, particularly as we have an ever increasing number of cars and drivers?

Roy Sheward, Redhouse Lane, Aldridge.