I AGREE with Jean Weston that speed humps are counterproductive (Letters, June 10).

Careful drivers put wear and tear on their cars and their backs while driving at higher revs in a lower gear, thereby inflicting more noise and pollution on local residents.

Furthermore they would have driven carefully and legally without the humps, anyway.

Irresponsible drivers, on the other hand, equip themselves with vehicles that are capable of crossing the humps at any speed they like.

The answer to this problem is to replace humps with cameras. But sadly, the pro-speeding lobby have done an excellent job in recent years of convincing people that careless and/or aggressive driving is a victimless crime (from the stress of being constantly tailgated and then recklessly overtaken by these people, I know that it isn't) - and that cameras exist purely to raise a stealth tax.

That argument could be taken care of by replacing the system of fines and points with a short driving ban for each offence, backed up with a mandatory jail sentence for driving while disqualified.

A £60 fine is nothing compared to the average £5,000 cost of running a car. But if these antisocial morons who think they are Michael Schumacher were taken off the road for a week every time they drove down a residential street at 40mph or a rural single carriageway at 70mph, they might think twice.

Leo Enticknap,

Ingram House,

Bootham, York.

Updated: 11:14 Saturday, June 12, 2004