I write to agree with Colin F. Clarke (Letters, November 5) that mobile speed cameras would be a far more sensible alternative to speed humps and cushions.

Most drivers seem to accelerate between humps and then brake at the obstacle itself which, coupled with the gear changing involved, wastes fuel and consequently causes more pollution than driving at a constant speed in one gear. The humps are particularly bad for drivers of older vehicles with less advanced suspension than more modern ones.

I have been told that in some modern cars, the faster the car is travelling the less affected the ride is over humps. It is unfair that humps affect all drivers, not just those speeding.

Apparently joyriders view speed humps as a challenge to be driven over fast. Cameras would identify the speeding cars while those of us who observe speed limits would be unaffected by them, unlike speed humps. It has been said that cameras are more expensive than humps. But humps require constant maintenance therefore more expense. It is a common sight to see broken and worn ones.

I agree with Colin F. Clarke in asking if a report can be prepared comparing the pros and cons and costs of each system so that we, the public, can be fully informed.

Richard Hemingway,

Custance Walk,

York.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.