AS I am a recently signed-up member of the New Road Speed Camera Convicts Club, your paper today (Wednesday, April 14) is of great interest.

Surely if Worcester really has such a speed problem, and these new authority toys are not the money-making tools it is constantly denied they are, then we should have installed the sleeping policeman humps, as in Bilford Road.

The main advantage of this would be that all drivers on the particular stretch of the road will know and understand why drivers in front, who may be paid-up members of the speed crime club, are driving so slowly, on what often is a completely clear road ahead.

They also understand the annoyance of the £60 fine and three points on the licence. We have all been frustrated by the "silly driver" in front who doesn't know how to drive his/her vehicle properly.

I think I now know the answer to that question. The driver in front, as the advert used to say, is a member of the speed camera convicts club and knows just what it feels like.

Speed humps would not, of course, generate all that lovely money the cameras do.

A further worry I have is that many drivers being accused of speeding could be driving older vehicles whose speedometers have never been tested since the day the vehicle was made and cannot "compete" for accuracy with the authority's new digital toys.

I would further argue that as the tolerances involved can be so fine, drivers constantly checking their speed near these cameras could be said to be more danger to all road users nearby by not always looking at the road ahead.

In my case, at 35mph, I am driving right on the allowance the rules seem to allow.

Then wallop - the £60 fine and those three points come through the letter box.

There is no real right of appeal. When just over the limit, why not issue a warning, or just the money fine?

PETER WILLIS,

Worcester.