MR Alten makes a very common mistake when declaring that "because speed is the greatest cause of "accidents".

Imagine this scenario. Driving along a road, I become momentarily distracted - advertising hoardings, speed cameras, and so on - and then, too late, see the traffic has stopped.

I brake and my car skids into the stationary car, or person, or cyclist in front.

The police see the skid marks and will presume that I was (a) going too fast and/or (b) travelling too close.

What won't enter the statistics is the real reason, which I believe to be the main one behind nearly all accidents, and that's the lack of concentration by the driver. Not the speed. If this point's valid, then perhaps we should consider there being no speed limit outside of towns and cities.

Why? Because travelling faster causes drivers' concentration to be more focused.

Driving on the motorway above 70mph makes focusing on the road instinctive, whereas, at 30-50mph it's so slow (perceptually) that concentration can waver, resulting in our eyes being averted from the road.

I doubt that this view will be shared by many, since the mantra of "speed kills", as promulgated by the police and government bodies, is far too ingrained in our psyche to have its veracity questioned.

In fact, I fully expect there'll many good citizens who will write and kindly tell me of the absurdity of this postulation.

NK CHANCE,

The Mount,

Severn Stoke,

Worcester