I WOULD like to congratulate Norman Deakin of Ilkley for his letter "Views about speed camera cuts were not on the money" (Sentinel, August 21).

I was surprised to learn that the cameras cost so much to run that the speeding fines just about cover these costs.

I had believed, like most folks, that the proliferation of cameras that had sprung up over the last few years had been positioned to trap the unwary motorist into unwittingly subsidising the police service.

I have observed that many of them do not cover hazardous areas; quite the contrary, in fact.

One such camera is positioned at the bottom of Ladderidge, Leek, where the speed limit is 40mph on the hill and drops to 30mph in about 200 yards when one leaves the hill.

The 30mph limit sign is mixed in with the trees.

However, having said all that, I can't contemplate the complete withdrawal of the system as without a doubt in the right places they do save lives. All it needs is a drastic cull.

I would welcome a law that prohibits intrusive trees and foliage within, say, 200 yards of the speed limit sign.

As it is now, one needs to keep looking to the left to pick up the signs from among the foliage and street furniture, while at the same time observing the road ahead and other traffic.

ALBERT DICKINSON

Sneyd Green