In response to Dennis Merrett (Letters, March 1), I would like to rename the anti-car bandwagon "the responsible drivers bandwagon".

It is not anti-car, it is against people who drive irresponsibly and endanger other people's lives.

Furthermore, Dennis writes, it's not speed that kills but people.

Have you ever seen "a speed" kill something? No, speed is inherently linked to a driver's behaviour. How can you detach speed from the driver?

Pedestrians, cyclists, animals, children and weather conditions don't cause accidents but they can create situations that require motorists to adapt to them and adjust their behaviour.

A strong wind, for example, can push a cyclist into the middle of the road. Approaching motorists should be aware of that and act accordingly by slowing down.

When it snows, drivers should slow down to avoid slipping and causing an accident.

Isn't it true that if you drive more slowly you can react better to the unexpected appearance of pedestrians, cyclists or animals or changing weather conditions?

If drivers won't adjust their behaviour then of course there will be a need for cameras and street bumps to enforce speed limits.

I agree with Dennis that some cameras are placed in unnecessary locations. However, he should think of them as just another road sign, telling him that he needs to slow down, except that they include a possible fine as a sanction. And if he feels they are distracting him, he should remember that that is exactly what they need to do in order to tell him that he has to slow down.

If he stuck to the rules, he wouldn't have to look out for cameras.

It has been proven that reducing speed saves lives, so cameras that make drivers slow down will lead to safer roads and fewer accidents.

Robert Westerwijk

Compton Road

-Brighton