SO, our esteemed casualty reduction (previously known as speed camera, or was it safety camera) partnership has found that boy racer types are not as guilty of road transgressions as older road users (Examiner April 11).

Have the insurance companies been notified. I’m sure they will be surprised.

Was this a belated April Fools joke or – more likely – did someone forget to check the maths? Traffic camera figures are bound to throw up more older road users because there are far more of them on the roads.

What do the figures look like in proportional terms? I would suggest it would not be as favourable. I would also suggest that perusing most newspapers and other media reports tends to indicate that the young are disproportionately more likely to feature in serious accidents than older age groups.

After all, is it not true that the emphasis of many road safety campaigns are aimed at the young. Inexperience, youthful bravado and rebellion are powerful factors.

However, not that older road users are perfect. Clear disregard of speed limits, use of mobile phones, not wearing seat belts, no insurance etc. are common, everyday occurrences. The trouble is that we have become dependent on cameras to register selective illegality on our roads, so consequently we have laws which people disregard and certainly don’t respect.

I am one of many who strongly believe we must have traffic police to both detect and deter the nutters on our roads, both old and young.

The figures for speed camera offences throw up some interesting arguments. One: if the principle worked the authorities couldn’t afford to operate the cameras. Two: what proportion of offences were barely over the limit and probably committed by folk who actually drive sensibly? Three: how do you legislate for those who slow for the camera, then speed excessively, eg on Wakefield Road, Huddersfield?

John Procter