Sir – I was appalled by Hugh Jaeger’s objections to the introduction of the new 20mph limit, and its enforcement (Letters, March 25). There is a better way to reduce carbon emission than increasing vehicle speed, where there are pedestrians: remove motorized traffic altogether.

This would also eliminate the air pollution that is responsible for the death of between four and eight people for every one killed in a road traffic accident.

We should be moving in favour of pedestrian, bike, and light electric transport, in that order. While and where the traffic remains, we need many more of the old-style crossings, where the pedestrian gets priority. (They are far cheaper too.) It never ceases to amaze me how even the most nonsensical myth can be perpetuated. Excessive speed makes an accident both more likely and more serious, when it occurs. The difference between 20 and 30mph is the difference between life and death, particularly for a child.

There is also a severe deterrent effect on pedestrian and cycling activity, again, especially for children.

For a century now, the road lobby has strongly and successfully resisted any limitation on speed. It is time their biased and selfish demands were treated with the contempt they deserve.

It is also high time the police did their job. The average speed driven in a 30mph limit is over 40mph. 20 should mean 20.

Ian East, Islip