Sir – John Kinory (Letters, September 9) and others have extolled the virtues of speed cameras, and suggested they be funded directly by the speeding fines they generate.

My feeling is that it may be morally suspect, not to say self-defeating, to use money derived from law-breaking in this way. Is it not rather like awarding bonuses to policemen according to how many convictions they achieve, so that they stand to gain whenever a crime is committed?

Even if the moral argument does not convince you, we should not lose sight of the ultimate aim of the cameras, which is that everyone should obey the limits at all times.

Thus, if successful, the cameras would generate less and less of their own funding, and until finally they would have to be switched off.

I still find I slow down when approaching a camera, even though it is non-functional, so perhaps the cameras have already achieved their purpose of encouraging us to drive more carefully.

Therefore, it seems to me it is much better to pay the fines to a central fund, as with other fines for minor offences, so that no direct link is made between offences and monetary advantages.

It has been suggested that the cameras may save lives, and this may be true, but so too have countless instances of the funding of health services at our local hospitals and clinics, as well as mental health provisions, and these too must be paid for.

Unfortunately we are living in times where decisions must be made between the benefits of one over another, for the pot is no longer bottomless. At least the cameras are still there, ready to be used whenever need and funding coincide once again.

Ken Weavers Headington