I CAN sympathise with the late Mr Harry Harper’s son when he is critical of the application of penalties arising from the operation of speed camera vans.

READ MORE: Speed camera fine 'contributed to my dad's death'

It has long been my contention that the cameras are more about raising money than a serious contribution to the improvement of road safety. In the past via your letter columns I have shown that statistics used to support the speed camera operations have not always justified the public claims made for their success in reducing accidents.

The photograph showing the camera van operating on the Promenade raises questions regarding the validity of the speed data, the positioning of the vehicle and any previous and subsequent penalties arising from that location.

It would seem that the van operator, who has “been suitably advised” by Cumbria police on the suitability or otherwise of his/her placing of the van, received much greater consideration than Ian Harper’s dad did for a minor infringement of the speed limit.

Are we to assume that as of now, provided motorists leave sufficient room for a wheelchair to pass, it is not illegal to park on the pavement in a double yellow line zone? How about some consideration for visually impaired pedestrians?

What also interests me in the van photograph is the position and close proximity of the metal lamp post to the rear of the van and its potential for blockage and reflection of the signals used to measure the speed of oncoming or receding vehicles.

How can those motorists who passed the van and were served with a penalty notice be assured that the speed recorded was accurate and unaffected by the presence of the adjacent lamp post?

RAY OLIVER

Church Close, Lindal