Readers respond to cruise control and speed calming

I AM very pleased for Mr Cantrill ( HT Letters 16/08/17) that he can afford such a sophisticated car, but sadly many of us cannot.

I must however comment on some of the associated points regarding speed cushions as I live next to one of the wretched things.

They do not cap traffic speeds as it is the sensible drivers who slow down, not the boy-racers, so in this respect they are a total waste of taxpayers’ money.

Leicestershire County Council has made two claims.

Firstly, that average speeds have been reduced.

Putting aside the fact that the figures they have published have been heavily “massaged”, averages are irrelevant.

Secondly, that there have been no accidents since cushions were installed.

This is simply not true as one was reported in the HT a matter of days afterwards.

The county council has since been forced to admit that the numbers it quoted might not be complete so they cannot now support their assertion.

The suggestion that the frequency of air ambulance call-outs is a meaningful measure of success is, with respect, statistically naive.

My simple yardstick is that if it smells unpleasant or makes me cough it must be harming the environment and since the cushions were installed I now regularly experience both.

R Vaughan

I FEEL I should point out to Mr Cantrill (HT Letters 16/08/17) that cruise control only maintains a set speed and does not optimise either fuel consumption or pollution levels.

In fact it can do precisely the opposite as it does not change gear which can cause the engine to underrev.

The suggestion that when travelling uphill cruise control maintains the same fuel consumption as the throttle is not depressed, breaks the very first law of thermodynamics.

P Mason