So 20,000 motorists have been ticketed because the police hierarchy have chosen play with the long-established speed limit tolerances.

Surely police would have been better to put their resources into targeting say 500 motorists, who were doing something more serious?

At first glance it is difficult to challenge the logic, but we should think it through.

If one crashes into a brick wall at a six per cent lower speed, then no doubt the vehicle will be less damaged. But will the occupants be less dead?

I think not hitting the wall should be the objective.

The open road 10km tolerance has been accepted for many decades, and this makes me wonder if the police have really thought things through.

A higher average speed means less congestion; and lowering your speed makes quite a difference in a trip to Wellington, of say seven hours, which means the drive takes some 30 minutes longer.

I believe driver fatigue is a far greater hazard than a lower speed.

Also, with lower speed limits each vehicle has a six per cent greater chance of being hit by another vehicle because its still on the road.

Further, it is impossible either way to prove that lives will be saved because the six per cent reduction in top speed will mean none of the crashes in the present scenario will actually happen.

Although, surely, there will be a number of different crashes under new scenarios as well.

I suspect the ticketing is more about a police feel-good factor than reality. Pity about the 20,000 relatively innocent drivers.

B Capamagian, Tauranga City.