Sir, – I have read with interest letters from Susan Holden and Paul Rummery with opposing views about the possible reinstatement of the speed bumps in Skeeby following the recent floods which washed them away. I have sympathy with both points of view: it is frankly marvellous not to have to negotiate the large number of vicious bumps in the village but at the same time I can understand that residents want their village to be safe and accident-free.

Can I suggest the following: • Skeeby is on an A class road being the main road into Richmond from east and north where the speed limit is 30 mph. Apart from being quite a busy road generally, it is used by emergency services – ambulance, fire and police, and these bumps should not be used on roads frequented by these services or those which have a bus service.

• This vicious type of speed bumps are those intended to be placed only on more minor roads eg housing estates, where children are playing and not on a major road. They require drivers to go at considerably less than the speed limit.

• Five sets of speed bumps is excessive and unnecessary. Villages of comparable size and sited on an A road do not usually have speed bumps and certain not so many or this type. Most villages rely on signs and road marking and perhaps a warning sign activated by the driver’s speed.

• This speed reducing arrangement is discouraging to commercial and tourist traffic upon which Richmond and Swaledale depend.

• These speed bumps are a distraction to drivers, dangerous for cyclists and cause damage to vehicles Could I suggest that a different scheme to replace the speed bumps is considered, which will still result in lower speeds and less accidents but which does not cause potential accidents in itself and which does not cause major and disproportionate aggravation to so many users.

LESLEY BLACK (Mrs)

Melsonby, near Richmond.