Anyone tuning into the BBC radio Today programme yesterday morning will have heard the uncompromising tones of Richard Brunstrom, chief constable of North Wales, otherwise known as the “Traffic Taliban”. This scourge of speed favours lots more highway cameras and believes politicians are too timid in defending them given their record in saving lives. More controversially, he would like to stop cameras being painted yellow so that motorists can see them, and hide lots more of them in hedgerows and behind trees and no doubt inside Dunkin Donut signs. Only if motorists fear the unexpected flash will they keep one foot on the brake and an eye on the speedometer.

Mr Brunstrom has a colourful description of his critics. They are the “petrolheads”, led by Jeremy Clarkson, who like nothing better than roaring around our roads threatening carnage on a scale not seen since the Somme. Ministers are so afraid of this small and vocal group that they have been unwilling to make the case for cameras more strongly. The vast majority of people, he claims, support the use of speed cameras.

It is disturbing to discover that somebody such as Mr Brunstrom can get it so wrong. The anger against speed cameras is not from testosterone-fuelled road hogs (Mr Clarkson excepted) who like burning rubber. On the contrary, most people want nothing more than a police clampdown on boy racers and joy-riding twockers (so-called because they take cars without owners’ consent). Anybody driving a stolen car, or with no fixed address, does not fear the flash of a camera. For them it just adds to the fun.

The people who really dread the cameras are largely law-abiding motorists who accidentally slip over the speed limit, often because they are on an unfamiliar road. An ICM poll earlier this year showed that while 38% of people think speed cameras make Britain’s roads safer, 51% believe they are there purely to raise revenue. And these demands for money come with a summary form of justice — a curt letter, threatening to use all the majesty of the law if you don’t pay the

£60 fine by yesterday, plus three points on your licence. The financial pain does not end there. Those three points can mean a whopping 20% on a driver’s insurance premium.

Bit by bit, motorists are being made “mad as hell”, like the driver called D-Fens after his numberplate in the film Falling Down. He went berserk in a Californian traffic jam. It is not just the anger generated by the belief that cameras, while nabbing some genuinely dangerous drivers, also catch many who have driven safely for years. Before a driver ever gets to a highway he or she has to bypass an obstacle course of speed bumps, overzealous traffic wardens and astronomical parking, clamping and congestion charges. Drivers are branded as polluters, although a new study shows that trains are dirtier per passenger. The generally law-abiding motorist feels like a hunted animal. And this is not a minority. There are nearly 25m cars on British roads. Most of us drive or are driven. But the debate, far from being dominated by petrolheads, is driven by a few hardline policemen and cycle-riding zealots.

Speed cameras do save lives. Many who have lost relatives in road accidents know to their cost that speed kills. The government’s own research suggests that cameras save 100 lives a year. But its figures also show that road deaths are down by a mere 2% since its baseline 1994-98 period, during which time car safety has improved. Deaths are down much more sharply in EU countries that have not used cameras. Cameras have a role to play at accident blackspots and at certain times.

But no policeman, or transport minister, should be happy with their indiscriminate use. Good policing requires discretion. Automatic fines generated by speed cameras merely generate deep resentment of the police among a group of people who would nornmally support them. That is something nobody wants. The government should reject Mr Brunstrom’s call. Like D-Fens we “can’t take it any longer”.