Not on its own, seems to be the refreshingly honest attitude of Kent Safety Camera Partnership. And this attitude - that speed may be an issue but it isn't the only one - combined with a stubborn refusal to position cameras where they solely make money but instead to position them where they may actually contribute to road safety, has resulted in the county being one of the few in Britain to record a reduction in KSI accidents over the last couple of years.

Kent have long maintained a policy of complete transparency when it comes to camera positions, publishing the locations of fixed cameras and making them so vivible that, frankly, if you get caught by one then you really ought to get your eyes checked. Or try paying attention. They also publish the likely positions of their mobile cameras and again make them as visible as is reasonably possible. And, even better, if someone objects to the location of a camera then they will investigate it and actually give a reasonable response. They have removed cameras in the past, something not many other regions can claim. As project manager Chris Rogers says, "If we just wanted to make money then we'd simply put a mobile camera on the M20 and rake it in. But we don't because the Motorways are relatively safe - we'll just put one there every now and again to keep people on their toes."

There will always, of course, be questions about camera positions and their justification. And in their latest project, Kent have addressed those questions in a simple way. Each fixed camera in the county now has a sign fixed to it. That sign carries a simple statistic - the number of speed related causalties in the last three years on that stretch of road. The scheme was launched by Marion Cornick - a brave lady who was prepared to talk about the death of her daughter in a collision objectively and calmly. Her message wasn't that speed kills - her daughter was hit by a car which wasn't excessively speeding - but that anything which makes people think for a moment about what they are doing and the potential consequences must be a Good Thing. And we've got to agree with that - speed, after all, isn't the killer. Stupidity, carelessness and inattention are the killers.

Kent are very active in education as well as enforcement. Bikesafe is thriving in the county, and they have regular and targeted campaigns aimed at groups that they feel are at risk. "Handle it or Lose it" - a campaign we have previously reported on - was launched in Kent and is still very active there. There's always more that could be done, of course, and we remain to be convinced at the value of cameras over policemen. Indeed, one of our biggest arguments against cameras for speed enforcement is the lack of learning experience that accompanies the ticket. At least when you get pulled over and booked the policeman will normally give you a lecture about exactly why your behavious was worthy of a ticket rather than a stern talking to. A camera, of course, doesn't do this, though in Kent at least you get a leaflet explaining some of the issues. Not ideal but a start.

So we're keeping a close eye on developments in Kent, to the extent that we are actually going to spend a day with a mobile camera van and with a Kent Police aciident investigator to see how much of what we have seen so far is PR flannel and how much is the real deal. It all looks very promising so far, and it's good news that the county has seen a reduction in accidents and tickets since this policy was brought into play. Long may it continue.

SB