Criticizing M 1 Sir.-Lord Sudley complains in his letter on November 17 that the Popular Press, by publishing daily rePorts concerning the number of accidents on M 1. " seems deter- mined to kill the new road." Surely the only thing that can kill it is misuse by reckless or careless drivers. He argues that it is unreasonable to impose a speed limit on M 1 "when it is still lawful to go at a great speed (if one wishes) along the slower roads." The obvious answer is that this "g great speed" should be prohibited on all roads. because the " excitement and thrill" for the driver, to which he refers. too often means death and tragedy for others. It is relevant to refer to American experience because the great American motorways have been constantly cited as an illustration of what ought to be done here. Not one of them is without a speed limit The New York Thruway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike have a maximum of 65 m.p.h. for cars and coaches and of SO m.p.h. for lorries. These speed limits are enforced by radgr control so that it is unnecessary to empoy a large body of police. as is being done on M 1. whose peculiar function it is, to beg drivers to be careful. Nor do the American motor- ways require special ambulances and breakdown vans. After M I was ovened the New York Herald Tribune published a leader with the caption: " British Run Wild Over New Motorway." It seems rather absurd to have spent over ?20m. on building a 70-mile motorway with the avowed purpose of relieving the congestion on the established roads and then to permit it to be used in a manner which will frighten away the ordinary driver. Good roads are an essential need in modern- society, but they cease to be good when they are used as racetracks.- Yours faithfullv. --. - - -- A. L GOODHART. University College, Oxford. Nov. 19. CRITICIZING M 1