THE row over the controversial Great Harwood speed camera raged on this week.
Motorists who paid fines and accepted penalty points after being clocked by the Whalley Road camera last year are now furious that some drivers have had charges against them dropped.
Pensioner Rod McLennan was trapped by the camera four times in three days last November. But he said he was unaware the speed limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph and the charges were dismissed after he appeared in court.
A week later four speeding charges against Carol Harrison of Great Harwood were withdrawn before a hearing at Hyndburn Magi-strates Court.
During Mr McLennan's case it was stated that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to pursue a number of cases against drivers caught between October and the beginning of December because signs stating the speed limit had changed were deemed unclear.
The Observer has since been inundated with letters and phone calls from angry motorists who paid fixed panalty fines and received points on their licences after being clocked during the same period.
James Clegg of Lyndon Avenue, Great Harwood, reluctantly paid his fine after he was trapped driving at 36mph in November last year.
Mr Clegg said he too was unaware of the change in speed limit.
He had held a clean driving licence for 64 years and was furious when he received a notice giving him the option to pay the fixed penalty and accept the three points within 28 days or face court action.
He said: "At the time my wife and I were about to go on a Christmas holiday and the threat of court action so worried my wife I reluctantly decided to take the fixed penalty option."
Mr Clegg is now calling for all motorists caught driving within the old limit during the early days to join forces and demand justice. But the Project Manager for the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, Ian Bell, said everyone who had been caught by the camera had been given the option to take their case to court.
He added: "I have had an assurance from the CPS that it is reviewing every case on its merits. I am sure there are different reasons being given to the CPS as mitigating circumstances."