THE recent series of letters from Ian Bell, of the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, deserves serious consideration, as they all exhibit the spin and half truths now so beloved by those vested with authority.

On several occasions Mr Bell has justified camera locations by quoting accident statistics, but steadfastly refused to state how many of these are due to speed, which is the only cause cameras can address.

He also says that the revenue from speed camera fines goes to the Government. But under the netting-off scheme -- 'cash for cameras' -- the police, local authorities and other members of the partnership are allowed to keep a large proportion: for among other things to pay Mr Bell's wages and fund cameras.

Mr Bell's latest pronouncement that speed is the major contributory factor in one third of all accidents is, as he knows, a distortion of the truth. The fact is that excess speed is the cause of only nine per cent of accidents, with it being a factor but not the principal cause in a further 20 per cent.

The vast majority of the accidents involving excess speed are caused by drivers outside of the law, such as joy riders and car thieves, for whom cameras are no deterrent.

The vast majority of those Mr Bell is fining are not driving at the kind of speeds that actually cause accidents, but are an easy source of revenue.

I do not condone driving at excess speeds, but the current obsession with speed and the demonising of otherwise-law-abiding people does little for road safety as cameras do not identify the cause of 90 per cent of accidents and this obsession means that the real causes are getting little, if any, attention.

So come on, Mr Bell, let's cut the spin and only place cameras where speed is the cause of accidents and, in the interests of open government, publish the figures to prove your case.

STEPHEN SADLER, Valley Drive, Padiham.