ONCE again, Ian Bell of the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, uses misleading information to justify the siting of a speed camera (Letters, May 13).

He cites a figure of 21 casualties in the area over a three-year period but fails to state how many were actually caused by speed (the only factor a camera can address).

Should this figure be in line with the national average of nine per cent then the actual number of casualties caused by speed is only two which begs the question as to what the partnership are doing about the causes of the other 19.

The answer to this is almost certainly nothing as these causes are not revenue-generating.

While Mr Bell is pondering his response to this, perhaps he would also like to consider the implications on his policy of the recent Department of Transport report which showed that areas which used automated signs rather than cameras saw a reduction in accidents of 34 per cent against a reduction of only 14 per cent in the "cash for cameras" areas.

When one considers that these automated signs also cost less to install and operate, then there is a compelling case for their introduction. However, as they do not generate revenue, don't hold your breath.

Cameras can make a positive contribution to road safety when sited in areas where speed is the cause of accidents but the "cash for cameras" scheme has long since overridden this objective.

The partnership is now a quango requiring considerable revenue to exist and its policies now appear dictated by this fact rather than its concern for road safety.

STEPHEN SADLER, Valley Drive, Padiham.