AFTER reading a couple of weeks ago that the Lancashire Partnership for Cash Generation (sorry -- Road Safety) is not going to be installing any more cameras until they have had chance to review their impact, the yellow and grey boxes are springing up at an alarming rate.

I have passed four new ones in a day which have been put up in the last week. All are in areas where I can't remember ever seeing an accident in the past few years and are on straight stretches of road.

I was reading the partnership's website, which states that two out of three accidents where people are injured or killed occur where the speed limit is 30mph or less. I would expect this to be the case because this is where the majority of the higher accident-causing hazards like pedestrians and children are!

The implied reverse message is hardly ever published though: Where people are driving in areas with speed limits of above 30mph there will be fewer accidents (one in three of the total by the same partnership statistics).

Does this means that it's twice as safe to drive in areas with higher speed limits? I'd suggest that the reason for this is that the areas with limits of above 30mph are outside built-up areas and, therefore, contain fewer hazards and potential causes of accidents.

Why not take a moment to think as a driver about the potential causes of accidents in 30 mph areas which are less likely to be there in higher speed limit areas, like illegally parked cars and pedestrians stepping out in front of traffic.

Speed will play a part in how serious the injury is, but it's not going to prevent any of the above hazards being placed in your path.

Reduction of all hazards is where the partnership should be concentrating their efforts, not just on speed.

I find it amusing that the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety is listed on the 'checkyourspeed.org.uk' website as being a 'Safety Camera Partner.' Does this go some way to explaining their obsession with cameras?

DAVE SNAPE, Waverley Road, Blackburn.