IN Tuesday's Lancashire Evening Telegraph you pointed out that the most crucial of the eight criteria for installing speed cameras is that there must have been four deaths or serious accidents in 1,500 metre vicinity in the previous three calendar years.

These criteria are laid down by the Department of Transport. What is the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety's view of this criteria?

In Wednesday's Telegraph the Partnership has said that it had interpreted the government's rules for speed cameras in a way that allowed the use of minor crashes to justify a fixed site.

Again in Tuesday's Telegraph, a spokesman for Mr Darling, the Transport Secretary, stated that Mr Darling has said that speed cameras should not be erected unless there have been four deaths or serious accidents in the vicinity in the past few years and that Mr Darling has written to the Lancashire Partnership to ask them to justify all their speed cameras in terms of the guidelines.

In Wednesday's Telegraph, when commenting on the rogue 53 cameras, the anonymous Lancashire Partnership spokesman is quoted as saying, quite incredibly, that none of the controversial 53 sites would be removed.

Why should the Lancashire Partnership be allowed to interpret a clearly defined list of criteria? How can an unelected anonymous official pre-empt the decision of the Transport Secretary?

The arrogance of the Lancashire Partnership is breathtaking. It seems to be able to do whatever it likes and laughs in the face of democracy. The nationwide partnerships have become a laughing stock and should be abolished forthwith.

ANDREW LAIN, Columbia Way, Blackburn.