P WHITTAKER (Letters, July 25) says that the public would prefer to see police officers providing protection against crimes such as burglary, rape and mugging, rather than sitting "in the back of vans all day" policing speeding motorists.

I understand exactly where Mr Whittaker is coming from. At face value, it could appear that priorities are skewed, but the fact is that violent crimes in which people are hurt or killed are relatively rare, especially in comparison to the number of road traffic accidents and their casualty toll.

It is true that accidents can occur for all sorts of reasons, some of which may be entirely unpredictable and unavoidable. However, it is also true that speed is the major contributory factor in one third of all crashes.

The police have a duty to protect the public and, in volume terms, policing speed is, therefore, a valid way of saving the greatest numbers from the most hurt.

And rather than being about raising revenue for the Government, policing speed is a way of saving us all money.

Each road death costs taxpayers an average of £1million and each serious road injury, £128,000. This is money that could be better spent on a whole range of services, including health care and education.

Fixed traffic cameras free up the time of police officers so that they can carry out other duties, while officers operating mobile traffic cameras are not doing so in place of other work, but rather in addition to it.

As well as reducing the numbers of accidents, the information gathered by fixed and mobile traffic cameras in Lancashire has contributed to a number of convictions for other serious offences, helping to save further police time.

I would, therefore, ask that readers consider this bigger picture before lambasting the county's constabulary for doing what, after all, it is paid to do and that is, making Lancashire a safer place for everyone.

IAN BELL, Project Manager, Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, Preston.