ON Saturday, August 20, you published a letter from Trevor McAvoy, Project Manager of the Safety Camera Partnership, in which he wrote "all fixed and mobile camera enforcement sites, without exception, wholly conform to the Department for Transport's site selection procedures".

The site selection criteria as stated on the Safety Camera Partnership website is that new cameras should only be sited where there is a history of accidents - "for fixed sites, at least eight personal injury collisions (PICs) over three years, including at least four people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) as a result of speed-related road collisions".

Based on the 1999-2001 statistics used to justify the location of the first wave of Worcester speed cameras, the Hylton Road and Bromyard Road sites suffered only three KSIs over a three-year period each, thus not complying with the criteria.

In addition, the statistics used are for 'all accidents', and do not exclude those that are not speed-related. Upon further inspection of these statistics one may discover that none of the camera sites satisfies the criteria. This does not seem as if the sites "wholly conform to the Department for Transport's site selection procedures".

Due to the somewhat misleading nature of the presentation of such data, Mr McAvoy's other outstanding statistic that KSIs have been reduced by 61 per cent in the areas where cameras are sited seems to provoke further questions. What are the numbers behind the percentage - to what extent have PICs been reduced, and have KSIs been reduced at all sites?

If Mr McAvoy wishes to silence critics of the Safety Camera Partnership why not present all the facts with balanced conclusions.

DANNY BROTHWELL,

Worcester.