Road Safety Update, Dorset, 2023

DorsetSpeed started out as a study into the obvious money making by police sold to the public as a road safety effort (making money by deception). This could not happen unless there was widespread corruption, incompetence and lawlessness in the Police, and I think we have all seen plenty of that in recent years.

But I thought it would be interesting to take a few steps back and look just at the road safety element of it in Dorset again.

Over the years I have identified a multitude of lies and misinformation from the police, a few examples:

(Background)

"Safest Year"

"100% satisfaction, residents feel safe"

Misinformation from DCC Sam de Reya

Misrepresentation of the year award 2020: Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police

Another lie, yet another coverup - Dorset and Devon & Cornwall Police (Richard Scott)

The Dorset and Devon & Cornwall Police "Alliance" misstates road safety performance AGAIN!

Lies from Dorset OPCC Chief Executive Simon Bullock confirmed

Any complaint will be shut down, lies, incompetence and corruption protected, so this does not end, it carries on, and here, bringing us right up to date is the latest example. Our new PCC David Sidwick has clearly indicated he will continue to protect this corrupt and dangerous behaviour and I strongly suspect our new Chief Constable Amanda Pearson will do likewise:

Brian Austin, who has been at the centre of the corruption and road safety failure in Dorset for decades, and who has lied in at least one freedom of information response, whose job depends on the speed camera money he says doesn't exist, wrote recently,

"Speed enforcement has been found to encourage drivers to slow down, resulting in a reduction in the number of collisions in an area or a reduction in the severity of a collision." 

I believe that when a person in a position of responsibility to the public makes a statement like that, connected to their work, they would automatically point to a set of data and a balanced analysis demonstrating that their statement was sound and reasonable. But of course that doesn't happen, you have to ask.    

And what comes back from Dorset Police when you ask is generally ignorant, inaccurate, incomplete, deluded nonsense. This will then be protected by the Information Commissioner, Tribunal, etc, as high as you would like to go.

My question, and the answer can be seen here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_for_public_statement_ef

Let's just try to make a start at listing the inadequacies:

1. Naturally, they have completely failed to provide what was asked for. A quantification of the statement made and some kind of concrete evidence to support it. Yet again we see Dorset Police blowing their own trumpet but with absolutely nothing behind it.

2. Go to the Dorset Road Safe Strategy page , there you will find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It promises an "attached document" but there is none. Some may think this might be a page error but I am not so sure. In more than 20 years I have never seen any proper analysis from Dorset Police, no understanding of the factors, no breakdown of accident statistics, no understanding whatsoever that casualty reduction can occur due to other things than police action, etc etc etc. I honestly do not believe there is any strategy other than to sustain / grow "speeding" income but in a sustainable manner so as not actually usefully reduce the "speeding" or risk reducing the income. No wonder we see repeated misinformation and it seems so hard for them to provide proper answers to simple questions.

3. There are some tired old references to RAC, ROSPA etc who have an interest in "doing safety stuff" and have made serious errors in the past by failing to account for major distortions such as regression to mean. They talk about reducing speeds at cameras which of course they do but only for a few hundred yards - without necessarily having any noticeable or measurable impact on casualty (and occasionally contributing to it).

4. They quote the London School of Economics reducing fatalities up to 68% . This takes me back a while to some completely ludicrous claims for casualty reduction from cameras such as 72% in Kent. Almost no number seems too high to be plucked out of the air from absolutely nowhere. Can someone explain how, if only 20% of deaths have exceeding the limit as one of usually several factors (which could include drink etc), a speed camera could reduce deaths by 68%???!!!!   It just goes beyond fantasy. It is impressively inept to produce such abject nonsense in support of your own misinformation! I have contacted the LSE and "Cheng Keat Tang" with the concerns but, not surprisingly, they don't seem to be rushing to reply.

5. Then they provide a chart showing casualty reduction, with Dorset being well ahead of target. But:

-2020, 2021, and to a lesser degree 2022 are not typical due to covid

-This is for "all casualties" (slight will dominate). This group has fallen much faster than "serious injuries" and "fatals" have remained quite constant. How is this explained? is there an inconsistency with reporting or recording? Are there "errors" such as there were here, and look how hard it was to find those!

6. With the experience of many being that it is quite unusual to see a police officer on the road, in the street or anywhere else for that matter, is it that improvements in car technology are actually dominating casualty reduction, not speed cameras? The impact of this, with many cars 10 years old or more, is gradual. in 2000 - 2010 there would have been an increasing proportion of cars with automatic stability control, anti lock brakes etc. 2010-2020 we are now getting cars that wouldn't even let you have some kinds of collisions if you try. If we believe the police, these incredible advances would have done nothing, everything is because of what they do!

It is beyond sickening that the police behave in this manner, and that the blatant conflicts of interest remain after all this time, with people like Brian Austin still untouchable and free to do what he wants to keep the money coming in, that money obviously making his job viable. Of course he will be biased about the effectiveness of speed cameras! And as is clear now, he is prepared to tell us they are affective even when either:

- He has no information to demonstrate this, or:

- He has information that they are not affective but is deliberately misleading the public and decision makers, more concerned about his job than the safety of the public.

Either way, after more than 20 years of study and exposure of corruption and incompetence in road safety in Dorset and elsewhere, it is incompetent and dishonest and there is no place for this in any safety work. It is costing lives.

Ian Belchamber