Dear Mrs Buckley,

Finding something that indicates a "good year" in highly variable data is a bit like looking at a result and deciding which of many factors contributed to it and how much, and picking on the factor which happens to be convenient and ignoring all others, like the statement about reduced accidents at Fleetsbridge due to the lights. And even if the results were consistently good in Poole, it is obviously not proof at all of good practice in decision making, and again I have to continue to point out, there are rarely single factors influencing anything. I'd like to see the information that you have based this statement on in it's context, you may understand that my confidence in Poole reaching correct conclusions from data is not particularly high. 

You haven't answered the concerns:

1. Poole has still failed to produce a proper, credible statement concerning the accident reduction at Fleetsbridge due to the lights, compared to no lights. The "technical information" we have from those "impartial professional officers" I have shown to be neither impartial nor professional and NO ONE has raised any challenge whatsoever to my points proving this. No one seems to be the slightest bit bothered that the only technical input was completely flawed.

2. I am deeply concerned that the "perceptions" of a very few are all that remain and about those who are providing them. I saw no recognition of any points of value in the meeting I attended, for example:

- the fact that the only technical input was clearly wrong was completely ignored

- no consideration of the possibility that the root cause of road safety problems is actually bad driving, not lack of lights, etc.

- no awareness that there could be other solutions, i.e. proper policing, which would be likely to have better accident reduction efficiency over a larger area

- no recognition of the negative effects, congestion, etc.

I repeat, the only thing I saw that indicated any justification for the presence of the lights was one or 2 people expressing personal opinion and this is NOT how these important decisions should be made.

In the meeting I was also shocked to see that one of those few "laypersons" setting road safety policy in Poole is Tony Trent. This is the man who commented on the death of the motorcyclist resulting from the presence of a speed camera "He was travelling at 78MPH in a 50 zone. Enough said." Perhaps we should just shoot everyone who exceeds a speed limit, should we Tony? Would that improve road safety?

Tony has put his foot in it over and over again and has demonstrated a mind blowing inability to process evidence and information into meaningful and relevant (and most certainly impartial and professional) conclusions.

You really need to take a look at this and the other documents referenced:

http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/sog73.aspx

The fact that Poole has allowed this man to lead meetings on road safety is probably the most absurd thing I have ever come across and proof that Poole is indeed thoroughly misguided in this important responsibility.

You can probably see that I am totally unsatisfied with your response and I therefore ask you to progress this complaint to stage 2.

Regards, Ian Belchamber

Dear Mrs Buckley,

Thanks for letting me know about the meeting which I attended today, and presented to. Unfortunately this has only confirmed and deepened my concerns about the quality of decision making in Poole on road safety.

I presented reasoning that showed that the justification of the council, that accidents had reduced from 6.6 to 2.7, due to the lights, could not have been more wrong. There was no response on this, only a couple of councillors stating that they had nearly had accidents on the roundabout while the lights were off. The entire remaining arguments (cyclist vulnerability, costs, etc) are void if the lights do not actually reduce, and possibly even increase, accidents, and my suggestion that this is in fact the case was just ignored.

Surely I don't need to explain that we need better reasoning behind road safety decisions than whether or not one or two councillors nearly have accidents, but this is all that seems to be remaining.

In the previous item, calming on the Lilliput Road, the true horror of widespread appalling driving was yet again realised, with residents describing large numbers of accidents on a residential road with speeds of 50, 60 or more not uncommon, where a wall has been hit a number of times and even bricks flying into a property.

The suggestion from the council - perhaps a bit of red paint and get Dorset Road Safe there to monitor some speeds. Sometimes I actually think that some of these councillors really are naive enough to think that determined dangerous speeders are stupid enough not to slow down when they see fluorescent safety jackets or stripy vans etc. 

Anyone who has a clue about measuring things knows that it's a nonsense if the action of measuring influences what is being measured - a bit like traffic surveys causing traffic gridlock - you just couldn't make it up.

Or that some chav showing off to his mate is going to see some red paint and think "oh, red paint, I better slow down". He's more likely to discover it makes his tyres squeal more and make him go faster.

Meanwhile, on proper dual carriageways tens of thousands of normal, safe drivers are being targeted by Dorset Road Safe for tiny amounts above limits that have been reduced so low that they simply can't be taken seriously and well below the natural safe and design speed for the road. As these interventions have negative effects and virtually no positive effects on safety, they cause more accidents than they save, including the death of a motorcyclist last year. The full list of negative effects and evidence is available here: http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/neg.aspx

Dorset Road Safe have behaved appallingly since they started and are only continuing by refusing to communicate.

Dorset Police have refused to tell me where the money (£2 million or so just last year) from courses goes.

The whole thing stinks and accidents and road deaths are way above where they should be because of it.

The answer as always is provided by common sense - any penny we have must be spent on proper policing of which we currently have non, which will bring benefits everywhere, not trying to idiot proof a roundabout here or a bend there - or paying for loads of jobsworths sending out as many fines as they possibly can in order to keep their jobs.

I'll leave it at that for now but there's plenty more.

So I am already working on a complaint about Dorset Police (I've virtually given up with Dorset Road Safe) and I ask that my complaint about Poole Council be progressed.

The complaint is that road safety decision making in Poole shows unacceptable incompetence and lack of care and professionalism and that this is resulting in wasted money and wasted lives. This is reinforced in total clarity by my experience at the TAG meeting today.

Please can you acknowledge this and confirm what the next step will be.

Regards, Ian Belchamber.

ps. My notes on my presentation today are below: