Dear Mr Garrett,
Thank you so much for your response. It makes it so much easier to understand
the DSCP’s thinking when it is willing to respond to the concerns of the public.
Perhaps the DSCP should generally be a bit more open and willing to stand up for
it’s operations, then perhaps situations like this would not develop to this
extent.
Thank you for clarifying some of the facts (points 1, 2, 5, 6, 7). There remain a few points that I’d
like to respond to, to help you to understand us, the community.
Point 3: It
is understood that the offence rate is a small percentage of traffic movements,
but this is not surprising. The bulk of traffic will pass at peak times when all
will move at the speed of the slowest vehicles. And when the traffic flows more
freely, the majority of drivers who are “tuned in” to the speed camera problem,
will pass the junction at 30 then put their foot down again. Only the slowest
drivers who don’t make a habit of checking their speed because their driving has
always been below natural safe road speeds and well below limits are likely to
be caught.
Point 4: 30
MPH is NOT the correct speed for this road. See
http://ha.boroughofpoole.com/committeedocuments/agendas_minutes_reports_get_file.asp?f=%2Fcommitteepdf%2Freport%2Ftransportation+advisory+group%2Ftag121020063speed+limits.doc.pdf
In
particular, “There are a few locations, such as the 30mph dual carriageway
section of Holes Bay Road, where there could be pressure for an increase in the
limit as part of this exercise. An average speed of 36mph would indicate that a
40mph limit may be more
suitable, however there are many other factors which would have to be taken into
consideration before such a change could be contemplated. This might include,
for example, consideration of the cost of increasing the size of all traffic
signs which are presently designed for 30mph roads.”
So the only reason the 30 limit is in place is the cost of changing the signs to
40!!! Why then were they made 30 in the first place??? Someone GOT IT WRONG!!!
Quite apart from the fact that this road simply cannot be compared to normal 30
limit streets, which are typically narrow, with houses, shops, parked cars,
pavements close to the road, many junctions, children and animals, etc, it’s
actually just COMMON SENSE. There are plenty of documents which explain the
importance of not having limits to low, for example
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/dftcircular106/dftcircular106.pdf,
and in particular, “Indeed,
if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to
be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring
significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of
drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of
collisions and injuries.”
To answer your final points:
You are quite right, motorists should obey the posted speed limit. But where
there is a serious problem with a speed limit, as you were aware before the
speed on green started, an investigation is needed to solve a problem. The
correct solution in this case would have been to raise the limit. The wrong
solution was to rigidly enforce the limit that obviously was not working for
blindingly obvious reasons.
We now face 50 limits along the Dorset / Canford Way, even though the existing
50 limit at the top of Holes Bay is completely ignored. Why extend something
that ALREADY ISN’T WORKING?
But, the worst part of it all is the work not being done, I hope you have seen
my video which shows 1 bad driving event a minute:
http://www.belchamber.net/movie.wmv . The DSCP only
seems to turn up where a large number of fines can be collected in the minimum
time, not where there is a safety problem. This contributes greatly to the
impression that all you have to do while driving is to slow for the speed
cameras, not drive safely.
So, those who don’t exceed the limit don’t get fined, that does not mean that
those who speed the worst get fined, or that the DSCP is producing the right end
results.
To add this up, we have: Safe drivers being fined and livelihoods being
threatened for no benefit to road safety (or anything else) at a location where
the speed limit is too low, while dangerous drivers (including dangerous speed)
are free to do whatever they want, and consequently, quite probably, people
being killed and seriously injured who not be if the DSCP were properly focusing
on road safety.
THAT is why we, the community, are angry.
Regards, Ian Belchamber