Dear Mr Garrett,
Thanks for your reply. Annette Brooke clearly wants
me to take part in this debate as she sent me your letter and confirmed by email
that she was happy for me to respond to your points.
The DSCP must start to learn it cannot behave in
this secretive way. If it believes it is right about this operation, it should
have nothing to fear by being completely transparent, honest, open and willingly
and directly answering important questions by concerned members of the
community, or their spokesperson(s). The questions I asked are valid whether
they are part of a discussion originated by Annette Brooke or not, and I don’t
believe there’s any significant overlap with any of my open FOI questions. The
questions would be easy to answer quickly and positively if what the DSCP is
doing is actually good.
Instead, we have the maximum possible levels of
secrecy, an attempt to keep even the original fine count exempt from FOI, and
trickles of information being made available after considerable delay by FOI.
You must understand that the DSCP does not give any impression other than it
operates in it’s own interest and is not concerned in the slightest about the
public it should be serving, or even if it needs to be doing the right thing.
Add this to operations obviously designed to raise massive amounts of cash and
the inevitable popular perceptions result, TO THE DETRIMENT OF ROAD SAFETY.
I may seem angry but this does come from the
knowledge of the type of driving I know is being targeted, compared to the
dismal and dangerous driving I see every day, which is not, such as:
-
the BMW I saw yesterday (when I was on my bike) going through the Upton
ped crossing full throttle at what had to be more than 60 (a few hundred yards
from the utterly pointless yellow boxes)
-
the Vauxhaul Zafira I saw on Sunday following another car at about 100 on
the Upton bypass, with only a car’s length between them. I caught up with them
when his speed dropped to 30 in the 50 section for some reason, it was a fairly
normal looking family with small kids in child seats in the back. I think his
wife was giving him an ear bashing but it should have been the POLICE (the
proper ones).
-
people having to do the work you should be doing for them, such as the
father who has had to put up his own sign after his children were nearly hit by
a tyre-screeching car in a RESIDENTIAL 30 limit road.
-
Not to mention the video I took which I hope you’ve seen by now.
As I’ve said before, all of these things can even be
targeted automatically if we stop putting all the effort we can into making it
sound like current speed cameras are working and MOVE ON. Then we can have
balanced enforcement and realistic limits, and respect from the majority of good
drivers, properly reduced KSI figures AND reduced congestion, that’s how it
should be. As I’ve also said, I am a computer vision designer and would even be
happy to help. I was even offered a development camera site on the Wessex Way by
Mike Holmes at one point, but it all went quiet with no reason given or
communication. Might try another FOI request about this.
Finally, concerning the camera name, it is not a
safety camera as the aim as you stated is not casualty reduction. You could
possibly call it a “community concern” camera, whatever one of those is. But
until there’s a proper resolution to this, and it needs to come quickly, I think
“Greed on Green” is the most appropriate name and it seems the community agree
with me.
Regards, Ian Belchamber