Dorset Speed facebook group was shut down!!
Here is the link to the new group
|
"Communications" with Martin Baker, Team
Leader, Road Safety, Poole
Latest at the top, read from bottom up to see the whole discussion. I will add
any further discussion (if Martin Baker responds) in a new page.
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 7:04 AM
Subject: Simple questions for Mr Baker
Dear Mr Baker,
1. Do you accept, that if Poole Council, Police,
DRS, TAG, etc, etc. believe that speed cameras reduce KSI by 20-25%, then it is
seriously irresponsible for them to have closed a highly profitable speed camera
for the reason of cost cutting (Holes Bay), both in terms of road safety, and
financial efficiency?
2. Why have you (with your lack of research
knowledge on road safety) decided to totally side with the pro-camera argument,
when there is SO MUCH public disgust with speed cameras, simple common sense
suggest they provide freedom for determined speeders to do what they want on
99.9% of road space, and I have made you aware of many years of bad behavior at
DSCP / DRS, which not even DSCP / DRS have challenged?
3. Do you accept that errors of such
magnitude (including everything else I've made you aware of) can only result in
higher road deaths, serious injuries and wasted resources, than there would be
if the right decisions were being made? Does this matter to you, because it
matters to me and the public, and that is why the protest will continue, until
we see credible explanations or corrections.
Regards, Ian Belchamber
Dear Mr Baker,
Thank you for demonstrating, probably better than
even I could, how the over complicated, bureaucratic, council and
associated organisations manage to come up with such wasteful, damaging,
dangerous decisions in total conflict with simple common sense. I am astonished
that you, the Team Leader of Road Safety on Poole, can be satisfied with such a
situation.
I am also astonished that someone in your
position admits to having no expertise / research knowledge in road safety but
relies instead on other organisations without even considering the counter
argument, or that those organisations may have interests other than road safety
in keeping cameras going (profit from courses, etc).
This simply adds to my concerns that Poole (and
Dorset) is seriously off track with road safety, as is confirmed by the poor
performance indicated by the references I have mentioned.
This is not a trivial matter, it involves people's
lives and the use of critical resources, and you have confirmed that the large
numbers of people and organisations involved are not working on a best overall
combination of resources to deliver the best overall solutions, far from it.
If even now you can't see the problem, here it is in
the simplest way I can put it:
According to Dorset Council:
-speed cameras reduce deaths and serious
injuries by 20-25%
-the Holes Bay Road camera therefore not only
reduces deaths and serious injuries by 20-25% but also provides huge income,
which could keep perhaps another 5 of the cameras that will be turned off,
running, providing more deterrent, income and saved lives, or could be used to
fund other road safety activities, no excuses, etc.
Only A COMPLETE BUNCH OF IDIOTS, if they believe
cameras save lives, would turn off the Holes Bay camera just to save money. Can
you see it yet?
I'm sorry you don't want to debate any further,
therefore I have recopied the main list, but I am happy to hear from anyone who
has any other suggestions about how to get some half-sensible (at least)
thinking on road safety in Poole / Dorset.
And if anyone knows the REAL reasons the camera has
been shut down, I'd like to know.
Regards, Ian Belchamber
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: questions
Dear Mr Belchamber
It is clear from
the TAG report that :
·
The only funding
Poole has available to contribute to Camera Operation is from a much reduced
Area Based Grant.
·
TAG has agreed that
funding should be concentrated only at the top 5 sites with the greatest
potential for casualty reduction.
I’m afraid I have
little to add to my previous responses on this subject and I can see no benefit
in debating this matter further.
Regards
Martin Baker
From:
Ian Belchamber (gmail) [mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 April 2011 12:48
To: Martin Baker
Subject: Re: questions
I can't really
believe this discussion is happening. The inability of TAG / Poole / DRS etc.
to consider the funding contribution of a camera, in setting remaining camera
counts based on the same funding, if this is what you are suggesting, is beyond
belief and worrying in the extreme (although I have to say consistent with
expectations).
It is
understood that (if cameras save lives) a difficult compromise must be found
where the income from a camera does not cover it's cost. But, if cameras save
lives, and at the same time contribute to road safety funds which might save
even more lives, it's a no-brainer, it is seriously irresponsible of the council
both in terms of saving life and financial efficiency, to shut the camera down.
Has the
Council / Tag / DRS been seriously irresponsible, or has it been lying about the
reason? It's one or the other.
Sent: Wednesday,
April 06, 2011 12:13 PM
Dear Mr Belchamber
The TAG report
makes it clear but just to clarify further (my emphasis), item 3.4 (a)
states:
“Continued
operation and rotation of 10 to 15 camera units at the 15 top ranking fixed
speed camera sites (based on number of collisions) throughout Dorset (5
in Poole)”.
Regards
Martin Baker
From:
Ian Belchamber (gmail) [mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 April 2011 10:33
To: Martin Baker
Subject: Re: questions
I have further
comments which I will make later, but I must press you on point 1: How on earth
can there be any financial benefit in closing the Holes Bay Road camera? It pays
for itself many times over! Based on what you have said, this camera can only do
good - the limit is correct, it will reduce KSI by 20-25%, AND it even provides
critical financial income for other cameras / road safety activities!
So WHY ON
EARTH has this camera, probably the only camera that actually doesn't cost
anything on balance to run, been shut down?
It makes sense
to reduce numbers of cameras that don't pay for themselves, but not that do, if
"sufficient funds" is the reason.
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: questions
Dear Mr Belchamber
While I am able to
respond in this instance I simply do not have the time or resources needed to
respond promptly each time or in more detail to all of your queries. This is
mainly due to the fact that our department has had to bear its own share of the
recent government cutbacks.
In terms of
undertaking any research, therefore, I certainly do not have sufficient
resources to carry out my own detailed investigations, so I have to rely on the
likes of other trusted road safety organisations such as the DfT, TRL, IAM or
RAC Foundation for this area of work. Please see my comments in below against
each of your queries.
1.
As is made clear in the 31 March 2011 TAG report, Councils do not
have sufficient funds to maintain the current level of enforcement or
maintenance of all sites, hence we have decided to concentrate on the current
‘top 15’ sites across Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth. It is unlikely that the
level of funding will increase in the foreseeable future, but it could be that
the top 15 list changes from time to time to suit operational requirements.
2.
Again, as I stated in my previous email, TAG Members are happy
with the current 30mph; they have been made aware of all the issues and so I do
not intend to re-open the debate. This is a link to the TAG report for
information:
http://ha2.boroughofpoole.com/committeedocuments/agendas_minutes_reports_get_file.asp?f=%2Fcommitteepdf%2Freport%2Ftransportation+advisory+group%2Ftag251120103+motion+%2D+holes+bay+road%2Edoc%2Epdf
3.
As I mentioned above I have to rely on research by other
organisations as I do not have the resources to conduct my own. There are a
number of pieces of research on the effectiveness of speed cameras and here is a
link to the most recent one that certainly I am aware of:
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/speed%20camera%20effectiveness%20-%20allsop%20-%20report.pdf.
I am aware that the Association of British Drivers may have dismissed this
report out of hand but I am more inclined to accept the findings of a trusted
road safety organisation in this case.
4.
I would
refer you to both the RAC report for cameras above and the TRL report for the
relative effectiveness of VAS/SIDs:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/effectiveness-of-SIDs.pdf
The RAC report
indicates that cameras have a typical KSI reduction effect of around 20-25% and
the TRL research suggests that a 5.6% in collisions may be expected where SIDs
are used.
5.
In the TAG report referred to in Item 1, I have indicated which
sites in Poole which will continue to receive enforcement and
maintenance. As I mentioned in my previous email I am not able to comment or
reply on matters which are not the responsibility of the Borough and this
obviously includes camera sites for which Bournemouth or Dorset’s are
responsible.
Regards
Martin Baker
Road Safety Team Leader
From:
Ian Belchamber (gmail) [mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 April 2011 07:48
To: Martin Baker
Subject: Re: questions
Could you give
me some indication if you will be answering these points, and if so, when?
Sent: Thursday, March
31, 2011 3:31 PM
Thanks for the
prompt response. I may have some more questions when I read through it in more
detail but just a couple of things:
1. So am
I right, the Holes Bay Road camera will be shut down because only 15 cameras
will remain active at the highest accident locations, and Holes Bay isn't one of
them? And if funding were to increase, the camera could be switched on again? If
it is the case that all speeding is bad, and should be penalised, surely this is
a bad decision as the substantial income from this camera could keep several
others running? Or is all speeding not bad?
2. On the point
about the 30 limit on Holes Bay, can you actually answer the question, is the
council aware that the 30 limit on Holes Bay is entirely inconsistent with other
roads, and explain the 2 apparent discrepancies I have mentioned as examples?
3. On the
conclusion 8.1 in the doc you attached, please can you detail to me the evidence
and reasoning that has resulted in each of these conclusions.
4. Can you
detail the live saving expectations of a speed camera, and a VAS, and also let
me know the cost of each.
5. Can you let
me know the full list of top ranking sites, for example, 15 locations will have
speed cameras (rotated), but only the top 5 are shown in the doc.
Sent: Thursday, March
31, 2011 2:48 PM
Dear Mr Belchamber
In response to your
email I attach a copy of a report which is being presented to our Transportation
Advisory Group (TAG) meeting which is being held at 7.30pm tonight in the Civic
Centre.
The TAG report
hopefully addresses the majority of the points/queries you have raised.
This is a publicly
available document and the meeting tonight is also open to members of the public
so you are free to attend to hear the various debates if you so wish. The report
contains information, not opinion – it is up to Members to express their
opinions at the meeting and vote for or against the recommendations at the end
of the debate.
As you will see the
primary reason for the scaling back of operations is purely a financial one;
with less grant available from the government for camera operations and
maintenance there was no alternative.
The 30mph limit on
Holes Bay Road has been considered by TAG on at least two separate occasions –
most recently on 25 November 2010 – and Members agreed with the officer
recommendation that this limit is appropriate and is in accordance with DfT
guidance. There are no plans to reopen this debate again.
Regards
Martin Baker
Team Leader Road
Safety
Borough of Poole
Dear Mr Baker,
It's a bit difficult to know where to start, there
are years of unanswered questions, but I'll try a few recent ones:
-What exactly is the status of the Speed on green
camera on the Holes Bay Road? A recent news item suggested it would be closed on
the 1st April, due to "funding cuts", but this doesn't make any sense at all,
this camera was making huge amounts of money. Will it be closed and what are the
REAL reasons, and if these are not financial, who released the misinformation?
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/poole/8897545.Controversial_cam_set_to_be_scrapped/ . If they are financial, please detail how much will be
saved and how this has been calculated.
-Is the council aware that the 30 limit on Holes Bay
is entirely inconsistent with other roads, for example:
-- busy residential streets with the same limit, for
example the road that runs up the other side of Holes Bay, through Hamworthy,
narrow single lane road with many houses and shops right on the road, a library,
school, pubs and massive pedestrian / cyclist flow in and out of sunseeker and
the port every day, a bridge too narrow to take HGVs in both directions at the
same time, etc etc.
-- less safe positions with much higher limits, like
the 50 limit through the busy PC World commercial area, with busy shops on both
sides of the main road and no proper crossing, or the ped crossing position at
the other end of the Holes Bay road near McDonalds, with no lights, on a
roundabout, very difficult to cross, with no barriers / lights, etc.
-These massive discrepancies are evident all over
the county, and make the most extreme such as Holes Bay, unenforceable, and
reduce the respect of speed limits in general, and the law.
-Why does the council not listen to experts like
Jonathan Pearson?, or even DfT guidance?
-What is Poole's contribution to speed cameras in
the next financial year (from 1st April 2011?) and how does this compare with
the previous year?
-How many lives and serious injuries will be saved
by this spend and how has this calculation been done, and when was it last done?
I'll leave it there for the moment but will
obviously have more once these have been answered.
Regards, Ian Belchamber
Dear Mr Baker,
Many thanks for offering to communicate about the
concerns the public have about road safety in Dorset.
My reservation is as you point out, road safety
involves many different organisations and individuals, and as I have commented
probably several times before, all contribute to the overall effect that the
public are so concerned about, but in isolation, and avoiding dealing with
complaint like the plague.
Also, the whole of the problem is much greater than
the sum of its parts, so all this means that trying to resolve the issues with
only one reluctant partner is unlikely to be effective, particularly as you are
so keen to point out you won’t touch anything not directly under your
responsibility.
I naively assumed that Dorset Road Safe was the
overall “umbrella” organisation, and would therefore have a proper interface to
the public to resolve overall issues, dealing directly with partners as
necessary, and ensuring we have the best contributions from each of the partners
to achieve the best overall end effects on casualty reduction, with the best
overall combination of resources, this is how it should be, but as we now know,
nothing could be further from reality. All that Dorset Road Safe is concerned
about is it’s own financial viability.
This same lack of coordination / direction that
makes it so difficult to communicate is, I believe, one of the main reasons for
Dorset’s misguided road safety activities and resulting poor performance, and
indicative in itself that we simply don’t have a proper road safety structure.
I will forward some direct concerns to you, which
you will probably recognise if you’ve read any of my emails, but I don’t think the overall
situation will improve until the fundamental lack of road safety coordination /
structure / direction is corrected.
Regards,
Ian Belchamber
|