Dorset Speed facebook group was shut down!!
Here is the link to the new group
|
Communications with Tony Trent, Eric
Bridgstock, other deaths with cameras as contributing factors
The Dorset authorities (Councils, police, Dorset Road Safe) do their best to
just ignore concerns and carry on making the money. But very occasionally, a
lone voice pops up in support of them, Tony Trent, a Poole Councillor. I have
never seen such a demonstration of incompetence and ineptitude, inablilty to
face facts and to reach logical conclusions. See the text below. Also see
contributions from Eric Bridgstock, an independent Road Safety Researcher, who
lists 2 other cases of deaths where a speed camera was a significant
contributing factor. Idris Francis who has been analysing road safety for over
10 years also comments. The latest message is at the top.
Mr Trent and all
other recipients
On the basis that not
everyone read the attachments to my email of 16 June, please review perhaps the
most important text, below, highlighting the hazards associated with speed
camera deployment and the lack of any evidence or argument that any benefits
from their use outweigh those disadvantages.
Like Ian Belchamber,
I am shocked by the total ignorance displayed by Tony Trent and apparent refusal
to accept that his judgement may be skewed by the bogus and misleading
claims made by the Camera Partnership over many years, especially in the face of
overwhelming counter evidence. I have not seen a single challenge to the
cases presented by Ian, Idris or me, which suggests that there is something in
it.
As i said
previously, there is ample evidence and argument to suspend the use of mobile
speed cameras with immediate effect. I would not want another death such
as Timothy Rowsell's on my conscience pending his inquest.
Johnny
Stephens and the authorities responsible for operating speed cameras in Dorset
must account for their actions
and now the summary
from my previous attachment....
From the initial
reports of Mr Rowsell’s death, it was apparent that a speed camera van was
nearby at the time, and reports also stated that no other vehicle was thought to
be involved. Further, a suggestion
that the Independent Police Complaints Commission might be asked to investigate
the role of the camera van was deemed unnecessary by the Dorset Police. There is a widely held view
(promoted by, among others, the Police) that speed cameras improve road safety. This letter offers evidence and
argument to suggest that the opposite is the case, and Mr Rowsell may have been
a victim of the many unwanted side effects of speed camera deployment.
I have been engaged
in self-funded research into road safety, speed enforcement and the effects of
speed cameras for well over three years, and have corresponded and/or met with
many involved in their use.
Contacts in the
Dorset area include the
Dorset Speed Camera Partnership, Councillor Mark Anderson of
Bournemouth, and Assistant Chief
Constable Adrian Whiting (I met with him in April 2010).
What has become clear
is that there are several hazards associated with speed camera deployment and
operation. These are rarely
appreciated by the public and are often ignored by the authorities. The following points provide
examples:
-
Speed cameras have
been cited as contributory factors in deaths - Graham Davies and Myra Nevett
(see endnotes below). I believe the
circumstances of Mr Rowsell’s death may be similar to those of Mr Davies.
-
TRL and the
RAC Federation have
independently acknowledged to me that speed cameras can contribute to
collisions/casualties. Both say “speed
cameras can have unintended consequences and have given rise to some collisions
and casualties that would not have occurred if the cameras had not been
deployed”. However, neither can offer
any evidence that there are benefits from speed cameras (in terms of reduced
collisions or casualties) that outweigh those negative and unwanted effects.
-
A report by the
Highways Agency “Safety Camera Technology at Roadworks –
Final Report, March 2008” conceded that several hazards (sudden
braking, distraction, reduced headway (time between vehicles), and lane
changing) are created by the deployment of average speed cameras. The report also acknowledges that there
are no proven safety benefits (collision/casualty reduction) and that
driver education campaigns may become increasingly important to encourage
“correct behaviour” in the presence of speed cameras. In other words, speed cameras increase
risk to road users and drivers need to learn how to cope with the hazards caused
by the cameras (the report claimed that average speed cameras were better than
fixed/mobile cameras in this respect, suggesting that fixed and mobile cameras
are even more hazardous than average speed cameras).
As a safety professional this is a
wholly misguided argument – the first aim of any safety analysis is to remove
the source of the hazard, and training users to adapt to hazardous consequences
of introducing something is a very poor approach that will never be as effective
as removing the hazard.
-
The negative effects
of speed cameras on drivers, described above, can be seen near any speed camera
site – sudden braking, sometimes heavy braking, even by vehicles that were not
exceeding the speed limit. A
BBC report, broadcast in
April 2008, available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLrkIPqTZo
or search YouTube for
UK speed camera crash) shows drivers losing
control as they respond by braking sharply to the presence of cameras in
Norfolk. Note that it is not just those exceeding
the speed limit who brake suddenly, it is an instinctive reaction to avoid a
possible fine, even though the driver is not necessarily braking the law. The reports suggested that Mr Rowsell may
have reacted in this way.
ENDNOTES
Graham Davies in 2009
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/02/08/speed-cam-panic-may-have-killed-motorist-78057-21106048/
A DRIVER may have been killed because he braked suddenly after spotting a speed
camera.
Police say Graham Davies, 45, is unlikely to have even been speeding when he
lost control of his car.
The businessman died instantly when his Skoda Fabia hit a lamp-post near an
accident blackspot on the A9. Traffic policeman George Fergus claimed braking
was a natural reaction for any driver unaware of their exact speed.
He told an inquiry: "Witnesses said that, for no apparent reason, the victim's
vehicle braked heavily, there was a lot of smoke and the car veered left and
collided with the lamp-post."
Graham, of Stockton-on-Tees, crashed near Auchterarder, Perthshire.
Fergus added: "There is no reason to believe Mr Davies was speeding.
"However, we find many drivers - when approaching a camera - see the camera or
road markings and it is a natural reaction to brake hard then check their speed
and accelerate again.
"I believe that is what has happened here.
"He has braked hard then lost control."
During extensive contact with the brother of Graham Davies in January 2010, he
provided me with details of the tragedy, including photographs and sketches from
the accident site and his correspondence with the Coroner.
Myra
Nevett in 2004
At the inquest into the death of Mrs Nevett, the Coroner considered that a speed
camera contributed to the tragedy.
Quoting from the
BBC
website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3721018.stm
John Pollard, the Stockport Coroner, partly blamed the death of Myra Nevett, 69,
in a road traffic accident in Disley, Greater Manchester, last year on the
presence of a camera. The coroner said roadside yellow cameras can distract
drivers “even momentarily” who glance upwards and at their speed rather than the
road.
Arthur Hadfield, the motorist involved in the accident, has been charged with
driving without due care and attention and will appear before
Stockport
magistrates next year.
The inquest was told that Mrs Nevett, a retired school bursar, was fatally
injured on December 16 as she crossed the A6 on her way home. She died in
Stepping
Hill
Hospital,
Stockport.
Mr Pollard told the hearing that the speed camera could have caught the
attention of the driver at just the wrong moment.
His view
was endorsed by PC Michael Jeffrey, the accident investigator at the scene.
He said: “They do tend to divert drivers’ attention away from other areas and
they concentrate solely on their speed.”
========
I look forward to your responses.
Eric Bridgstock
Independent Road Safety Research
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: RE:
I'd be all up for a proper debate, but these people
(councilors, Dorset Road Safe, police, etc) have no interest and no belief, you
can't even get an email out of them without an FOI request, apart from Tony, who
has demonstrated (for the third or fourth time) a level of capability to digest
information and reach logical conclusions probably lower than I would have
dreamed possible of anyone and certainly not sufficient for constructive debate.
We almost had a debate once until Pat Garrett
refused to discuss the points I wanted to and then refused to have members of
the press and the public present (having told us he had nothing to hide).
Communication has consistently been one of the
biggest problems with the Dorset authorities, and the reason is obvious,
communication will result in progress, and the only progress that is possible
can only reveal years of waste, dishonesty, greed, incompetence, and higher ksi
counts than there should have been.
Actually the situation has deteriorated further with
Johnny Stephens now refusing to answer my question as asked about the negative
effects of speed cameras. Would these people come to a debate? No chance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ANYONE receiving this email.
Ian Belchamber
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: RE:
Dear Mr. Trent,
Sorry, no, it is very clear that you are not exercising judgement but
indulging in wishful thinking in ignorance of the facts and the evidence. What
makes it worse is that you have pointedly refused to engage with the facts I and
others have copied you. For example;
1/ You stated that casualties would have been worse but for speed cameras. I
copied you detailed information based on official records of casualties showing
that far from this being the case, fatality trends in the camera era have been
by far the worse at least since WW2, and that excess deaths over and above prior
benign trends very closely match the numbers of speed camera fines, which of
course in turn closely match the number of speed cameras in use.
Your response? To ignore that evidence completely and claim to be exercising
judgement!
2/ I have copied you irrefutible evidence, including Stephen Ladyman's admission
of serious error, that compared on a like to like basis, vehicle activated signs
are some 50 times more cost effective than speed cameras. In other words,
whatever benefits cameras appear to provide in terms of reducing casualties (and
ignoring the casualties you admit they can cause) could be 50 times greater for
the same money.
What sort of "judgement" is it that seeks to justify 50 times less benefit for
the same expenditure, Mr. Trent - and how can you sleep at night?
3/ You seek to justify your views on the basis of the views of the public at
large - but very few indeed of those members of the public have any knowledge
whatever of the facts, and what they do know is in general only official
propaganda that, as I have demonstrated is often seriously mistaken
To exercise judgement Mr. Trent, as those of us whose jobs and careers and
businesses depend on judgement - know full well - it is first necessary to get
to grip with the facts, the evidence, the data, the trends, the comparisons and
everything else - as I have done for 11 years. In hand you that information on a
plate and all you do is to turn your face away like child from a spoon of
cod-liver oil, because you are simply not prepared to have facts intrude into
your complacent comfort-zone and upset what I would certainly accept are your
beliefs - but to claim that they are based on "judgement" of any kind is a step
to far.
Once again - are you prepared to put your views to the test in public? Ian - a
hall for a public debate need not cost very much, how about organising it and
inviting those who disagree with us?
Sincerely
Idris Francis
At 10:37 20/06/2011, Tony Trent wrote:
I just trust my judgement more than those who
just hate getting caught!
From: Ian Belchamber (gmail) [
mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 June 2011 11:18
Subject: Re: RE:
You should be apologising for more than that. How about
answering the points? Oh, I forgot, your normal style in these "debates" is to
just give up when beaten, then just come back with the same old nonsense yet
again at some time in the future.
From: Tony Trent
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: RE:
I apologise for not removing this
sensationalist heading from my previous reply.
From: Ian Belchamber (gmail) [
mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 June 2011 09:12
Subject: Re: RE: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of a
speed camera
"I still regard these so called studies as
an attempt to discredit something that is inconvenient to motorists."
Tony, please, just for once read the words and operate brain. What could
possibly be less inconvenient to deliberate speeders, boy racers, thugs,
criminals, drunks, incompetent, careless etc drivers than a few bright yellow
boxes and an occasional stripy van at predictable locations, covering about
0.01% of road space?
"There are just as many reports and
organisations that support them." Of course there are, serious money and careers
depend on them. It would be so easy for (for example) the Dorset Authorities to
show that it's not all about jobs and money, by sensible selection of
enforcements, course costs same as cost of provision, open balanced
communication, answering criticism, etc.etc. If this was the case their
statements about the benefits of what they do would have a bit more credibility.
"I will continue to support requests for
traffic calming and speed cameras if they make sense in the situation. The
residents I represent often ask for these measures and appreciate those we have
had, though there are always those that complain of damage to cars." Probably
best not to widen the debate on to "calming", although it was interesting that
when I put evidence in front of you showing that they can make roads more
dangerous, you just called me "Jeremy Clarkson", which demonstrates yet again
your inability to objectively consider reality and your unsuitability to comment
on these issues. Also, in reality, there are not likely to be more speed cameras
in the near future, I suggest you open your mind and try to think of something
else.
"Things are not black or white on the
issue, it’s horses for courses, but modest speed and care wins out most of the
time." Modest speed and care, nice words by not really quantifiable or
deliverable
From:
Tony Trent
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: RE: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of a
speed camera
I still regard these so called studies as
an attempt to discredit something that is inconvenient to motorists. There are
just as many reports and organisations that support them. I will continue to
support requests for traffic calming and speed cameras if they make sense in the
situation. The residents I represent often ask for these measures and appreciate
those we have had, though there are always those that complain of damage to
cars. Things are not black or white on the issue, it’s horses for courses, but
modest speed and care wins out most of the time.
From: Idris Francis [
mailto:idris.francis@btinternet.com]
Sent: 17 June 2011 19:45
To: Tony Trent
Subject: Fwd: RE: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of
a speed camera
-
Absolute nonsense, and clearly un-informed nonsense, I am afraid. I have spent
several thousand hours over 11 years studying road casualty trends before and
after speed cameras, and the simple truth is that the fatality trend in
particular has been far far worse than it ever was before.
I would be happy to send anyone on this circulation list a copy of a CD
containing all my analysis and much other data - including how I have repeatedly
proved not only that the DfT make statements that are demonstrably false but
also that there can be no other explanation but deliberate lying about the facts
- the evidence is in the public domain, as I pointed out in my last mail, at
www.safespeed.org.uk/vas.html.
It is perfectly clear that you could not have had time to read and understand
that evidence before you replied - dare I suggest that you spend some time
evaluating the evidence before replying again? Or are you, like so many in the
speed camera industry - all aspects of it - of the mind-set "My mind is made up
- please do not confuse me wityh the facts?"
For the record, I am entirely in favour of more police patrols, more sensible,
professional, competent and reasonable policing of our roads and in favour of
the prosecution of those who commit all forms of dangerous driving. What I am
emphatically not in favour of is simplistic, naive indeed utterly stupid -
automatic and unhelpful prosecution of millions of safe drivers for marginal
breaches of often arbitrary and often inappropriate speed limits that are in any
case accurate only in the same sense as a stopped clock - occasionally and not
for long.
I attach perhaps the most compelling graph of all - though I have many others -
showing the extraordinarily precise match of camera fines and excess deaths over
and above the prior better trends.
Please stop talking nonsense and get a grip. I would be happy to debate these
issues in detail in any forum at any time - and use that opportunity to expose
the nonsense and the lies that have led to the road safety disasgter of the past
15 years.
"And many more deaths and serious injuries that
would happen without them." - Would you care to provide some evidence for this,
or detail where the evidence that Eric provided was wrong?
"You will be seeking to ban pedestrian
crossings next. I am aware of one fairly recent fatality that resulted from a
vehicle stopping at a pedestrian crossing." No Tony, no one is asking for a ban
on pedestrian crossings.
"I suggest once more that these
representations have more to do with a desire of some motorists not to be
prosecuted than a genuine concern about road safety." And I suggest yet again
that if I wanted to break all the rules I'd be more than happy with things the
way they are. I am asking for proper policing targeting all traffic laws and bad
driving. Why would I be doing that if I wanted to drive recklessly?
"All these issues are considered on merit
based on the best information available. They do not make money despite the
propaganda that tries to claim otherwise – hence the reduction for example of
operating speed cameras, so it is and always has been about safety." Even if
there was no profit, that does not mean that it IS about safety. There are other
factors, jobs, egos, saving face, empire building, etc etc. And if it was not
about profit, why would the cost of a driver course be as much as they think
they can get away with, rising sharply, and many times what the cost of
provision could possibly be (I have an foi request on this due next week which
might be interesting).
By all means join the debate Tony but
please lets not go over old ground yet again.
From: Tony Trent
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of a
speed camera
And many more deaths and serious injuries that
would happen without them. You will be seeking to ban pedestrian crossings next.
I am aware of one fairly recent fatality that resulted from a vehicle stopping
at a pedestrian crossing. I suggest once more that these representations have
more to do with a desire of some motorists not to be prosecuted than a genuine
concern about road safety. All these issues are considered on merit based on the
best information available. They do not make money despite the propaganda that
tries to claim otherwise – hence the reduction for example of operating speed
cameras, so it is and always has been about safety.
From: Idris Francis [ mailto:irfrancis@onetel.com]
Sent: 17 June 2011 12:23
Subject: Fwd: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of a
speed camera
-
I agree entirely - we all know that for every road death there are about 10
serious injuries and about slight injuries. We also know of many recorded
instance of crashes caused directly by the presence of speed cameras, including
deaths - details on request.
-
It is therefore entirely inconceivable that operators of cameras do not see from
time to time many other examples of sudden braking, skidding, loss of control
etc. For them to continue to do what they do when they see these things
happening is not just a matter for their consciences and the consciences of
those who send them out to do this job, but a matter for the law of the land
under the general headings of Statutory Duty if Care, Misconduct in Public
Office, Corporate Manslaughter (which applies equally to public bodies as to
private companies) and perhaps other criminal offences.
-
There has been at least one report of official excuses suggesting that even if
this particular death was due to the presence of the speed camera, it is more
than compensated for by savings elsewhere. There are two obvious problems with
that excuse (a) it is and will remain impossible to identify any accident that
did not happen because a camera was present and (b) the statistical analysis
commonly quoted as demonstrating camera benefit can be described as naive,
simplistic, self-serving, incompetent, misleading, very seriously flawed
nonsense of which its authors should be thoroughly ashamed. In my 50 years as an
electonic enginer and businessman I never saw elsewhere such a can of worms, of
lies, incompetence, flawed analysis and abject failure of personal
responsibility as I have seen in 11 years fighting speed camera policy.
Idris Francis
(on the basis of many thousands of hours' study of these issues over 11 years -
see also www.safespeed.org.uk/vas.html for detailed evidence of clearly
deliberate misrepresentation by the DtT and others.
Subject: The tragic death of Timothy Rowsell in the presence of a speed camera
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:05:46 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Ian Belchamber has shared with me his recent correspondence with Johnny
Stephens, Head of Fixed Penalties at Dorset Police HQ, which had been prompted
by the death of Timothy Rowsell on 9th April 2011. Early reports of the
incident highlighted the presence of a speed camera van and the otherwise
inexplicable heavy braking that caused Mr Rowsell to lose control of his
motorbike with fatal consequences.
I am shocked that Johnny Stephens chooses to hide behind the Freedom Of
Information Act when ducking Ian Belchamber's questions. Mr Stephens has a Duty
of Care to the public and this case has raised some very serious questions that
must be answered. It is entirely unacceptable, indeed culpable and criminally
negligent, to withhold information from someone who is trying to improve road
safety, as is the case with Mr Belchamber. Specifically, the camera operators
have first hand experience of how vehicles react to their presence. It is
inconceivable that Mr Rowsell is the first to have braked too hard on spotting
the camera, it is unlikely that he is the first to have skidded in these
circumstances, and there is a reasonable chance that Dorset camera operators
have witnessed total loss of control and crash (my attached letter links to
videos of examples of this).
I am a professional safety engineer and have been investigating road safety
claims for speed cameras for nearly four years and have formed the conclusion
that they are far more likely to cause a crash than prevent one. My evidence
and rationale is summarised in the various attachments, which are:
- a letter summarising my thoughts on
issues brought into focus by Mr Rowsell's death (I have already provided a
similar letter to the Dorset Coroner)
- the Bridgstock Theory - which
explains why the likelihood of any speed camera ever preventing a collision or a
casualty is negligible
- a critique of the Four Year Evaluation Report - a 2005 document often cited as
proving the effectiveness of speed cameras (item 1 above mentions Prof Allsop's
recent report on speed camera effectiveness - a total fabrication based on
selective evidence and wishful thinking by an author with a vested interest in
the continued use of speed cameras)
- a report summarising 40 negative effects of speed cameras
Mr Stephens must be called to account for his behaviour long before the formal
inquest into this tragic crash, and there is sufficient evidence in the public
domain to suspend speed enforcement using cameras until the inquest has been
held.
I welcome correspondence on this subject.
sincerely,
Eric Bridgstock
Independent Road Safety Research
Please stop talking nonsense and get a grip. I would be happy to debate these
issues in detail in any forum at any time - and use that opportunity to expose
the nonsense and the lies that have led to the road safety disasgter of the past
15 years.
Idris Francis
|