Last message at the top. No response has been received.
Dear Mr Belchamber,
I have nothing further to add apart
from reiterating my answer to point 2: -
“The answer
supplied to Question 2 is correct as you use the terminology “may have been” –
this wording requires speculation as agreed by Dorset Police Legal Advisors.
However, I know of no known road deaths that have been attributed to a safety
camera’s presence in Dorset”.
Regards
Johnny Stephens
From: Ian Belchamber
[mailto:ian@belchamber.net]
Sent: 20 June 2011 09:52
To: Stephens, Johnny; .Dorset
Roadsafe
Subject: Re: Serial Number:
0001/04/11 Your email dated Tuesday 10th May 2011
Importance: High
Please will you
indicate if you will be responding to this, in particular concerning point 2, as
I will soon have to assume that you won't be and will forward this to the
information commissioner, I am also considering raising a police complaint about
it.
Sent:
Sunday, June 12, 2011 11:06 PM
Subject:
Re: Serial Number: 0001/04/11 Your email dated Tuesday 10th May 2011
I am very disappointed
that even despite the widely published concern that the speed camera was a
factor in the death of Timothy Rowsell, DRS refuses to even consider the
possibility that cameras may have any negative impact on road safety, and even
goes as far as to refuse to communicate with operators who are quite clearly
capable of recording and feeding back dangerous reactions such as panic braking
on fast roads (which would quite obviously become "validated evidence"), and
only resorts to the technicalities of whether or not the equipment is legal,
regardless of the realities.
Yes, I have no
evidence that speed cameras cause drivers to brake, sometimes erratically.
Neither do I (or probably anyone else) have any evidence that eating cigarettes
would not be good for your health. But if you refuse to acknowledge that drivers
brake for cameras, you are either being dishonest or you are even more out of
touch than even I thought you were, either way, a totally unacceptable situation
for someone with a responsibility for saving life.
This deepens the
impression that DRS follows it's own agenda without consideration of the actual
consequences, even if that might be providing one part of the scenario that
might result in an injury or death.
Your clarification of
question 2 answers a different question to the one asked. You know of no deaths
"attributed to"
a speed camera. I asked "I would like to know the number of deaths / serious
injuries that have been investigated where the presence of a fixed or mobile
speed camera was found to have been a
contributory factor."
Please can you answer this question.
Surely, DRS in it's
responsibility to reduce deaths and injuries on the roads, should be doing more
than just "following the rules", it should be constantly trying to find ways of
doing things better and being more effective. Just blaming it on the "Home
Office" is typical of all communications I've had with all of the Dorset
Councils / Police / authorities on this subject.
In the real world,
where companies have to compete and survive based purely on results, the
attitude of DRS and the multitude of other organisations making a mess of road
safety in Dorset, would result in failure in no
time at all.
I hope you will
respond further on this, I will hold off for the moment in writing to the
information commissioner.
Sent:
Friday, June 10, 2011 12:45 PM
Subject:
Serial Number: 0001/04/11 Your email dated Tuesday 10th May 2011
Dear Mr. Belchamber,
I have reviewed the questions you
presented in your email of 12 April 2011 and the FOI Manager’s response to those
questions of 10 May 2011, my findings are as follows:
The answers supplied to questions 1 & 4
have not been challenged and are therefore not discussed.
The answer supplied to Question 2 is
correct as you use the terminology “may have been” – this wording requires
speculation as agreed by Dorset Police Legal Advisors. However, I know of
no known road deaths that have been attributed to a safety camera’s presence in
Dorset.
The answer supplied to Question 3 is
correct. You make assumptions based with no validated evidence presented.
Safety Cameras are type approved for use by the Home Office and I have no record
or validated evidence presented to me of any negative effects of their use in
road safety. I will not ask operators for their opinions on “negative”
effects of safety cameras as again that would be speculation on their part.
If you wish to challenge the use of safety cameras you may wish to contact the
Home Office.
If you wish to appeal against my
findings you may contact the Information Commissioners’ Office at the address
below:
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Regards
Johnny Stephens
Johnny Stephens
Head of Fixed Penalties
Dorset
Police Headquarters
Winfrith,
Dorchester DT2 8DZ
':
01305 227555
8:
Johnny.Stephens@Dorset.pnn.police.uk
::
www.dorset.police.uk
Committed to A Safer Dorset for You
I am obviously
entirely dissatisfied with this totally inadequate response. Please can you
provide some proper answers, I will clarify some points to assist with this:
2. I require no
speculation, I would like to know the number of deaths / serious injuries that
have been investigated where the presence of a fixed or mobile speed camera was
found to have been a contributory factor.
3. DRS (and it's
operators) MUST be aware of the panic braking caused by speed cameras and the
resulting dangers, amongst other negative effects. Please show some honesty,
integrity, and balance (for once) and answer this question properly.
Sent:
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:02 AM
Subject:
RE: Motorcyclist killed - at mobile speed trap - information required
Dear Mr Belchamber,
Serial Number: 0001/04/11 (Please
quote this reference in future correspondence regarding this submission).
Thank you for your email of 12 April
2011 regarding the Road Traffic Accident on the A338.
1. No DRS operations have been
suspended. I will not answer further questions on this subject.
2. This is not a question under
the FOI Act and as there is no qualified evidence would require speculation.
I will not answer further questions on this subject.
3. This is not a question under
the FOI Act and as there is no qualified evidence would require speculation.
I will not answer further questions on this subject.
4. This is not a question DRS
can answer – you would have to direct this question to Dorset Police FOI.
In the event that you wish to
complain about the manner in which your enquiry has been handled, you should
write in the first instance to:
Head of the Fixed Penalty Department
Dorset Police
Dorset Police
Headquarters
Winfrith
Dorset
DT2 8DZ
Regards
Brian Austin
Freedom of Information Manager
From:
Ian Belchamber (gmail) [mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 April 2011 13:25
To:
Searle, Colin; Stephens, Johnny;
Austin, Brian;
info@dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk;
Garrett, Pat; .Dorset Roadsafe
Subject: Motorcyclist killed - at
mobile speed trap - information required
Please feel free to
respond to this “informally” or through the FOI process.
Following the death of
the motorcyclist who it seemed braked and skidded on the A338 last Saturday in
response to seeing a mobile speed camera van, I asked for mobile speed camera
operations to be suspended in Dorset, until any investigations into this death
are complete, and until an independent and proper investigation into
effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative
effects, has been fully completed.
-
Could you please confirm if you will be suspending mobile speed camera
operations or not.
-
Could you let me know in how many road deaths in Dorset
the presence of a fixed or mobile speed camera may have been a contributory
factor.
- Is
Dorset Road Safe aware of any “negative effects” of speed cameras and if so
could it please list these.
-
Could you let me know what investigations will be taking place into this death
and how I can contribute to those investigations.
Thanks, Ian Belchamber