(sent on the 20th Oct 2011)
Dear Mr Garrett, Mr Austin, Dorset Road Safe, are you just ignoring this? This discussion is suggesting that the inappropriate actions of Dorset Road Safe and it's staff are in fact increasing, rather than decreasing road deaths. If you do not respond to it, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are unable to. So we do indeed have a road safety organisation which is continuing with activities that actually increase deaths.

 

Please properly answer the concerns or shut down Dorset Road Safe immediately in the interest of reducing suffering on the roads.

 

Regards, Ian Belchamber

  

Dear Dorset Road Safe,

I will consider taking this up with the IC but am so disgusted that I will reply, on the off chance that there is someone at DRS with a conscience and that this could lead to some changes.

People, and relatives, of those who get horribly killed and injured ARE NOT LOOKING FOR THOSE WHO ARE MEANT TO BE DELIVERING ROAD SAFETY TO “ANSWER QUESTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOI ACT 2000”

They are looking for every single action and decision to be made with integrity, professionalism, and competence. They are expecting there to be proper responses to all questions and for them to be offered enthusiastically. Your evasive responses to my questioning about the negative effects of mobile and fixed speed cameras and continued denial is simply digging the hole deeper and deeper, if that is even possible. How on earth can you STILL deny the negative effects, even now, and after August 2010, when you responded to an article that mentioned:

“When a camera comes into view as many as 81 per cent of motorists look at their speedometers rather than the road, putting themselves at other road users at risk.

Thirty one per cent of motorists questioned in a poll of 1,532 drivers have witnessed an accident or a near-miss as a result of drivers’ erratic behavior when faced with a camera with five per cent braking suddenly when a camera come into sight.”

Let alone the developments from speed camera data around the country showing them at best to be ineffective, and at worst increasing accident occurrences and contributing to deaths.

And the inability of Dorset Road Safe STILL to say anything that makes any sense about the greed on green camera confirms the picture of an organisation interested purely in itself without the slightest concern of reducing accidents just as I first realised all those years ago. How many deaths have resulted from this I hate to think.

It must be obvious to you now that Dorset Road Safe as it is does simply not do “what it says on the tin”, is not fit for purpose and the truth is coming out, and momentum is strong and growing. Such as it is with the truth.

The only way now for DRS to have any chance of recovering any credibility whatsoever is to apologise and admit negative effects and to answer some questions in a more honest and open manner.  

Regards, Ian Belchamber

 

Dear Mr Belchamber,

The FOI Appeal Panel have now reviewed the questions you presented under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in your email of 4 July 2011 and the FOI Manager’s response to those questions of 1 August 2011, our findings are as follows:

That the FOI Manager has responded to your questions in accordance with the FOI Act 2000.

Question 1.  The FOI Manager has already provided you with the appointments of those making decisions on behalf of Dorset Road Safe and therefore we can see no benefit in supplying names, as evidence provided by the campaign you are running against Dorset Road Safe, its' partners and various other public authorities would give clear indication that you would only make use of any names supplied in a derogatory or abusive manner

The decision of the panel is that the names will not be supplied in accordance with FOI and Data Protection Acts.

Question 2.  Not appealed.

Question 3.  The FOI Manager has correctly supplied you on your previous requests the reasonings for the placement of the Speed on Green Camera at Hole’s Bay and does not have to repeat those answers - they have not changed. – Appeal not upheld.

Question 4.  The FOI Manager has classed this question as not a valid question under the Act – this stance the panel would support as you are asking for a response based on your conjecture and opinion.  The reasoning for the placement of the camera has been explained; how you interpret the reasoning for the said placement of the camera is not for the FOI Manager to make comment. – Appeal not upheld.

Question 5.  The FOI Manager has previously responded to this question and does not have to repeat those answers. Additionally, the panel has seen no qualified evidence in Dorset to support your opinion and the FOI Manager does not have to comment on your opinions.  – Appeal not upheld.

If you wish to challenge the Appeal Panel findings you may do so by writing to:

The Information Commissioner

Regards

 FOI Appeal Panel

SEES Department

  

Dear Mr Belchamber,

Serial Number: 0001/07/11 (Please quote this reference in future correspondence regarding this submission).

Thank you for your email of 4 July below.  Under Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I can confirm that I do have access to some of the information you have requested. Please be advised that under section 17 of the Act please treat this response as a refusal to supply the information you have requested for some of your questions for the reasons stated below.

1.  On 19 August 2010 I supplied you with the partner organisations & the process for any decisions regarding the camera at Holes Bay – I do not have to repeat that process again except to emphasise that any decision made on the day to day organisation (including the positioning of cameras) is a partnership decision as was the decision to install the camera at Holes Bay, this decision was supported by members of Poole Borough Council. 

After reviewing legal opinion and after discussions with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) I can see no benefit to the general public in supplying individual names of the partner members that attended any meetings at the time in question as empirical evidence of the nature of your campaign held on file would clearly indicate that you would only use any such information in a derogatory manner, insulting and abusing the named individuals rather than for any reasonable benefit to the general public. 

Therefore I decline to supply the requested information under Section 40 3a (ii) of the FOI Act 2000 and Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 as processing that part of your request would be likely to be used only to cause damage and distress to the named individual.

However, I will supply you the posts and/or appointments held by members within their own organisation that make up any decision making process for the installation of safety cameras, please be aware that the actual incumbent of that post and/or appointment may have changed since the period relating to your question:

Assistant Chief Constable, Dorset Police

Road Safety Portfolio Holder from Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Councils

Head of SEES, Dorset Police

Head of the Fixed Penalty Department, Dorset Police

Road Safety Managers Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Councils

Representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service, Highways Agency and Her Majesty’s Court Service.

If you wished to challenge the positioning of a safety camera you may do so by writing direct to Dorset Road Safe where persons holding the above posts and/or appointments would be made aware of any complaint.

2.  I know of or can find no record of any objections lodged to the placing of the said camera within the Dorset Road Safe partnership – however I cannot answer that question on behalf of all members of Poole Borough Council that are not directly appointed to the Dorset Road Safe partnership.

3.  I have previously responded to this question and information relating to the reasoning for placing the said camera is available on the website therefore this request is classed as vexatious under Section 14 of the FOI Act 2000 as it is repeated and/or raising the same issue.

4.  This is conjecture on your part and is not a valid FOI question – I will not respond on this subject again and any linked future request on this subject matter will be deemed vexatious under Section 14 of the FOI Act 2000.

5.  I have previously responded to this question but would however emphasise that there is no evidence to support your claim within Dorset.  Any linked future request on this subject matter will be deemed vexatious under Section 14 of the FOI Act 2000.

Finally please be advised that legal opinion has been sought, along with discussions and guidance from the ICO which clearly support the stance that if a request is classified as repeated, reworded or deemed to be re-raising a previous issue or campaign it can be classed as vexatious and it is clear that the FOI Act is not the medium for any such campaign.

For your information in previous decision notices issued by the ICO concerning sustained campaigns by individuals against public authorities the following wording is appropriate:

"The Information Commissioner has also stated that using the FoI in long running disputes, is clearly inappropriate and the examination of the previous history of the applicant and their requests to public authorities is also very relevant to making an individual vexatious."

You may wish to review Section 14 of the FOI Act 2000 for your reference.

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:

 

FOI Appeal Panel, SEES Department

Dorset Police

Dorset Police Headquarters

Winfrith

Dorset

DT2 8DZ

Regards

Brian Austin

Freedom of Information Manager