rom: Ian Belchamber (gmail) [mailto:ianbelchamber@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 January 2012 08:27
To: Adrian Walsh; Camilla KP
Subject: Roadsafe website

Can you let me know if and when you or your members will be answering these points (and others that I made in my email of 12th Jan).

If Roadsafe is a credible, competent, professional organisation it will already have simple, positive answers to these points and producing them will be no trouble at all.

If it is unwilling or unable to answer them, it is not fit to be in the business of road safety or handing out awards for road safety.

Regards, Ian Belchamber

In a previous response you directed me to a page on the Roadsafe website about speed. I've had a look at this now, and would like to raise some points, like all the others that have been risen, that you or your "specialists" should answer. If RoadSafe can provide credible positive responses perhaps the Prince Michael award for Dorset will seem a bit less sick.

"RoadSafe believes that eliminating excessive speed will save lives."

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, the problem is to determine what is "excessive". Does it depend on the characteristics of the road / weather / other road users / hazards (for which there is no fixed safe speed as it is constantly varying), or is it determined by a number in a circle? In which case, why is 60 not excessive on a 70 limit road, even in rain sleet and snow, but when that 70 limit is reduced to 50 without any other changes, 51 is excessive even when the road is deserted on a calm sunny day? How many have been fined for driving at excessive speed within the speed limit? I see dangerous driving (often at excessive speeds) within the limit frequently.

"The challenge is for driving at inappropriate speed to be seen as anti social."

As most normal safe drivers are very likely to have been caught "speeding" at least once in recent years, for driving completely safely, it is much more socially acceptable to speed these days than is was before the revenue fueled obsession with speed started.

"To develop integrated initiatives to encourage stakeholders to introduce sensible speed policies and modern technologies to give better driver information."

Sensible speed policies - like 50 limits on roads with an 85%ile speed of 65 (even enforced and after the limit was reduced)?

Modern technologies - like bright yellow boxes and stripy vans that comfort boy racers that the authorities have been so stupid to use precious resources in such an easily avoided way?

"The faster one drives, the more likely a crash"

Nonsense. Where is the evidence for this? The more dangerously you drive, the more likely you are to crash. Obviously, if you try to take a tight bend at 100 you will crash. But even though we don't have multiple speed limit signs, 40, 30, 20, 10, 10, 20, 30, 40 etc in and out of most bends, most sensible drivers seem to be able to judge safe speed and stay on the road.

Driving too close, or inattentively, or aggressively, are obviously MUCH more likely to result in a crash than driving at any speed attentively, in full control and so that you can stop within the space visible and clear ahead of you.

"....and the higher the risk of severe injury. "

Nonsense. It is the speed at the time of impact that determines severity, not the free flowing speed before the situation started to develop. Obviously, someone driving at 30 staring at their speedo will cause more damage running into a cyclist or a pedestrian than someone driving at 60 keeping their eyes and mind on the road, anticipating the problem far ahead and braking in time to avoid it altogether. It's easy to spot an inattentive driver. We would make huge improvements in road safety if we just looked out for inattentive drivers, rather than taking as much money as we can off as many drivers as possible driving a tiny percentage over inappropriately low limits.

"Studies of road sections show that for roads of each type, the number of crashes and collisions increases with increasing average speed – the effect varies on different road types and is strongest for the slowest roads. A ball-park figure is that each 1mph reduction in average speed is accompanied by a 5% reduction in accidents."

Nonsense. 100 drivers at 50MPH have the same average speed as 99 at 49MPH and 1 at 150MPH. And there are a number of roads in this area that have been reduced from 70 to 50, that should reduce accidents by 100%, but they still happen (not noticeably any less frequently)

As far as the other TRL statistics are concerned, I'd like to see the data. You can play any game you like with statistics - probably, 15% of cars involved in accidents are blue. It doesn't mean that if we ban blue cars we will reduce accidents by 15%.

"Road safety professionals recognise that speed management is a very important tool for improving road safety."

I don't disagree. But it needs to target what is unsafe, not what makes the most money. And it needs to be in balance with management of the multitude of other problems. And it must recognise the negative effects, the dangers, and any organisation actively suppressing negative effects (such as Dorset Road Safe) must be shut down as they don't care if they kill more people than they save (assuming they do save any lives which is questionable).

"However, improving compliance with speed limits and reducing unsafe driving speeds are not easy tasks"

It would be a whole lot easier if we had sensible speed limits and effective balanced enforcement against all forms of bad driving. 

Some of the points on your website are so ridiculous they raise a question of credibility over everything on the site.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, Ian Belchamber