Tony,

I see that you agree that road safety decisions in Poole are coming from laypersons. Can I use a layperson to fit a gas boiler? No, I have to use someone on the Gas Safe Register. Can a layperson rewire a house? No, I have to use a part p registered electrician.

The reasons are obvious - only these qualified people have the appropriate training, certification, experience, knowledge and experience to do what they do in such a way that lives will not be put at risk, due to fire, asphyxiation, electrocution or explosion, or any number of other risks that may not be obvious.

But on the subject of road safety, in an area such as Poole, where we are likely to see a few road deaths every year, road safety decisions are coming from laypersons.

Laypersons can provide good results, as long as they are honest, unbiased, and listen, communicate, and think about what others say and respond properly to it and know their limitations and seek the opinions of experts as necessary. 

But I have not seen any of these qualities from Poole last week or in many preceding years of including my road safety concerns to a number of Poole councilors

I also know at least one other person who has presented properly thought out cases to Poole only to have them dismissed without a thought to the detriment of all who use the local roads (Dr Jonathan Pearson).

Science might not provide all the answers but when it is presented to you, if you ignore it apparently because it doesn't fit with your aims, you are behaving irresponsibly and dangerously.

Regards, Ian

From: Ian Belchamber [mailto:ian@belchamber.net]
Sent: 23 January 2012 17:31
To: Xena Dion (Cllr); Stephen Rollo-Smith (Cllr)
Cc: Elaine Buckley; Julian McLaughlin; Tony Trent (Cllr); BROOKEA@parliament.uk; Philip Eades (Cllr); Martin Baker; Steve Tite; linday.wilson@poole.gov.uk; Graham Chandler (Cllr); Leslie Burden (Cllr); John Rampton (Cllr); Brian Clements (Cllr); info@imanuelgoncalves.co.uk; Pat.Garrett@dorset.pnn.police.uk; Colin Searle
Subject: Re: Complaint 101000265240 - Mr Belchamber

Dear Cllr Dion,

Thanks for responding, it does allow progress. The main reason that you sense some considerable frustration in my tone is that despite a gentle start, I have been ignored by Poole (and other) councils and by Dorset Road Safe for probably getting on for 10 years. I have only included you recently so perhaps you haven’t seen the background but you can see more at www.dorsetspeed.org.uk if you are interested.

 “Anecdotal stories” and “opinion” are of no interest whatsoever to me or any road or other safety professional. However, “evidence from officers” is of more interest. Can you remind me what this evidence was? Was it basically the report from Julian McLaughlin, i.e.  that there were 6.6 accidents per year before the lights and 2.7 after? And therefore, because of a “proven” accident reduction due to the lights of 3.9 per year, benefits for cyclists, “less confident” drivers and costs, etc? Surely you must be talking about some other evidence? If not, can you please tell me what you believe the reduction achieved by the lights to be, and tell me how much each of these things have also influenced reductions:

-         Downwards trend

-         Change in road markings clarifying movements across the junction

-         Dorset Road Safe making the roads much safer for us (presumably you think they do?)

-         Reporting accuracy

-         Accident “relocation”

Please don’t tell me these things sum to zero, and the 3.9 reduction was due only to the lights!

And how do you explain that accidents went up when the full time lights were first introduced, down when they were restored, but only when the road markings were improved at the same time?

The “officers” have most certainly misled you, perhaps after misleading themselves. Can you (or anyone) present an alternative conclusion consistent with the evidence and other factors I have listed? It's got nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

You are telling me that you would be concerned as me if these things were based on personal opinion but you don’t believe it was  – but I repeat, the “evidence from officers” above is clearly nonsense and I would welcome any challenge to the points I have raised on this a number of times, and “personal opinion” and “stories” are in fact all that remain.

I have not said that traffic should be slowed on the Lilliput road. This is the classic problem we see all over the place, much to the delight of Dorset Road Safe. An idiot overturning his or her car on a residential road does NOT necessarily mean that traffic needs to be slowed. It is more likely to mean that existing road laws need to be POLICED EFFECTIVELY. It doesn’t matter what the speed limit is, bad drivers will still crash and good drivers will be extremely unlikely to. The answer again as I have said over and over again, is that if you want to reduce bad driving, you need to target BAD DRIVERS with PROPER POLICE. Dorset Road Safe is about as far as you can possibly get from PROPER POLICE. It doesn’t matter how much or little money we have, you will deal with bad driving better per £ (hugely) with real police than you will with Dorset Road Safe. Poole CAN do something about this, I know how.

Don’t spend on a bit of paint on a bend or a set of lights on a roundabout without considering that even if this does improve safety at those locations, that idiot is just going to wipe themselves and maybe someone else out at the next bend or roundabout.

I TOO am in despair about bad driving and those who think that Dorset Road Safe are making things better – they most certainly ARE NOT – but I do know what to do about it.

So you don’t do anything  “unless there is clear evidence it would make a difference” – like perhaps the “evidence” Poole has produced to show that the lights at the Fleetsbridge have reduced accidents by 3.9 per year / £266,000?

I’m sorry, but this really is not good enough for an organisation claiming to be in the safety business. 

You have been professional at least to respond, and I would like to contribute more “positively” and would welcome any invitation to do so. I do know that there are tremendous opportunities for any area that really wants to improve road safety.

Regards, Ian Belchamber

From: Ian Belchamber [mailto:ian@belchamber.net]
Sent: Mon 23/01/2012 11:12
To: Stephen Rollo-Smith (Cllr)
Cc: Elaine Buckley; Julian McLaughlin; Tony Trent (Cllr); BROOKEA@parliament.uk; Philip Eades (Cllr); Martin Baker; Steve Tite; Xena Dion (Cllr); linday.wilson@poole.gov.uk; Graham Chandler (Cllr); Leslie Burden (Cllr); John Rampton (Cllr); Brian Clements (Cllr); info@imanuelgoncalves.co.uk; Pat.Garrett@dorset.pnn.police.uk; Colin Searle
Subject: Re: Complaint 101000265240 - Mr Belchamber

Thank you for copying your complaint to me; you will be aware that I sat on the committee only as a substitute for Cllr Mrs Stribley, but that I do take road traffic matters very seriously, particularly from the cyclists point of view.  I will be very pleased to see any further correspondence on this matter.

Best regards

Stephen

Cllr Stephen J Rollo-Smith,
Branksome East Ward
Vice Chair, O/S Economy
07500847838
(01202)764685

s.rollo-smith@poole.gov.uk

Dear Mrs Buckley,

Thanks for letting me know about the meeting which I attended today, and presented to. Unfortunately this has only confirmed and deepened my concerns about the quality of decision making in Poole on road safety.

I presented reasoning that showed that the justification of the council, that accidents had reduced from 6.6 to 2.7, due to the lights, could not have been more wrong. There was no response on this, only a couple of councillors stating that they had nearly had accidents on the roundabout while the lights were off. The entire remaining arguments (cyclist vulnerability, costs, etc) are void if the lights do not actually reduce, and possibly even increase, accidents, and my suggestion that this is in fact the case was just ignored.

Surely I don't need to explain that we need better reasoning behind road safety decisions than whether or not one or two councillors nearly have accidents, but this is all that seems to be remaining.

In the previous item, calming on the Lilliput Road, the true horror of widespread appalling driving was yet again realised, with residents describing large numbers of accidents on a residential road with speeds of 50, 60 or more not uncommon, where a wall has been hit a number of times and even bricks flying into a property.

The suggestion from the council - perhaps a bit of red paint and get Dorset Road Safe there to monitor some speeds. Sometimes I actually think that some of these councillors really are naive enough to think that determined dangerous speeders are stupid enough not to slow down when they see fluorescent safety jackets or stripy vans etc. 

Anyone who has a clue about measuring things knows that it's a nonsense if the action of measuring influences what is being measured - a bit like traffic surveys causing traffic gridlock - you just couldn't make it up.

Or that some chav showing off to his mate is going to see some red paint and think "oh, red paint, I better slow down". He's more likely to discover it makes his tyres squeal more and make him go faster.

Meanwhile, on proper dual carriageways tens of thousands of normal, safe drivers are being targeted by Dorset Road Safe for tiny amounts above limits that have been reduced so low that they simply can't be taken seriously and well below the natural safe and design speed for the road. As these interventions have negative effects and virtually no positive effects on safety, they cause more accidents than they save, including the death of a motorcyclist last year. The full list of negative effects and evidence is available here: http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/neg.aspx

Dorset Road Safe have behaved appallingly since they started and are only continuing by refusing to communicate.

Dorset Police have refused to tell me where the money (£2 million or so just last year) from courses goes.

The whole thing stinks and accidents and road deaths are way above where they should be because of it.

The answer as always is provided by common sense - any penny we have must be spent on proper policing of which we currently have non, which will bring benefits everywhere, not trying to idiot proof a roundabout here or a bend there - or paying for loads of jobsworths sending out as many fines as they possibly can in order to keep their jobs.

I'll leave it at that for now but there's plenty more.

So I am already working on a complaint about Dorset Police (I've virtually given up with Dorset Road Safe) and I ask that my complaint about Poole Council be progressed.

The complaint is that road safety decision making in Poole shows unacceptable incompetence and lack of care and professionalism and that this is resulting in wasted money and wasted lives. This is reinforced in total clarity by my experience at the TAG meeting today.

Please can you acknowledge this and confirm what the next step will be.

Regards, Ian Belchamber.

ps. My notes on my presentation today are below: