www.DorsetSpeed.org.uk   please contribute: info@dorsetspeed.org.uk

Exposing incompetence, greed, waste, danger and corruption in the speed enforcement industry
Skip Navigation Links
Home
Old home page
PCC / IPCC
Name and shame



Dorset Speed facebook group was shut down!!
Here is the link to the new group







UK Road Sense, Dorset Way / A3049 50 limit






Timothy Roswell crashed after braking 'because of speed camera'

"Another car driver said Mr Rowsell had been riding sensibly when he passed her shortly before the accident"
 
"District coroner Sheriff Payne said 'I can only conclude that he has braked in response to the presence of the safety van. No other person or vehicle was involved'"
 
And yet Dorset Road Safe, even despite being made aware of a report last year about the dangers of speed cameras, STILL refuse to accept they have any negative effects. This out of touch, dangerous, arrogant organisation MUST be shut down and replaced with a new, modern team that actually has an interest in saving life rather than making money.


Tony Trent, councillor for Poole, commented "He was travelling at 78mph in a 50mph zone. Enough said."

My response:

Tony,

Here you go again starting something you won’t be able to finish, because you won’t engage with the facts / the reality. I remind you there are already 2 debates that you have spectacularly failed to conclude once proper reasoning has revealed your immature, unprofessional, and uninformed comments as what they are:

http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/sog64.aspx

http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/sog59.aspx

Your comment, for someone who often uses the “if you had to explain a loss to a loved one” line in order to support speed cameras, is indeed insensitive, inappropriate and hypocritical in the extreme, I wonder how Timothy Rowsell’s relatives would react to it, I hope for your sake, they don’t hear about it, but if I were you I would indeed retract it.

Not that it’s got anything to do with this, but the road is a perfectly good dual carriageway where it can obviously be entirely safe to drive at 70, or even a little higher. An enforcement just before the limit increases is clearly intended to raise maximum revenue, it can serve no practical safety purpose. Even he DfT is aware of the dangers of limits set too low, and this is one of them.

I know this will go straight over your head as it has done many, many times before but NOTHING COULD BE MORE CONVENIENT TO SELFISH YOBS AND DANGEROUS SPEEDERS THAN A FEW FIXED YELLOW BOXES AND PREDICTABLY POSITIONED STRIPY VANS.

Now, more to my original point, road safety is a complex issue. How can an organisation which claims to have an interest in road safety, be doing the best job with limited resources and such diverse problems when it cannot even understand that there are NEGATIVE EFFECTS to speed cameras, as is the case with Dorset Road Safe, even when the evidence has been put before it that there are?

Society has decided on an appropriate penalty for moderate speeders and it’s a fairly painless £60 and a few points on the license, IT IS NOT KILLING THEM or PUTTING THEM AT ANY SIGNIFICANT RISK OF DEATH.

Tony, we are not simply asking for the ridiculous speed camera era, as it has become, to be ended. We are asking for modern, intelligent, road policing which will tackle all REAL problems in balance, and done properly, could involve some automatic enforcement. Please operate brain for once if you are going to respond and tell us what is selfish about this.



Tony Trent  / Eric Bridgstock


Cllr Trent
 
Not content with your offensive and misjudged comments about what contributed to Mr Rowsell's death, you now suggest that I support reckless driving.
Please retract your remark immediately.
 
I am 56, trained as a RoSPA Advanced Driver, and work as a professional safety engineering manager in the defence and aerospace industry.
Why you think someone with those credentials, who has campaigned for real road safety tirelessly for four years, would be motivated by a desire to break the law or drive dangerously underlines just how out of touch you are and how out of your depth you are in this debate.
 
My main (virtually sole) intent is to stop people dying due to the effects of so-called "safety interventions".  It grieves me to type those words.  I have said many times that speed cameras should be referred to as "hazard cameras" because they introduce hazards to our roads and have no beneficial effect.
 
Again, please withdraw your cheap remarks about Mr Rowsell and me.
 
Eric Bridgstock
Independent Road Safety Research
 
.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Trent
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:08 AM
Subject: RE: MOTORCYLCIST DEATH LINKED TO SPEED CAMERA

Using the accident to justify a free for all for speeding and reckless motorists is equally, or should I say MORE offensive. There is a simple fact that makes the whole tenet of the headline nonsense. Please do not persist in this nonsense campaign using any random event to justify what is basically a desire for drivers to be allowed break the law and put others at risk.

 


From: Eric Bridgstock [mailto:eric@brip.greenisp.org]

Mr Trent

An outrageous, insensitive and ignorant comment - and I suggest that you retract it.

Accidents are invariably the result of a hazardous situation and a triggering event.  Take away either and the accident is unlikely to happen.

Driving at 78mph on a 50mph dual carriageway is illegal but it is not necessarily hazardous.

Riding in a manner that means that you are prone to brake suddenly when you realise a camera is present is hazardous.

The presence of the camera (or rather Mr Rowsell spotting it) was the triggering event.

Remove the camera and he would still be alive.

The camera made no safety contribution in this scenario and that is repeated numerous time daily across the country, thankfully usually with less tragic consequences.

Please withdraw your callous and deeply offensive remark.

Eric Bridgstock

Independent Road Safety Research



Tony Trent / Idris Francis

Dear Councillor Trent.

Your two responses  ares what is often called "the straw man" approach - out in out mouths statements we have never made and then shoot them down, rather than adderss the well-researched and detailed arguments we have put to you. Your responses also confirm that you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about or the consequences of the policies you support.

I will reply later today on more detail

Idris Francis


At 01:30 25/08/2011, Tony Trent wrote:
Idris & co
 
Speed limits are there for a reason. It may be to protect motorists or third parties such as pedestrians. Stop trying to justify yob culture in motorists and think of the many other reasons people might suddenly slow down. Your campaign is yet another example of the self centered society we live in, and you are using someone’s misfortune to fuel it. I will seek to move these E mails to the junk box as I am fed up with reading such selfish nonsense.
 

From: Idris Francis [ mailto:irfrancis@onetel.com]
Sent: 24 August 2011 14:52
 
so he deserved to die, and leave his grieving family behind? Since when was speeding a capital offence?

In any case, speed limits are often arbitrary, often inappriopriate. Witnesses made no reported complaints about his speed.

And the fact remains that had the camera not been there he would be alive today

Idris Francis