Safe Speed Forums

I've been corresponding with the Road Safety Team at South Gloucestershire Council, and this mail from them received today (with the important bits from the previous exchanges found in the quotes) is copied below:

BEGIN QUOTE:

Received from South Glos this morning, if nothing else the tone of Derek's
reply seems incredibly rude for a public servant.

I have hidden the email addresses as courtesy against spambots, however all
the South Glos ones use firstname.lastname@southglos.gov.uk if anyone wants
to try to get some sense out of them. I wonder who the next point of
escalation is, the leader of the council? I can't say I'm surprised by their
response, but I'm beginning to feel like I'm getting a "he's one of Paul
Smith's lot" style "go away" wording which I don't consider acceptable for a
public body.

Any thoughts?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Baillie" <>
To: <Jon Pitts>
Cc: <Bristol Evening Post letters>; <Doug Naysmith>; "Alan Hale" <>; "John
Fox" <>; "Robert Joyce" <>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Speed and Accidents


> Thank you for your further comments, Jon.
>
> As Rob Joyce indicated to you, we have made a considerable effort to
> answer your queries. I am sorry if you are unhappy about the responses
> we have given, but I am afraid we are unable to put any more time into
> this particular exchange of correspondence. Consequently I will not
> acknowledge or reply to further correspondence from you about safety
> cameras or related issues.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Derek Baillie
>
> >>> "Jon Pitts" <> 14/03/2004 22:01:47 >>>
> Derek,
>
> I make no apologies for escalating this issue, as your staff seem
> utterly
> incapable (or unwilling) of answering simple questions. I have
> commented on
> your mail to begin with.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Joyce" <>
> To: <>
> Cc: "Alan Hale" <>; "John Fox"
> <>
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 4:25 PM
> Subject: Speed and Accidents
>
>
> > Mr Pitts,
> >
> > In March 2000 the Government published a document 'New Directions in
> > Speed Management - A Review of Policy'. The following are direct
> quotes
> > from the document:-
> >
> > "...from the national and international literature there is
> > overwhelming evidence that lower speeds result in fewer collisions
> of
> > lesser severity (Finch et al 1994, Taylor et al 2000, Transportation
> > Research Board 1998)". (Para 34)
>
> With Finch being a report dated now ten years ago, I would suggest it
> is
> safe to treat this as out-of-date with current trends. Taylor et al,
> is
> TRL421.
>
> Without going into detail on TRL421, this report makes wild claims
> without
> any supporting evidence of causal relationships. I could go into much
> more
> detail, although I will let http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html do
> the
> job for me - I won't repeat it all here to save time and space,
> although I
> would suggest you read this page very carefully.
>
> I will quote from Para 35: "Speeding or inappropriate speed contributes
> to a
> significant percentage of all crashes and a higher percentage of more
> serious crashes".
>
> Whilst I agree entirely that "inappropriate speed" is indeed
> exceedingly
> dangerous (although this is not the same as speeding), I would expect
> such a
> significant statement to be backed up with proper figures, not just a
> guess
> at "significant percentages". Or perhaps the author was not sure of
> his
> facts, and so avoided giving direct figures. What do you think?
>
> Secondly, "driver error is a contributory cause in over 90% of
> accidents:
> driving too fast is a driver error in judging what is safe". I agree
> 100% -
> however you as a public body are ignoring this 90% - do you not agree
> this
> is blind stupidity in the extreme? As for driving too fast - again,
> entirely
> correct. However, this is not the same as speeding.
>
> It is also common knowledge that the safest roads in the UK, are
> motorways.
> These are also the fastest - please explain this. By a logical
> extension of
> your arguments, all roads would be reduced to as low a speed as
> possible in
> order to reduce the frequency or severity of accidents. Please tell me
> you
> do not seriously believe this rubbish.
>
> >
> > "Broadly each 1mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut
> > accident frequency by 5%". (Para 37)
>
> Again, TRL421. I will explain. The authors, well aware that faster
> roads are
> safer, twisted these statistical models to show the exact opposite.
> They
> then make a conclusion that the relationship was a causal one (without
> evidence), and then invented this 5% figure without apparent evidence.
> Perhaps you would care to comment on this? I would seriously suggest
> you
> take a long hard look at these 2 web links, and then get back to me
> with
> your comments.
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html
>
> http://www.abd.org.uk/onemph.htm
>
> >
> > "Speed cameras are particularly effective at reducing vehicle speeds.
> A
> > Home Office research report shows that speeds at camera sites were
> > reduced by an average of 4.2mph and accidents by 28% (Hooke et al
> > 1996)". (para 77)
>
> I do not dispute that speed cameras are effective at reducing vehicle
> speeds. They are also effective at:
>
> - Causing accidents as drivers brake suddenly
> - Pushing motorists away from camera sites, onto other roads - and
> thereby
> reducing traffic volumes.
>
> As for "accidents at camera sites", I am getting rather fed up with
> people
> quoting this. It is all very well quoting a reduction in accidents
> after a
> camera has been installed - this is frequently nothing more than
> regression-to-the-mean, however what about the increases in accidents
> not at
> camera sites? Do you not care about these?
>
> >
> > This evidence is sufficient for South Gloucestershire Council to
> > support the use of cameras at sites that meet the national criteria
> > regarding accident numbers and vehicle speeds.
> >
>
> Quite apart from the national criteria being a laughing stock - I won't
> go
> into this to save time - I would suggest you are taking selective
> quotes
> from government documents purely at face value, without even taking the
> time
> to verify their accuracy. What checks did you make on this report?
>
> I have attached 2 word documents for your interest. They clearly show
> that
> since the mid-1990s, casualty figures have barely moved. What do you
> have to
> say about this?
>
> > I hope this answers your questions.
>
> Quite apart from your continually ignoring my original questions, your
> points have raised yet more.
>
> > There were 2 other questions I asked in my mail, which you seem to
> have
> > forgotten. In case this was a mistake on your part, I will repeat
> the
> > relevant paragraphs:
> >
> > "With this in mind, driver education is, surely, the way forward -
> yet you
> > publicly state that one of your core policies is to reduce driver
> speed.
> > Whilst I fully support anything which reduces casualties, deaths or
> > injuries, all the evidence suggest speed enforcement is doing nothing
> to
> > help in this respect. There are, of course, situations where
> exceeding a
> > limit for a period of time could make for a safer road (I am
> thinking
> here,
> > of getting an overtaking manoeuvre completed quicker). With this in
> mind,
> I
> > have to question why you have this obsession with speed management.
> >
> > Quite apart from anything else, do you not agree that we should be
> > encouraging drivers to concentrate on the road ahead - and set an
> > appropriate speed for all the prevailing conditions (regardless of
> the
> > arbitrary limit), rather than have a single-minded concern about
> their
> > speedometer?"
> >
> > I see nothing in the document that even attempts to answer these
> points,
> and
> > so perhaps you wouldn't mind trying to address them? Please try.
> >
> > Finally, since you seem to keen to rely on this webpage, I have 3
> specific
> > questions:
> >
> > - Precisely what proportion of excess speed accidents take place
> entirely
> > within the speed limit?
> >
> > - Precisely what proportion of accidents are caused by speeding?
> >
> > - If speed enforcement is as successful as you claim it to be, why
> are
> > excess speed accidents increasing?
>
> This is now the third time I have asked these points - and you keep
> ignoring
> them. Why?
>
> >
> > I have been asked by Mr Derek Baillie, the Head of Network Services
> to
> > thank you for your interest in speed management and road safety, but
> to
> > now bring this ongoing correspondence to an end.
> >
> > If you wish to pursue the matter you should contact Mr Baillie on
> 01454
> > 863640 or alternatively e-mail him at
> firstname.lastname@southglos.gov.uk.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rob Joyce
> >
>
> Derek - I expect you to provide proper answers to my points and not
> keep
> getting your subordinates to pass the buck. I am beginning to get the
> impression you don't want to answer some of my more "inconvenient"
> questions - is there any reason for this?
>
> Finally, I have just been reading through one of your recent press
> releases
>
(http://www.southglos.gov.uk/press_relea ... oppers.htm).
> One paragraph has particularly caught my attention - "Mr Hale, said:
> "Whilst
> safety cameras do not always enjoy the best of publicity in the local
> press,
> my colleagues and I are contacted all the time by various communities
> complaining about selfish drivers who put that community at risk due
> to
> their use of inappropriate and at times unlawful speed. The safety
> cameras
> are just one way in which we seek to preserve life and limb. Those
> drivers
> who obey the law and drive within the speed limits are not the people
> who
> will be troubled by speed enforcement.""
>
> "....due to their use of inappropriate and at times unlawful speed...".
> Or
> to use different wording, "inappropriate and frequently legal speed".
> You
> seem to admit therefore that inappropriate speed is not always unlawful
> -
> and therefore is out of the reach of speed enforcement. I have already
> asked
> you to specify exactly what proportion of excess speed accidents take
> place
> entirely within the speed limit, and in this paragraph Alan has hinted
> that
> this figure is a relatively low one. What is the figure? I challenge
> you to
> answer this simple question.
>
> These are increasingly serious questions that will not go away. Please
> make
> an effort to answer them.
>

END QUOTE

I have also sent several mails to the Avon & Somerset Scameras, but to date they haven't replied once.