I've read it a couple of times now, and I can safely say he's not found a flaw in my work. The degree of carelessness and prejudice is typified by the following:
"The term ‘Speed Camera’ has been used throughout this report, but only when reference has been made to comments made within ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’. Where I have entered my own dialogue I have referred to them by their correct name of ‘Road Safety Cameras’. When reading this report please take both expressions to mean the same thing."
He's wrong, of course. The official excuse for the term "safety camera" is to include both speed and red light cameras. Since red light cameras are outside of the scope of both documents (mine and his), the only reason for replacing the term is to display prejudice.
The following email exchange has taken place:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Road Safety Cameras
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:33:21 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: Thomas Heavey <tom@heavey19thhole.fsnet.co.uk>
References: <001901c4f801$dd3f85c0$e21f4e51@default>
Hi Tom,
I've had a quick read, and most of your points appear to be misunderstanding.
Why don't you give me a ring, and I'll be absolutely delighted to explain a
few things. I think you'll be amazed.
I'm on 01862 832000.
Paul Smith
--------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Invitation
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:47:27 -0000
From: "Thomas Heavey" <tom@heavey19thhole.fsnet.co.uk>
To: "Paul Smith" <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Paul,
Thanks for the kind invitation, but I feel that I must decline the offer of a phone call.
I have just read the article on 'Lower Speeds Mean Less Time To React' and find that this also just reinforces what I have said in my
report. I shall look forward to reading the rest of the 'Safe Speed' web site.
Regards
Tom..
-------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Invitation
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:02:35 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: Thomas Heavey <tom@heavey19thhole.fsnet.co.uk>
References: <003801c4f827$3724fb40$551f4e51@default>
Hi Tom,
As you wish.
Your report is full of misunderstandings which weakens it considerably. I was
offering to help because it's important that we dig down to the truth in road
safety. I'd be absolutely delighted if you found anything wrong with my work.
I've read your report and I'm pretty sure you haven't.
At one point you say: "This whole section I will not even attempt at this
stage to comment upon. I don't mind admitting that I do not understand any of
it and I will not pretend that I do so. Much of the earlier claims are based
on this evidence. If it is as inept as the earlier majority of the report then
commenting on it is largely unimportant."
That's very wrong. The information is accurate and important. You NEED to
understand it.
Have you read Professor Stone's response?
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stone.html
You might also find the audio clips on the Radio 4 web site interesting.
(Linked from that same page)
Paul Smith
-----------------------------