A46. Dangerous ideas of safety.

(Speed Limits) (A46 Laceby Bypass) (No.09-16)

Summary of objections

I object to the indefinite continuation of the order for the following reasons:

It is based on a number of false assumptions and common road safety mistakes. In view of that, it is highly likely to cause serious accidents at other locations not within this order.

Photo: Councillor Peter Burgess (Portfolio Holder).

The false assumptions include:

Speeding, the act of exceeding an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole, causes accidents.

That, by reducing average speeds of motor transport, death and injury is reduced.

That by reducing speeds in one area is not creating accidents elsewhere at a later time.

That a ‘small increase in journey times’ will result.

That the 85%ile rule which served us so well for a century can be falsely manipulated with cameras.That misses the point of the 85%ile. To say we will create a new 85%ile with cameras shows a complete misunderstanding about its objective. (1 1.2)

That budgets take precedent over death and injury. (2 2.2)

Effect:

It fails to focus on the alleged problem which is road junctions.

It creates 'speeding' entrapment and will create 'speeders'.

It will cause accidents.

Full details can be obtained from lincolnshire@abd.org.uk

Phantom Tracker Update

Well things are not looking good for Phantom Tracker.

It seems that having been paid for a unit and its installation and that having contracted a 5 year monitoring also apparently paid for by Phantom's own records in 2004, their unit was never tracked or entered in their system. Was this by accident?..............................No! It was because they, dishonestly, keep saying that 'they will not transfer a subscription from one assigned owner to another'. Except this was the first assigned owner as far as Phantom was concerned and from the records in possession of the owner; no-one else was ever registered with them. Having notified them in 2005 by phone and submitting their assignment form, they still did not include the vehicle in their system. So for six years, from brand new, a £32000 motorcaravan has been exposed by Phantom, untrackable and the owner had no idea that the vehicle was totally un-protected.

Now Phantom can make whatever excuses they like. But the fact remains that they clearly put the money before safeguarding of vehicles. But having been paid once for a tracker and a subscription which they never activated, they are now claiming that if a unit is not used it dies and will need replacing at a cost. Why does it die? Surely, once installed, it will tick happily away whether anyone is tracking it or not? Can any technophiles verify that please? But since it was their fault not to activate the system, even if correct, it was their lack of action that caused it to die wasn't it?

Question for Phantom. When are any of us the first owners of anything except contracts Phantom?

Phantom the unit may be fine but the people behind it don't seem to care a jot about the security of a vehicle or apologising and doing everything to make up for their mistakes and getting them protected; They seem more intent on denying the truth and calling customers liars.

Road Safety Foundation Latest

Well at least this road safety group are not so dismissive as the rest of the Road Safety Industry.

They have asked for my CV. In Road Safety. To save time for other groups in the Industry I publish their mail to me and my CV here too.

Dear Mr Peat,

Thank you for your interest in working with the Foundation. Would it be possible for you to send me a copy of your full CV via email so that we can evaluate areas where your skills may be helpful in our current activities?

Regards
Dr Joanne Hill
Director

Hi Joanne,

The relevant part may be found on my profile at www.abdlincolnshire.co.uk but here is more detail of that.

Fully time served motor engineer with University level motor engineering, science and technology and involved with heavy commercial vehicles. Driving and motorcycling continuously for about 55 years now.

I joined the city of London Police in 1962, where I was engaged in traffic management on the ground, accident reporting and prosecution and took all of the residential courses at Chelmsford Police Driving School where I became a class 1 advanced police driver as much of my police career I was a high speed patrol driver in London. I was also a police motor cyclist prior to that. I was, from time to time, employed in the police workshops. I was also engaged in providing accident statistics and liaison with outside lawyers in the compiling, preparation and provision of accident and incident abstracts for legal proceedings. Having seen and worked on the ground floor of police statistics, I am able to say for example, that most accident statistics are completed by non-specialist 'jacks of all trade' police officers, with no specialist qualification in the subject at all. So that instead of stating as a given, for example '5% of road accidents are caused by speeding', all we really know is that 5% of unqualified officers ticked that box when they were anxious to complete the job and go home. Whether that box should even be there is another matter too.

If there is to be an 'expert' for driving and road safety, I would like to know how better it can be defined. For a start no civilian driving course can claim to do better than improve a driver or make a bad driver better. It certainly cannot claim to create driving experts. There are too many people, having input into this life and death issue, who have no other connection with it other than that 'they are drivers'. What other dangerous field of human activity is there where every Tom, Dick or Harry is an 'expert' simply because he does it?

I am currently the East Midlands Regional Coordinator for the Association of British Drivers.

However I think in truth that my unique and original lateral thinking, not just on road safety but all things, stems from being a Mensarian. This would certainly explain why I am able to take the question of road safety outside of the envelope of just the road safety perspective and certainly from that of the interests of the Road Safety Industry for example. Hence my query: 'Are we actually already killing more than we save?'. Those within the Industry and I count the foundation as within the Industry, if being paid, will never ask that question; they should. Not counting all the equipment manufacturers, the 40 or so camera partnerships, the retailers, the various foundations and groups (BRAKE, PACTS, RSS Ltd, ACPO Ltd now this foundation), all being subsidised by the State, Industry and both, one would not believe that there are more people killed in the home by accident than for any reason on the road. What is it really all about then?

My independence, in that I am a volunteer unpaid, without an employer, means that I can freely expose falsehoods and myths without fear of retribution and with no axe to grind. I only have one motive: To focus on what actually causes accidents and how to prevent them without unnecessarily criminalising people and especially costing the economy untold millions which could be better used to keep people alive.

I have for some time been in close liaison with the Conservative Shadow Transport Team and because of the high cost of the Road Safety Industry, the Shadow Chancellor's Team too in anticipation that there will be a change of leadership. One of the observations I have made is the size and cost of the lucrative Road Safety Industry to the nation.

Of course I am no spring chicken. Born in 1940 and in my 70th year. I have little time left to do my work and there is not time to waste because, if we are getting it wrong, it means people are dying and being maimed who needn't be and people are losing their livelihoods who shouldn't be too.

In view of that, I am not looking for a paid job now. I can work from home and am willing to travel occasionally, as I already do, (expenses only) to help in this important matter.

I hope that CV and my philosophy is all that you were looking for.

Regards

Keith Peat.

The Phantom Phantom?

I am hearing some alarming things about Phantom the vehicle tracking firm so loved by the police.

I am making enquiries before I say any more and am trying to get some answers from their Director Simon Cherry.

I hope it is not true but it appears from enquiries so far, that the firm cares more about who pays and when, than actually protecting vehicles.

Watch this space.

BobBobbitt has had a fair say.

I really enjoy having my ideas tested and to rehearse them against the opposition. When they resort to personal attack and ridicule then I know I have won.

One such BobBobbit has had a fair whack and the exchanges show how frail and weak are the arguments for fraudulent road safety. Read the comments under the stories found in the tags camera magic, punish v prevent, speed limits.

Bob wants it both ways. Attacks my speed balloon (which is quite a good example of regression to the mean) but then gets shirty when I show that speed keeps us all alive and thus 'speed kills' is flippant and false.

This Road Safety Industry is not interested in defending the innocent, attacking fraudulent road safety and criminalising people for profit or even genuine road safety matters. It would rather attack me for telling the truth about it. Says it all really.

Derby Madness

From the Derby Telegraph:

THE mountain Derby City Council has to climb to reduce its carbon emissions has now come into full view. When the authority decided in 2007 that it was going to slash them by 25% by the end of 2011, it had no idea how much the authority emitted.It has taken years for the authority to pull together up-to-date electricity and gas statements and work out those figures.Now, in its climate change strategy, it has shown its emissions for 2008-9 were 40,725 tonnes.It means that to cut 25% from its emissions by its new self-imposed deadline of 2013-4, it will have to save 10,181 tonnes. To achieve this tough task, no stone will be left unturned and targets will be set in every area.For example, 400 tonnes of emissions could be saved by having more efficient cremators in the city and 1,300 tonnes could be saved by extending the Council House and moving staff there from other buildings in the city.But the man responsible for environment at the council knows this is no easy task.Councillor Bob Troup, (picture) cabinet member for housing and environment, said: "It is going to be a severe challenge. There are a lot of things which might not happen which would affect the targets."For example, if we were not to install a wind turbine then that would have an impact, because that accounts for quite a lot of a carbon emission reductions and if it didn't happen it would be a big blow."If all the targets are met, the council can reduce emissions by 19,093 tonnes. Three large wind turbines would account for 8,400 tonnes of that.But within its climate change strategy, the council has also shown new developments which could increase emissions.For example, new street lighting being installed as part of a contract with Balfour Beatty is increasing carbon emissions by 15%.The Derby Telegraph has reported how the council is considering spending £3m on a system which will allow it to dim or even switch off street lights at certain times and in specific areas to reduce emissions.The cabinet is also proposing to spend £50m on a leisure plan which would see new, more energy-efficient sports centres in the city.Mr Troup said: "We are continuing to look for other ways to reduce our emissions and hopefully come up with other ideas."Developments such as for the leisure centres would be replacements of existing facilities and would be built up to modern standards so they would be more energy-efficient."The council says it does not know how much money the emission reductions will save because it would depend on several factors which are still unknown, such as energy costs.However, some schemes, such as a proposed hydro-electric power generator on the River Derwent, will, it is estimated, save the council £1.7m.Climate-change campaigners said the strategy was a step in the right direction but more needed to be done.Peter Robinson, chairman of Derby Campaign Against Climate Change, said: "The climate change challenge is the biggest challenge facing all politicians and it is something that we have to be open and frank with the electorate about."I welcome the strategy as a step towards that, but it is not nearly enough."The council has to go to the electorate and take the bull by the horns and say what a major, major issue climate change is and that it is not a responsibility we can shirk."Mr Troup agreed climate change was a key focus."Tackling climate change is a massive challenge and one we can't achieve alone," he said."We are also working with partners in both the public and private sector to reduce carbon emissions city-wide and we have a Home Energy Advisory Service helping to tackle fuel poverty and emissions from housing."This strategy will formalise the campaign, put realistic emissions savings behind what we do and reassure the public it's an area we are taking very seriously."

But watch my lips Derby. CO2 is a natural and essential gas. The whole UK output is a mere 2% of world output so Derby's is miniscule. Is that why you use big numbers like 40,000 tonnes, 10,000 Tonnes or 400 tonnes so it looks a lot? These are miniscule numbers Derby. And climate has always changed drastically too. If not we would not be here at all. So Mr Robinson and Cllr Troup, are you against people? How many families and kids are to struggle because of these costs? How many will you kill from the money that could help the NHS, the emergency services, people already struggling but will no longer be there? And even as science is now showing this whole thing to be a scam, the liberal elite of Derby push on regardless. Stop it now before you kill even more people Mr Troup.

Road Safety's 200 to 1 scare tactic

Just like their 'Speed kills' soundbite here is another from the DfT.

'You have a very high 200 to 1 chance of being killed on Britain's roads.'

How do they arrive at this? In the small print it is over a lifetime based on between 75 and 100 years which defeats their own point.

How soon will the time frame get lost so it becomes a given that the death odds are 200 to 1? A more realistic time frame is in any hour. This lessens the odds to a massive 175 Million to one. So the odds of being killed in a road accident, on an hour to hour basis, is only 175 Million to 1 folks. Sleep easy.

A Challenge to BRAKE

Let's see if BRAKE are truly interested in saving lives or just promoting the profitable Road Safety Industry.

Hi yes,

I am a campaigner for road safety. I am totally altruistic, make no profit, and do not even receive any grants or charity to do it. I am an ex traffic cop and expert on road safety and driving. I understand that you have a road safety conference in May. Are you to include any speakers who are true volunteer experts on road safety? I have a 40 minute presentation called 'Speed Kills the Goldmine Soundbite'. I ask questions like how many people are killed from the knock on economic cost for every MPH that transport is slowed. What is that figure? Is the Industry actually killing more people than it saves? Fair questions I think. So would you like some balance at this conference as I am willing to offer my services.

Regards

http://www.abdlincolnshire.co.uk/Keith PeatEast Midlands Regional CoordinatorAssociation of British DriversLincolnshire Drivers' Charter MemberABD Belongs to National Association of Voluntary Organisations.

30 for a reason? For this you lose a license?

This is a sample of a Statement of Reasons for a new speed limit. The whole of it is in the black type.

Ahead of the van is the claimed 'busy junction'

So blasé are the authorities, because they know you the public are not reading their notices to look at these things, this is all they do now to get speed limits through. And then have the cheek to say it's '30 for a reason'.

Now project this all over the country and what we have is a national speed limit policy based on nothing more scientific than a local parochial councillor's wish and for this you can be prosecuted? Lose your job? Your marriage? Your family?

Click image to enlarge.

When are we to get up and oppose all this big time?

ACPO's little helpers Ltd.

Road Safety Support Ltd. Who are they?

They are supposed to be an affiliate of ACPO (also a private limited co).Their technical support manager, allegedly, is Stephen Callaghan of Cumbria SCP, who lists his qualifications as 'been trained to use the LTI, and has experience of laser weapons systems." Trevor Hall is also a Director. He was at Elvington when the LTI 20.20 was proved to be unreliable, but states that it gave spurious readings during these tests because it was not used in accordance with ACPO code of practice. This company is the one who stands up in court and gives expert evidence that the devices they use (in Iain Fieldens case the gatso) does NOT need to be set up in accordance with ACPO code of practice because they are just guidelines and make no difference to the accuracy of the devices used. And of course Meredydd Hughes (photo) CC of S Yorkshire, at the time involved with the set up of RSS was a spokesman for ACPO traffic issues and a speed camera zealot. Wasn't he the serial speeder who lost his licence last time for 90 in a 60 with his family in the car? In his spare time from his jobs, paid for by the public, he is involved with RSS who charge vast amounts to try and discourage innocent people from defending themselves. I hear of sums in excess of £25000 are being paid by camera operators for 'expert prosecution witness' ' Enquiries are ongoing to establish the truth of this information. In the meantime what Mr Hughes and ACPO forget to mention is that the majority of speed limits that he seeks to prosecute are unscientific and inappropriate and that speeding itself does not cause one single accident. When will the rest of ACPO wake up to this?

Mr Hughes, who received a CBE  for his highly paid non road safety effort, is now standing for Police Commissioner in South Yorks.

How the tax in your tank really looks.

Click graph to enlarge

The above graph was done when fuel was about 119p Litre but it did reach about 130p and is not far off this example now. It shows at the top when the tank ran dry, at the bottom how many miles were lost to tax and how far you would have gone without any tax.

The Speed Balloon

Speed balloon in action.

Q. What is a speed balloon?

A. Well it works the same as a speed camera but it is thousands of
pounds cheaper and doesn't criminalize drivers.

Q. How does it work?

A. By regression to the mean which, put simply, is that lightning
rarely strikes twice or where your balloon is. So, like the camera
people, you can then claim that your balloon stops accidents. Try
it. Put one outside your house and stop accidents. And the good news
is that it still works when flat. In fact you don't even have to
blow it up.

During the 4 hours that the above balloon was on test there wasn't one single accident.

Lincolnshire Partnership selective crowing?

Dear Target,

Brian Burns is a paid employee of the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership
and has a vested interest in the portrayal of accident results. 6th January.
He rightly suggests that this is about people's lives and because it is a
life and death matter conclusions should not be left to vested interest
groups like Road Safety Partnerships. There should be balance on such a
serious matter so let's look at Mr Burns recollections to see if they are
selective.

He says the year before the partnership was formed, 1999 road death was 104.
Well 2000 was bound to be better than that but he did not mention that 2003
was at 104 too. 1993 was only 76 and 1997 was 77. He insists on using
seriously injured' but A&E figures, the people who actually deal with the
casualties,do not accept those figures. But there are other contributory
factors for the success. Since 1993, there have been vast improvements in
vehicles, roads, emergency services and A&E but the most significant factor
was the massive hike in fuel costs during 2008 to give the 51 figure which I
had predicted would be low as early as January 2008. 2009 started very badly
because fuel cost had come down again and by March The Partnership were
warning us to expect a bad 2009. They had failed to notice, as I had, that
fuel cost was rising though and so I was predicting another low year and so
it has proven to be. But the activities of our expensive Road Safety
Industry Initiatives also kill people too. What is the economic cost to the
country for every 1 MPH that traffic is slowed by them? By slowing goods
vehicles to 40 MPH? Of 40 Road Safety Partnerships up and down the country
just to be saying the same thing? And everything lost to the economy kills
people too. We should also know these figures before making a value
judgement on the success of The Industry. If all these people were really in
it to save life, why do they all make money from it?

There are less people killed on our roads, from any cause, than from
accident in the home, far less than from smoking, eating too much salt,
asbestosis and so on, so what is all this really all about? It is about an
insatiable profitable industry and nothing to do with saving lives at all.
Brian Burns is in it for the money.

I don't suppose this will be published but please do contact me for an
unbiased, altruistic and independent comment on this life and death matter.

Regards

The Public v Private Transport Lie

Why do we fall for the Public Transport v Private debate? They are entirely different. One allows you to travel exactly to where you want to be, from exactly where you want to start, in comfort and without hassle at exactly the time that suits you. The other................doesn't.
Public transport, to have any chance of doing that, has to include taxis in its category. But when on hire, taxis are private limmos with a driver. Even London, with its costly several buses in one street and trains every 2 minutes in peak periods and around 10 minutes outside of that,still cannot cope without the taxi and private car either.
There is no hope that London's costly PT can be replicated in other towns, let alone rural areas, so who are the authorities trying to kid ?

Lets accept they both perform two entirely different functions and complement each other so why pretend we can dump one of them?

Testing the RSF's sincerity

Road Safety Foundation. Another group on the Gravy Train. There is more accidental death in the home, so why all this ( very lucrative)focus on the driver and road safety?

Well let's see how genuine they are shall we.


Lord Alf Dubs
--------------------------------

Hi Everyone! I am an ex-traffic police officer and class 1 advanced police driver. Motor Engineer by trade. I have reported accidents and prosecuted in road traffic matters. As such I regard myself as a driving and road safety expert.

Rather than write too much here I suggest that you visit my http://www.abdlincolnshire.co.uk/ site and particularly under tags like 'roads stats flawed?' 'Camera magic' 'speed limits' you will find road safety facts and the effects of the Road Safety Industry too.

My work is totally voluntary and altruistic; not even government grants to assist me so I am therefore without any vested interest in stating the truth in this life and death issue.

If your association is also concerned that the truth is paramount, and it should come before profit and gain, in a life and death issue where people can lose their jobs, their families too, then please may I help your association to achieve that most effectively?

Regards