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.