“I meant to say a small group of small minded people.
Just to correct Idris Francis made up figures, and anyone can find this correct information at www.roadsafetygb.org.uk
Not only do speed cameras save lives & prevent injury, they also save the public purse many millions of pounds. Safety cameras more than pay for themselves,the four year evaluation of the national safety camera programme estimated that the annual economic benefit of cameras in place at the end of the fourth year was over £258 million, compared with the enforcement costs of about £96 million.
The problem with Idris and the ABD is that they constantly argue with all road safety experts refusing to accept that the experts know more about road safety than they do.”

“Mr Idris Francis is not only a convicted speeder. He was charged with travelling at 47 mph in a 30 mph zone. Mr Francis beleiving he is above the law took his case to the europian high court to fight his conviction. Of course he lost his case. He then put in an appeal. A web page under his name shows how he even asked for public donations, stating: Please give generously for genuine road safety. The appeal could have excalated into many tens of thousands of pounds which was a risk he couldn't take, so he dropped the appeal. He is a poor excuse for a human being. He considers himself to be highly educated yet cannot make the connection between Road Traffic Collision AND Road Traffic Collision. Idris is a member of the ABD (Association of British Drivers) They all have the same unpleasant, rediculus ideas as Francis. Just a small group of small people.”

“Clearly Mr Francis does not live on a road where everyone, especially the Police, acknowledge that speeding is a problem, and where only in the last few weeks we have had a speed limit, otherwise he might have a different point of view.

I have lost count of the number of people I have seen scraped off the road in the near vicinity of my house over the last thirty years. Sometimes they are alive and sometimes not. Almost without exception they suffer more serious injuries than whiplash. That is the true cost of speeding and until you have stood by and seen the horror of it you cannot possibly understand it.

To accuse Mrs Brixey of not taking due care of her son is unthinking and cruel. Who amongst us knows where our adult children are 24 hours of the day and who they are associating with. The fact that we have people in our society with the uncaring attitudes Mr Francis displays clearly demonstrates that point. I just hope none of my family have ever come into contact with, or been influenced by this sort of bigotry and arrogance.”

“And finally! The most ridiculous thing about this whole debate is that if everyone just stuck to the speed limit, then they wouldn¿t have anything to worry about. Speed cameras would not be a problem. The fact is that this will never be the case and just compounds the need to keep them.
Finally I think Clare (and her family) should be commended for her bravery in facing this backlash she is receiving since launching this campaign, when her only motive is to stop anyone else ever having to go through what she has gone through. No matter how it happened. How anyone can criticise this I do not know!”

“I wonder if Mr Francis is a father himself? I suspect not. I may be wrong, but to accuse Clare of being an irresponsible mother because she allowed him to associate with people who drank and took drugs is completely ludicrous! In most circumstances, (and I know this to be absolutely the case with Clare) a mother will do everything that they possible can to protect their children, teaching them about rights and wrongs and the ways of the world. However once your child is old enough to make their own decisions then you just have to hope that some of what you have taught them has sunk in, else you may as well keep them locked up in a room padded with cotton wool!
Apart from anything else the way in which Ashley died has no relevance to the speed camera debate, only in fact that although it is beyond Clare¿s powers to do anything about the tragedy her own son¿s death, she is and has in fact made it her life¿s mission, to help stop this same tragedy happening to anyone else, no matter what form this takes, whether is be lectures to school children on the dangers of drink/drug driving or through protests against getting rid of speed cameras.
A question I would like to ask Mr Francis is, do speed cameras actually increase deaths and serious injuries on the road? Of course they don¿t. It is simply unbelievable that they are getting rid of them. It is just a signal to serial speeders to put their foot down.
Vehicle Activated Signs are very effective, but only to responsible drivers. Sadly the sort of people that people that speed consistently are also the sort of people who are likely to ignore these types of signs.
We need to keep measures in place for all types of road user. A road user cannot be expected to assess every road scenario accurately, hence the need for signs and signals. Really they should have both VAS¿s AND Speed cameras in place where ever there is a speed limit. This will firstly ensure that the responsible driver drops to the appropriate speed limit with out being distracted by looking at his or her speed o meter, and then speed cameras for those who decide to ignore the VAS sign and drive recklessly through a speed restricted area.
Regardless of how good a driver you think you are, you can never account for what mistakes that other road users make and it is arrogant to think so.
The Safe Speed website makes some very interesting points in relation to speed cameras and imposed speed limits. The over all impression that I get is that there should be no speed limits on the road and that people should be trusted to act responsibly and drive sensibly. This is a ridiculous concept in itself, just simply because of basic humankind. Everyone is different and you CANNOT rely on people to do the right thing. People need to be educated, and by that I mean, giving people signs and signals that where they are driving there are potential hazards hence the reason for a speed limit etc. etc. My particular favourite point on the website is where it refers to ¿Paranoia¿, and that they receive frequent emails from people who already have 9 points on their license and now drive around in fear of getting the last 3 and losing their license! It actually made me laugh because I couldn¿t believe how ridiculous it sounded! Surely that says it all, as did the dreadful argument that the Safe Speed representative put up on Newsnight last Friday evening.
Mr Francis also comments on the cost of speed cameras. If even one speed camera saves a life, no cost can be put on this. You cannot put a cost on life. Ask Clare or anyone else who has lost a child on the road. It is nothing compared to the cost that is involved with a death or serious injury on the road.
I have been running a campaign, with Clare, to get a speed limit in my village for the last 3.5 years. I have lived here since I was born and have seen many, many accidents here, the majority of which have been caused by speed, (this is not my perception, thi”

“You did not mention (Brake's PR did) that Ms. Brixey's son chose to ride with a friend who had taken drink and drugs. The likely cause of the crash was therefore not speeding per se but the compromised state of the driver which led both to the speeding and the crash, ie due to drink, drugs and attitude, not the absence of speed cameras - in 2004 there WERE many cameras in Wiltshire and they did not prevent this accident.

Much as I sympathise with Ms Brixey and other bereaved and injured people (I spent 3 months unable to walk due to whiplash caused by another) I wonder why her son chose to accompany or even associate with drug-takers in the first place. Does Ms. Brixey feel no responsibility for he son¿s choice of friends - or is it always someone else's fault? I know very well how my parents would have reacted to such conduct.

Critics of cameras point out that cameras do not detect or inhibit drunk or drugged drivers or any other form of dangerous driving that would alert police patrols. One reason for the steep fall in police patrols over the past 15 years has been that cameras served as an excuse for the police to cut their own costs - but how much notice of speed cameras other than diverting past them - do drug takers and drunken drivers take, given other laws they ignore?

Let me make it absolutely clear at this point that, like every camera critic I know, I am entirely in favour of more and better police patrols as a far better method of making our roads safe than cameras have proved to be or could ever be.

Your report misrepresents - perhaps deliberately - my reply to the young boy. I was discussing detailed casualty numbers and trends with the interviewer and Ms. Brixey. I have spent many thousands of hours studying them - unlike Ms. Brixey or indeed Brake, both of whose grasp of statistics can best be described as non-existent. I did not wish to interrupt those points to talk instead to a lad too young to have any knowledge whatever of the subject, as the interviewer understood.

Your report also didn¿t mention that I pointed out that Brake, which describes itself as "independent" is part-funded by at least one speed camera manufacturer. Ms. Brixey said this was not a problem but in my view it is unethical, at least when no declaration of interest is made so that the audience may make its own judgement on possible bias.

The most important point I made - my main reason for coming - was that as long ago as April 2007 then roads Minister Stephen Ladyman admitted in a letter I forced him to write that (within the limited benefits either can provide) vehicle activated signs are as effective as cameras at 9 TIMES LOWER COST. That letter is on a government web site, and also on www.safespeed.org.uk/vas.html, with all the detailed correspondence. However even that admission was less than the full truth, being for 1st year costs only and excluding massive enforcement costs. Sensibly based over 10 years the ratio is more like 50/1.

Yes, Mr. Parker the cameras you and Brake support each cost about £50,000 p.a. to run, but signs costs less than £1,000 p.a, while providing similar benefit. Still want cameras Mr. Parker, or would you, like me, prefer greater safety at what is now necessarily lower cost? It is more than 3 years since I repeatedly sent this information to Brake but they refuse to acknowledge or discuss it. Why? Ask them, not me - I find it inexplicable given that they claim to campaign for road safety.

Mr. Parker's snide remark refers to my "right to silence" application to the ECHR, supported by Liberty and approved of by every lawyer I know, I agreed a budget of £20,000 of my own money (I could have paid just a £60 fine) to fight to recover one of the most fundamental and important legal principles that has been ours for more than 400 years, and which remains available to every murderer, rapist, thug, drug-taker and drunk - that it is the responsibility of the Sta”

“Thank you Clare Brixey - keep up the good work.

I'm surprised the paper failed to mention that Idris Francis is a convicted speeder who has been attempting to shrug his responsibilities through the High Court.”