Safe Speed Forums

As I stated previously, my complaint was wholly and independently made as a private citizen due to my personal concern on the matter and not on behalf of any organisation. I consider it a breach of your terms and my rights as a private citizen that you require that I should be named, since that may result in adverse consequences for me, my family, or property. My membership of any organisation is wholly irrelevant, since I am similarly a member of the Automobile Association, who support the interests of motorists, …………… .

I anyway object to your suggestion that ‘any result of subsequent investigations (by the Advertising Standard Authority) may potentially be to Safe Speed’s advantage’, since that would not be the case, as it is my understanding that the concern of that organisation is the country wide improvement of road safety. My complaint was made so that if upheld it would be to the advantage of the people of my county, in that they would in future be honestly and truthfully informed about any reduction, or increase, in road casualties in the county. That is so that they can then make properly informed judgements about the achievements of and necessity for the Casualty Reduction Partnership and its use of speed cameras.

My complaint was objecting to the dishonest, misleading and deceiving way that claims were made about the year on year reduction in casualties, which is the primary task of the Casualty Reduction Partnership, with the implication that they were instrumental in achieving the claimed reduction in casualties. It was my view that the claims were made so as to mislead and deceive the people of my county into believing that the Casualty Reduction Partnership was responsible for such casualty reductions, when the inferred magnitude of reductions had not been achieved and what reductions had occurred was not necessarily due to the work of the Casualty Reduction Partnership.