Safe Speed home
Understanding
Communicating
Navigating
Issues
News
Helping
About Safe Speed
One Third Emails

Correspondence between SafeSpeed visitor Simon Tonks and the Department for Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory

Safe Speed
 new by popular demand email Simon Tonks

 
new Introduction

Much modern road safety policy in the UK is based on the oft repeated claim that "One third of accidents are caused by excessive speed". Sometimes this is backed up by the related claim that "Speed is the largest single cause of accidents". But a visitor to this web site decided he wanted to better understand the basis of these claims. He sent  an email to the Department for Transport (DfT) and a story began to unfold. Despite two replies from the DfT and subsequently also raising the question with the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)(another 2 replies), neither organization was able to provide any credible justification for the claims. All the emails are reproduced below in full (we've even left in the spelling errors).

In fact it has become rather obvious from the correspondence and study of the reports mentioned that only a small percentage (perhaps 5% or 6%) of accidents are caused by any sort of excessive speed. And in the terms of the TRL, this "excessive speed" includes excessive speed over the speed limit and inappropriate speed for the conditions.  "Inappropriate speed" frequently does not include exceeding the speed limit.

So we are left with a figure of very much less than 6% of accidents that may be caused or contributed to by motorists exceeding the speed limit. And this is taken directly from the best and most authoritative research available in the UK, as cited by the DfT and the TRL. This reduced "very much less than 6%" figure includes drunks exceeding the speed limit, joyriders and criminals in police chases, and even a couple of suicide attempts.

The TRL have been complaining on their web site and in their newsletter that their research is frequently misrepresented. We have to agree. They have been misrepresenting it horribly. Our road safety policy, and especially the continuing roll out of speed cameras is clearly based entirely on the TRL and the DfT misrepresenting their own research.

This is a very serious matter indeed, and we recommend writing to your MP and bringing this page to their attention.

email Safe Speed.            visit Safe Speed First Page.               visit Safe Speed Main Page.



 
Actual emails, word for word from Simon Tonks: Actual Replies, word for word:
Starting off: Simon has questions:

From: Simon Tonks 
To: roadacc.stats@dtlr.gov.uk 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Speeding statistics query (SECOND TIME SENT!)

Hi

I've just read (on the internet) CHAPTER 6, Safer Speeds, of the DTLR report:

Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone The Government's road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010 [link]

Two statements in the report interest me:

(1) "Yet research has shown that speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents" and

(2) "Speeding at night creates noise nuisance as well as doubling the accident rate"

I would appreciate it if you could tell me, in detail, the sources (or, preferably, the base statistics) used to produce these statements.

Also, when an accident takes place, does the cause of the accident get logged for every reported accident in every UK police force area?  If so, where can I find annual figures based on this information?

Finally, how many accidents per annum in the UK can be SOLELY attributed to speeding?

Thank you for your time.

Cheers

Simon

DfT replies after almost 4 months:

From: "Manda Sanger" <Manda.Sanger@dft.gsi.gov.uk>
To: <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 1:48 PM
Subject: Speed
 

Dear Mr Tonks, thank you for your e-mail  of 24 April concerning the
above  This has been passed to the road safety division for reply.  I apologise for the delay in replying to you.  As I am sure you can appreciate the issue of speed has generated a substantial amount of correspondence in recent months which means that we have been unable to respond with in our normal time scale.

The TRL Report "A New system for recording contributory factors in road accidents" (TRL Report 323)  examined both overall and critical factors in road accidents using a standard reporting system in eight police forces around the country.  When examining overall contributory factors, those with a significant speed element, e.g. not judging other's speed, skidding, following too close, in a hurry, etc account for around 30% of contributory factors.  The precipating factors, which are those judged as critical failings which led to accidents have speed as a feature in the majority of cases.  The TRL research demonstrates clearly that the general issue of speed is a problem that must be addressed if we wish to continue to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads.

There can be no doubt, confirmed by the TRL report, that errors of judgement by pedestrians have their own error of judgement as a primary cause in accidents in which they are involved.  However, that does not preclude the speed chosen by drivers from being a significant contributory factor in accident causation.  The presence of pedestrians is a key to judging an appropriate speed at which to drive.  Indeed the Police Roadcraft Manual states that Risks increase with speed but whatever your speed, if it is inappropriate for the circumstances it is dangerous.

Casualty statistics can be found for all times of day and night in the Departments 'Road Accidents Great Britain; 2000 The Casualty Report. 
This can be obtained form The Stationary Office, PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN.

I hope this is helpful 

Manda Sanger
Road Safety Division

This E-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information
contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Simon isn't pleased with the reply:

From: "Simon Tonks" <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
To: "Manda Sanger" <Manda.Sanger@dft.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Speed
 

Hi Manda

Thanks for your email.

I'm very interested in several parts of your response, as I have read TRL323 myself.

The TRL Report "A New system for recording contributory factors in road accidents" (TRL Report 323)  examined both overall and critical factors in road accidents using a standard reporting system in eight police forces around the country.  When examining overall contributory factors, those with a significant speed element, e.g. not judging other's speed, skidding, following too close, in a hurry, etc account for around 30% of contributory factors.
Apologies for being blunt, but this interpretation of TRL 323 is a lie! TRL 323 does not, in any way, attribute speed as a problem in the instances you describe.  Anyway, what are you talking about when you use the word speed"?  Are you describing motion (could be 1mph or 1000mph) or do you mean speeding (breaking the speed limit)?  Such vagueness is unhelpful.

 "Not judging other's speed" - MISQUOTED!

"Failure to judge other person's path or speed" is the term the TRL use. This is surely to do with a third party road user's poor observation, lack of experience or a lack of training.  This accounts for the largest single percentage contributory factor in Table 4.  All the more alarming then that you have both misquoted and totally misinterpreted it.

"Skidding" or as the TRL put it - "slippery road".   Late, hard braking causes skidding - especially with non-ABS equipped vehicles on a sub standard road surface.  It can equally happen at speeds above or below speed limits - which is why using the vague term "speed" is no use.

"Following too close" - what has this got to do with speed?  This is bad driving, plain and simple.  Again - this is prevalent above and below speed limits.

"In a hurry" - yes, this could include travelling at high speeds, in excess of the speed limit, but it could also include erratic, careless manoeuvres such as not checking mirrors or pulling out of junctions in front of other traffic.  No distinction is made in TRL 323 and it should be noted that excessive speed is given it's own separate code.   I note you don't mention this - perhaps because the figure is only 7.3%.

The precipating factors, which are those judged as critical failings which led to accidents have speed as a feature in the majority of cases.
Every surface to surface impact has "speed as a feature", but that's totally independent to the cause of an accident.

Your interpretation, or perhaps to be fair, your department's interpretation of TRL 323 is disgraceful.  TRL 323 doesn't mention the 30% figure you quote anywhere.  It's total fabrication.  Neither do they suggest:

The TRL research demonstrates clearly that the general issue of speed is a problem that must be addressed if we wish to continue to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads.
This is not demonstrated at all and especially not "clearly". By making statements like this, you perhaps highlight how out of touch your department is with reality as you mention the continuation of reductions in the number of people killed and injured on our roads.  The number of people killed on our roads has just INCREASED to 3443 from 3409!  This is the biggest year on year increase in over a decade.  The biggest reductions in road deaths were achieved before the current obsession with speed reduction and this fact perhaps epitomises all that is wrong with road safety initiatives that focus only on speed.  Indeed, the true TRL 323 findings seem to have been negligently ignored, for whatever reason.

Usually on this issue, when respondents are presented with the facts as they stand rather than their own twisted facts, I never receive any further communication.  Will you be any different I wonder?  Can you robustly defend your department's argument?

Please try.

I will certainly persue this further if I receive either no response or an inadequate one.

Cheers

Simon

The DfT attempt a deflection...

From: "Manda Sanger" <Manda.Sanger@dft.gsi.gov.uk>
To: <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:08 AM
Subject: Speed
 

Dear Simon, thank you for your further e-mail of 8 August.  I have been
asked to reply.

Research continues to show speed to be the biggest contributory factor in road traffic accidents.  The general term 'speed' may be misquoted on occasion.  This is why, whenever possible, the Department emphasises that excessive and inappropriate speed is the problem.  This covers both breaking the limit and driving too fast for the conditions.  Both are clear factors in many road traffic accidents. 

The report is about identifying contributory factors in accidents in the context of new accident data recording system being brought into STATS 19.  Speed as contributory factor is shown in the context of the report to occur in about 7% of accidents, however, excessive speed as a causation factor may be coded for any one of the following reasons, excess speed for the limit, excess speed for the vehicle (e.g. LGV) or excess speed for the conditions.

Although speed was not always shown as a factor in the pilot schemes, which is what the report is about, speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following, sudden breaking, careless/reckless driving, following too close, in a hurry, loss of control of a vehicle and poor overtaking, etc. 

Adding up these factors the report effectively confirms the "one third" figure.  The relatively low incidence of excessive speed as a stand alone factor in the report suggests that where other factors such as those above are coded, the police may consider it unnecessary to code excessive speed as well.  We are addressing this in revised guidance developed with the police for offers that complete STATS 19 forms.  Thus for future recording purposes this report has shown that we will need to break down the speeding factors into sub-groups to more clearly show the cause.  We will also need to guide the police to show speed as one of the additional factors in any circumstance where, although it was not the primary cause, it was contributory.

Thus the purpose and results of the report have been mischievously misinterpreted, and it is interesting that none of the other TRL reports on speed and accident risk have been mentioned by those using this report as the basis for supporting their argument.  For anyone seeking to draw meaningful conclusions from research a full search of the available literature is essential.  You will be pleased to learn that TRL has published a comprehensive report on speed and accident causation, TRL report number 421 called the Effects of Drivers' Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents.  Also published is TRL report 440, called the Characteristics of Speeders, and more recently TRL Report 511, The Relationship between Speed and accidents on rural single carriageway roads.  All three reports support the launch of the Speed Review and Road Safety Strategy, and full references appear in the Speed Review.

M. Sanger
Road Safety Division

This E-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
 

SafeSpeed comments:

Mander Sangers comments are deeply unsatisfactory.

When she says "...speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following, sudden breaking, careless/reckless driving, following too close, in a hurry, loss of control of a vehicle and poor overtaking, etc." She is stretching the truth too far. She might as well have said the speed is a factor in all collisions, which is true simply because objects cannot collide if they are not moving.

Draw your own conclusions about whether "in a hurry" or "poor overtaking" have any useful connection with "exceeding a speed limit".

After that she goes downhill somewhat. TRL421 for example does not attempt to establish causation. Read carefully and draw your own conclusions.

new We've been reading TRL421 and TRL511, and we're not best pleased with those reports either. click here to see why
 

Simon takes his questions direct to the TRL

From: "Simon Tonks" <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
To: <enquiries@trl.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: Speed and accidents - lets put the record straight

Then sent again:

From: "Simon Tonks" <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
To: <enquiries@trl.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:12 PM
Subject: Fw: Speed and accidents - lets put the record straight

Hi

I've just read the following TRL webpage:

http://www.trl.co.uk/1024/mainpage.asp?page=1013 [link]

Having read TRL 323, I couldn't agree more with the statement: "The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted."

Did you realise the government claims TRL 323 is the basis for claiming one-third of all accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed?

For example:

http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/rtspeed/pdf/cm5621.pdf [link]

TRL 323 does not state or draw this conclusion anywhere within the report. A classic example of "misquoting" wouldn't you say?!  Ironically, they claim others persistently misquote and use the report out of context!

I'd be very interested to know the TRL viewpoint on this blatant abuse of TRL 323.

Cheers
Simon Tonks

The TRL replies:

From: "Taylor, Marie C" <mtaylor@trl.co.uk>
To: <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Speed and accidents
 

Dear Simon

Re: your recent enquiry on Speed and accidents

As stated in the TRL article on our website, not only was speed an identified factor in a substantial proportion (15%) of accidents considered in TRL323, but speed also increases the impact of many of the other factors that contribute to accidents, so the overall contribution of inappropriate speed is very much larger.  The TRL article also explains that there is a substantial body of direct evidence relating speed to accidents (as presented in TRL Reports 421, 511, 215, 452).  The point is that there is clear evidence that reducing speeds will result in a marked reduction in accidents and save a large number of lives.  That is the fundamental message that both TRL and the Government are giving.

Regards

Marie Taylor
Group Manager, Safety
 
 

SafeSpeed comments:

TRL323 is completely clear that excessive speed was reported as 6.0% of definite contributory factors in a population of 2,107 definite contributory factors from 2,795 properly completed report forms.

Contributory factors were classified as "definite", "probable" and "possible", and all added together excessive speed was reported as 7.3% of a population of 5,847 of recorded contributory factors.

TRL323 does not mention the 15% figure anywhere.

Simon wants to know more...

From: "Simon Tonks" <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
To: "Taylor, Marie C" <mtaylor@trl.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Speed and accidents
 

Hi Marie

Thanks for replying to my email.

I'd like to comment on your response and ask you a couple more questions related to my original email.

As stated in the TRL article on our website, not only was speed an identified factor in a substantial proportion (15%) of accidents considered in TRL323,
I'm sorry, this isn't specifically mentioned in TRL323.  Please explain how you've calculated this.
...but speed also increases the impact of many of the other factors that contribute to accidents, so the overall contribution of inappropriate speed is very much larger.
So do you agree with the government/DfT that TRL323 concludes that one-third of all accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed?  If the answer to my question is YES, please detail exactly how this figure is derived - i.e. a breakdown.
The TRL article also explains that there is a substantial body of direct evidence relating speed to accidents (as presented in TRL Reports 421, 511, 215, 452). The point is that there is clear evidence that reducing speeds will result in a marked reduction in accidents and save a large number of lives. That is the fundamental message that both TRL and the Government are giving.
I'm only interested in TRL323, for the moment, simply because your website categorically states:

"The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted."

As the original report didn't draw the conclusions that perhaps the TRL and certainly the government are now attributing to TRL323, is the TRL changing its mind in line with the political climate...?  Who's really guilty of misquoting?

Personally, I consider speed reduction measures to be indicative of policies that don't tackle the real issues surrounding accidents - namely road users (including pedestrians and cyclists) with poor skills, observation and  concentration.  Sticking one's head in the sand regarding these facts and simply slowing motorists down, to reduce the effects of accidents caused by the above, reveals the sorry state of affairs this country is in with regard to road safety. Incidentally, the most dramatic falls in road deaths occurred BEFORE speed cameras and policies obsessed with reducing speed were in widespread use.

From their introduction in 1992, reductions in road deaths gradually stalled and now we have just seen the largest year on year increase for over a decade from 3409 to 3443.

Against this background, consider the following negative impacts of policies that universally reduce speed or seek to enforce limits more rigorously and in preference to the enforcement of other offences (they might even explain the above trend):

  • Less stimulation for drivers (leads to more driver fatigue and poorer concentration)
  • More distraction from enforcement
  • Poorer public/police relationship
  • Drivers risk compensate and drive closer or more aggressively
  • Drivers' priorities are distorted (too much concern for numerical speed)
  • Joy riders, drunks and lawless drivers unaffected
  • Reduced incentive to improve driver/road user training
  • More lawless drivers (e.g. false number plates, improper registration, no
  • insurance etc)
  • More safe drivers convicted with possible loss of job, etc
  • Reduced respect for law
Your answers and views on the above would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Simon Tonks

A reply from the TRL

From: "Taylor, Marie C" <mtaylor@trl.co.uk>
To: <simon.tonks@email.withheld>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: Speed and accidents
 

Simon

As explained in TRL 323, 7.3% of the factors recorded in the accidents were 'excessive speed'.  For each accident, the police could record up to four factors which they considered contributed to the accident.  In all, 5847 factors were recorded relating to 2795 accidents - on average that is about 2 factors per accident.  So, since 7.3% of the factors were excessive speed, this means that excessive speed was reported in about twice this many accidents - ie. 15% of accidents.

Since speed will have been the reason for other factors also being recorded, when allowance is made for this, the contribution is, TRL believes, much greater than 15%. The figure of one-third quoted by DfT is not inconsistent with this conclusion.  This is not explicitly discussed in TRL 323 because that report is about a new system for recording contributory factors, not about the role of speed in accidents, which, as explained, is far better addressed by the results of other studies.

Marie Taylor
Group Manager, Safety
 

SafeSpeed comments:

Ms Taylor's bizarre arithmetic in the first paragraph is absolute nonsense. However, if one notes that excessive speed was reported as a possible, probable or definite factor in 424 cases out of 2,795 reports we calculate a figure of 15%. Note that TRL323 makes no such calculation. If we calculate (by exactly the same logic) from 126 cases where excessive speed was recorded as a definite factor out of 2,795 reports we get a figure of only 4.5%. The report's authors were quite happy with the true 6.0% figure. 

This includes excessive speed both over and under the speed limit. It includes excessive speed by drunken drivers and excessive speed in Police chases. It even includes about 120 cases where excessive speed was suggested as a "possible" contributory factor.

So reading TRL323 creatively suggests that excessive speed was a cause or contributory factor of an absolute maximum of 15% of accidents and in many of these cases other causes were far more important and in quite a significant number excessive speed was not confirmed as a cause at all. Perhaps this gets us back to about the 6.0% figure which is actually printed in the report.

But then we have to consider what the effects of speed enforcement might be. This is something that neither the government nor the TRL appear to have considered. For a start, it is thought that about 2/3rds of all excessive speed accidents occur within the speed limit. That leaves 2% as excessive speed in excess of the limit.

So if we suddenly achieved 100% compliance with all speed limits nation-wide tomorrow, we might for a moment expect to reduce accidents by 2%.

But wait a minute, how are we going to achieve this sudden compliance and what might the side effects be? Some of the possible side effects were mentioned in Simon's email shown as a list to the left.

new See also our "dangers" page which attempts to list the possible and probably side effects of such enforcement. click here

It's quite probably that the items on the list would conspire together to increase road accidents and casualties by 10% or more. And there is no research whatsoever into the effects of forcing drivers to reduce speed.

Our road safety policy is based on a pack of lies and misrepresented reports.
 

Paul Smith (SafeSpeed webmaster) gives the DfT the right of reply:

Subject: Urgent information request
Date:  Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:30:01 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: road.safety@dft.gsi.gov.uk
 

Dear Sir or Madam

Please escalate this email to the highest available authority.
==============================================

I would like to draw your attention to the following web page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/onethirdemail.html (this page)

where correspondence with your organisation falls well short of the standards we have every right to expect.

Your staff have not been able to offer reasonable answers to the questions posed and I consider it important that you have the right of reply. 

In addition to comments that you may have on the replies already displayed on the page I would very much like answers to the following questions:
 

  • 1) TRL511 and TRL421 purport to reveal a "relationship" between speed and accidents. In neither case do these reports attempt to prove that the relationship is a causal one. Yet both reports go on to suggest specific numbers of lives that might be saved as a result of speed reductions. How can such a conclusion be valid without establishing a casual link?
  • 2) In the light of the above: Are TRL421 and TRL511 pseudo science produced purely in support of a political objective?
  • 3) If you claim they are true science, perhaps you can explain how the highly qualified personnel involved made such a basic mistake in assuming a causal relationship when there was no evidence of causality in the studies?
  • 4) Can you cite ANY scientific or statistical reference where excessive speed over the speed limit is established as a causal factor in even 10% of accidents?
  • 5) Will you make TRL323, TRL421 and TRL511 publicly available so that people may decide for themselves which are true quotes and which are misquotes?


I look forward to your reply, and advise you that I intend to publish it to the web in the space designated on the page referenced above.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

Space for DfT reply. Still waiting since 11th November.
Paul Smith (SafeSpeed webmaster) gives the TRL the right of reply (same email as above):

Subject: Urgent information request
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:33:03 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: enquiries@trl.co.uk
 

Dear Sir or Madam

Please escalate this email to the highest available authority.
==============================================

I would like to draw your attention to the following web page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/onethirdemail.html (this page)

where correspondence with your organisation falls well short of the standards we have every right to expect.

Your staff have not been able to offer reasonable answers to the questions posed and I consider it important that you have the right of reply. 

In addition to comments that you may have on the replies already displayed on the page I would very much like answers to the following questions:
 

  • 1) TRL511 and TRL421 purport to reveal a "relationship" between speed and accidents. In neither case do these reports attempt to prove that the relationship is a causal one. Yet both reports go on to suggest specific numbers of lives that might be saved as a result of speed reductions. How can such a conclusion be valid without establishing a casual link?
  • 2) In the light of the above: Are TRL421 and TRL511 pseudo science produced purely in support of a political objective?
  • 3) If you claim they are true science, perhaps you can explain how the highly qualified personnel involved made such a basic mistake in assuming a causal relationship when there was no evidence of causality in the studies?
  • 4) Can you cite ANY scientific or statistical reference where excessive speed over the speed limit is established as a causal factor in even 10% of accidents?
  • 5) Will you make TRL323, TRL421 and TRL511 publicly available so that people may decide for themselves which are true quotes and which are misquotes?


I look forward to your reply, and advise you that I intend to publish it to the web in the space designated on the page referenced above.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

Space for TRL reply. Still waiting since 11th November.
Exact text captured from the TRL website on 8th November 2002:

http://www.trl.co.uk/1024/mainpage.asp?page=1013

Speed and accidents - lets put the record straight

There is a vast amount of evidence demonstrating the strong link between vehicle speed and road accidents. So why does material keep appearing in the media suggesting the effect is small?

The issue is so important we feel it is time to reiterate the true position. In the 1990s a number of police forces conducted a limited trial of an experimental accident reporting system. The results were reported clearly in TRL Report 323 but they have frequently been misquoted

Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, “aggressive driving” or “driving too closely” are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents.

This means that speed is far more important in causing accidents and increasing their severity than the misquoted figures suggest. Importantly, other TRL studies have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents. These are summarised in TRL reports 421 and 511. They avoid the inevitably subjective judgements associated with studies of contributory factors.

SafeSpeed Last word:

Dear Simon, 

Thank you, for taking the trouble to ask officials at both the Government's DfT and the TRL about the truth behind the oft repeated claim that "one third of accidents are due to excessive speed".

And thank you for giving us permission to publish the emails on the SafeSpeed web site.

Their replies are waffle and nonsense and the lie is apparently clearly exposed. They have not been able to offer you any real or useful evidence to support the claim.

We are looking forward to replies from the DfT and the TRL. We wonder what the delay is; we've been waiting almost three weeks. Perhaps they don't know what to say?

I've recently emailed my MP about all this. Will that encourage a proper reply?

Paul Smith. (email)
Safe Speed Webmaster.
30th November 2002.

You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour




footer  
Google
Web www.safespeed.org.uk
Safe Speed navigation:
front page forums join Safe Speed press / media email
main page site guide Paypal donate contact comments
See our new user's 'home page'

Note new address and telephone