SafeSpeed getting stick in Spectator - again...

[SuperSteve]

Paul, there's a letter in this week's Spectator suggesting that you might want to remove the "12mph" argument from your website if you want to 'maintain your credibility as a serious road-safety researcher'.

It's fairly obvious that the letter writer hasn't properly read the article and fully understood the theory behind the argument, and is taking the conclusion too literally.

Nontheless, he is using his ignorance as an excuse to rubbish your credentials, so you might wish to correct his misapprehension...

[safespeed]

SuperSteve said:

... so you might wish to correct his misapprehension...

Thanks. I heard about this yesterday and sent the following letter for publication by email:

================================
Subject: Guy Chapman letter
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:47:09 +0000
From: Paul Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: Letters <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Sir,

With regard to Mr Chapman's comments in the recent letters page, your readers will have to refer to: www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html and decide for themselves. Those that understand it may well find it illuminating.

The page explores the relative contributions of driver response and free travelling speed to average impact severity. It warns us clearly that road user response is at least 500 times more significant as a predictor of accident outcomes than free travelling speed.

A major problem with the "modern" system of "speed kills" road safety is that it ignores the vital contribution of road user response to road safety. In fact road user response is our most precious road safety asset, but it is being squandered by oversimplified and downright false road safety messages.

Paul Smith
Founder: Safe Speed Campaign
www.safespeed.org.uk

[deltaf]

Thats a nice letter Paul...and right on the money.