For some strange reason the media seem to like quoting you and your website. I think it is simply becuse you are prepared to say what they want you to say and it is outside support for sensation.
You are "acting on it" because you are publishing this information and passing it to the media in interviews. They are seeking your opinion as reassurance for that information yet you have none. Do you say, for instance, "I heard this...but I haven't seen any proof of it..." It seems you do not unless challenged or pressed.
There have been a number of FoI requests for the speeds at which the olice have issued penalties for, I understand this may even have led to regular publication of the data so further requests need not be made because the inormation is already published regularly. In all that where was the thousands of tickets issued below 35mph or at speeds below the higher limit thresholds? Oh! There was none.
While you say that you can discuss it and seek opinion you have to consider that your denial of he facts or perhaps conveniently not accepting the data available to you that other irresponsible media entities will borrow your apparent but flawed authority on these matters to validate their sensational but inaccurate stories.
You do have reasons not to believe the story related to you on the radio, you have nothing to back that up and despite asking for it that person had nothing to support what she was saying. This is contradictory itself because you are prepared o beleive one thing, the 34mph story, but not the lternative when you have been told no data exixts to support it and you ignore what has already been released to support it. It is probably your friends who have requested and been given the data.
Now back to the relavance of you and your site. It takes weeks or months to get any form of response from what has become an irellevance, if it ever was relevant. If a response is given it is conjecture and makes little sense and in the case of your last response immediately above, is careless and shows clearly you are off-the-ball when it comes to available information. Like the radio interviewee, facts are simply not relevant to you and are mostly inconvenient.
By all means debate these things but do try to stop yourself promoting what you would like to be facts as facts when they are simply your imagination. Perhaps mention to those in the press that the campaign is now reduced to the ame 3 or 4 people exchanging views once every 3 or 4 weeks and where its leader dips in once or twice every three or 4 months to write flights of fancy.
(ooops, i thought that wave meant goodbye)
EDIT: To correct spellink and grammar......I can't be arsed