Safe Speed believes firmly in improved road safety. We do not campaign against speed limits or speed limit enforcement. We are not anti-police. We are not "pro speeding".

We believe that excessive speed limit enforcement by dumb robots actually makes the roads more dangerous.

We believe that giving false safety messages to drivers is dangerous. "Speed kills" lacks any useful meaning and is dangerously misleading.

We believe that inappropriate speed for the conditions is a vital road safety issue that is exacerbated by excessive emphasis on speed limit compliance.

We believe that reducing the numbers of skilled traffic police is dangerous.

We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. However, in most cases the conspiracy is born out of sincere but mistaken and simplistic beliefs rather than any more sinister intent.

We believe it isn't enough to say that policies are intended to make the roads safer. We need policies which actually deliver results.

We do not recommend or condone breaking road traffic laws.

• We promise to present the facts without misleading presentation. 
• Any error of fact will be repaired or removed as soon as possible.
• Opinion should always be immediately recognisable as such.
• We won't ever selectively quote one group of figures while ignoring other related figures that are less favourable.

Or place your honesty or accuracy query directly into our public forum (view topic) (post)

Safe Speed demands an immediate return to the road safety policies and roads policing methods which gave us the safest roads in the World in the first place.

A step on the route to our worthy goal is to expose the flaws and the lies on which modern policy changes are founded.

The entire contents of this website are copyright © SafeSpeed, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

In general anything may be quoted or reproduced if that use is not for profit and credit is given.

All for profit uses must be agreed beforehand.

"For profit" applies to anything that is sold, even if the organisation selling is a not for profit organisation.

If in any doubt, contact us first. We will protect our copyright.

Added 1st November 2003

We have never seen any credible figures that put road accidents caused by exceeding a speed limit at even 5% of road accidents. We object to speed cameras mainly because they fail to address the causes of at least 95% of road accidents. The Government claims of 1/3rd of accidents being caused by excessive speed are no more than lies according to the Government's own figures.

So here's the challenge. We promise to publish here (in this box, on the first page of the web site) web links to any serious credible research that implies a strong link between excessive speeds and accidents on UK roads.

• web links will go here.
• still nothing after over two years
• see some emails from the DfT and the TRL on the subject. click here

Or post a message directly to our public forum (click here)

We have never seen any credible evidence to support the proposition that "speed cameras save lives". We've written to one of the nation's major proponents of speed cameras and he offered no evidence. (click here).

And we've recently written to "National Safety Camera Liaison" with the same question. (30th July 2003) We await a reply.(click here) 

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently ruled that "speed cameras save lives" was a legitimate and permissible billboard claim (click here), but they were misled and we are trying to set that straight.

So here's the second challenge: We promise to publish here (in this box, on the first page of the web site) any links to research that reasonably supports the general claim that "speed cameras save lives".

• (click here) to email us your link to research
• Web links will go here
• June 2004 - DfT report claims that 100 lives per year are saved at 5,000+ speed camera sites. (1 life per 50 years per camera!)  It would be helpful if true, but the report entirely depends on statistical errors. We wrote to the author. (click) 

We've just found out that the DfT is gathering "contributory factors" information from 15 police forces. See page (click here), document "The 2002 quality review of road accident injury statistics interim report : Extension of timetable". Paragraph 5.1: "... Fifteen police forces are currently supplying contributory factor information to DfT, using the proposed national form, on a voluntary basis."

This data is unpublished. I've emailed them for information. (January 2003) We need that data! No reply was received.

So I wrote to them on 20th May 2003 and still await any reply.

We wrote again on the 12th October 2003. Thankfully Tim Collins has joined the call. (click here)

Finally a small portion of the contributory factor data has been published. (click here)

Dear SafeSpeed,

Road safety is an emotive subject that sometimes attracts wild, insupportable comments to which politicians and senior police officers attribute a disproportionate significance.  As with all social issues road safety must be approached in a calm, rational way and dealt with democratically.  In order to assist this process we need balanced, well informed arguments from all sides not propaganda of the type evidenced in many road safety conferences where only speakers who support the motion are invited.  It is to be regretted that some road safety officers and police officers who hold alternative views are often censured for not 'toeing the party line'.  This is unhealthy in a democratic society. 

Safespeed is to be encouraged to continue its work because it helps to adjust this imbalance and enjoys a freedom of speech that is not always available to everyone.  It is essential that the information provided by Safespeed is made as widely available as possible so  that the public can make a sound judgment unfettered by those in influential positions who hold extreme views.

Roy Buchanan
Road Safety Officer & retired Traffic Patrol Police Officer.
by email: 8th July 2003, added 8th July 2003.

Read more (opinions) about Safe Speed.

Safe Speed supports Trevor Reason's call for drivers to unite...

Modern so-called road safety seeks to stop drivers thinking for themselves. It will all end in tears. - Safespeed 2004

We're not surprised that everone wants a magic accident reducing machine. 

We're not surprised that the vested interests claim to be offering magic accident reducing machines. 

We're not surprised that significant numbers of the public believe that there is such a thing as a magic accident reducing machine. 

So all in all, it's a great shame that there are no magic accident reducing machines. - Safespeed 2004

IF accidents go down where there's a camera,

AND the camera causes the reduction
AND the accidents are not displaced somewhere else
AND the reduction isn't outweighed by negative side effects
AND the camera was cost effective
AND the wider social implications are acceptable

THEN you have a good argument for installing a camera.

The government has only established the first line as fact. The rest is ignored. - added 18th October 2004

With 5,000 speed cameras and 3,500 road deaths anually, if each speed camera saved just one life each year, we'd have no road deaths at all.

A recent government report claimed that speed cameras were saving 100 lives each year. With 5,000 speed cameras, their best claim is that a speed camera saves a life once in fifty years.

Shame it isn't true. (click here)