The Driver's Site for the East Midlands

Welcome to Drivers' Union East Midlands.
Our Mission: Better road safety at lower cost. No unnecessary delay or slowing of road transport. No unnecessary or unjust prosecution of safe drivers.

Motorists & Drivers' Union is at

For specific topics click the appropriate label (above).

Search This Blog

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Open letter to Institute of Advanced Motorists

Why is IAM promoting speed cameras?

'Speeding' That is to go above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole cannot cause an accident. Too fast does, both above or below the limit but no camera can see that.

Does IAM agree with that statement and that most drivers or people answering its recent poll would not know that?

Since when was life and death road safety a non expert consensus matter? Or indeed how many of those polled were driving experts?

Given that without speed/motion we would all die, is 'speed kills' a false soundbite which may have influenced your poll?

East Midlands


  1. Keith
    When a collision occurs, for whatever reason, the damage gets worse as the speed in the collision gets higher.

    Just imagine 100 collisions at a combined speed of 100mph.
    Now compare that to 1000 collisions with a combined speed of 50mph.
    Will you have more casualties in the 100 at 100mph or 1000 at 50mph?

    You know the answer because "speed kills"

  2. Yes Bob absolutely true but why focus on the effects after a collision? On that 6th form logic we could stop all road traffic and stop all injury and damage but kill thousands more from the economic impact of doing so. In fact, by overslowing, we are not only making safe drivers into 'speeders' but costing the economy £30 billion a year. How many lives could we save with that? But that all misses the point. 'Speeding' above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole cannot cause anything at all. Cameras cannot see one single accident cause.

    I love the chance to explain all this again Bob. My aim is the best road safety at lowest cost, the least unnecessary slowing of a major infrastructure, and the least prosecution of safe drivers. Now what is your, or BRAKE's problem with those aims?

  3. @Keith Peat

    Hilarious that you accuse BobBobbit of "6th form logic" when your own barely makes it past the 4th form.

    Strawman fallacy/red herring: arguing against imaginary proposal to "stop all road traffic". Who has called for such a radical and clearly impossible and unsustainable measure?

    What is the evidence, from reliable sources, that speed cameras or road safety programmes are costing the economy £30 billion a year?

  4. Simon, no-one is suggesting 'that if we stopped all road traffic' any more than to stop living in houses because there is more accidental death in them than on the roads, but if we did stop all road traffic, the effect would be economic disaster and death of many thousands. Our economy and including public transport which is reliant on private and commercial motoring, from a baseline of 'stopped' there will be a linear economic effect of delaying and slowing it per 1 MPH. nationwide too. There has to be. Whatever it is, why isn't it included in the balance sheet when we 'attack' drivers and road transport is the point?

    So far 'as straw man' there are steps that could be taken to stop accidents, one or two can be found on this site and they can be debated there. Basically if you disagree for example with: Reduce the need to overtake, reduces the overtake attempts and thus the overtake crashes, a self evident statement being ignored by the Industry, then there is not much hope for you as a road safety advocate. Here's another: 'The more a driver can see, the safer he is'. Also being ignored and dismissed by the Industry. If both were addressed, many lives would be saved but there is no money in either. What a coincidence!!

    Wake up Simon.