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

Friday, 13 June 2014

Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership's porkies on speed.

In this article,
John Siddle of Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership says. 'Not all collisions in the county have been speed related but we recognise that speeding is one of the main contributing factors involved in a collision'

Now either he is lying or isn't fit for purpose. All accidents, including walking into a door are speed related. He is clearly mangling speed with speeding and as Drivers' Union recognise, it's this official mangling of speed that keeps John Siddle and the rest of the Speeding Industry in business. But it is his claim that speeding can cause something to happen that is the biggest untruth. It can't. 

I have sent the following to Lincolnshire media to alert them about John and his media statements.

I am appalled that John Siddle of the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership is still trotting out his propaganda after its flaws have already been pointed out to him on many occasions. He says ' Speeding is one of the main contributing factors involved in a collision'. That is false. I would like him to explain how simply exceeding a number on a pole will actually contribute or cause anything to happen. It can't. Accidents are caused by driving too fast at any speed, often below the limits where most accidents happen. In recognition of that we don't have an offence of causing death by speeding but by either dangerous or careless driving. The councillor's, not very original, ' Speeding is not a target' quote contradicts John Siddle too. Speed limits are not targets because lower speeds can often be dangerous confirming why a limit and if it was exceeded or not, is irrelevant in any accident.

John also makes a false claim when he says ' Not all collisions have been speed- related' Of course they were. Even a man walking into a telegraph pole is speed related. So John Siddle is clearly mangling 'Speed' with 'Speeding' and it is this mangling of the facts on which the speeding and camera industry thrives. 50,000 drivers caught 'speeding' in Lincolnshire tends to prove that 'speeding causes nothing or there should've been 50,000 crashes to go with them and also that Lincolnshire must have many faulty limits or layouts which are generating that volume of lucrative business for the speed awareness courses. These are often run by Limited Companies, that never tell their students that speeding causes nothing, the camera that got them there sees not one single accident cause and that they were likely breaking the limit because the limit is set too low for the road.

But this focus on the lucrative speeding industry deflects from serious accident causes that could be addressed instead. Sadly they have no profit and income potential so people continue to die at the hands of fake, vested interest road safety policy.


  1. Before I challenge your views, I would be interest in hearing about your formal / professional qualifications which make you the "road safety expert" you claim be.
    Perhaps you are a qualified Forensic Collision Investigator or had formal scientific qualifications? Clearly you are a trained driver / rider but so are thousands of other current / ex Police Officers but are they all experts? The courts would not accept that! Simply attending collisions recording factual information & statements does not make you an expert (police probationary officers do that).All police officers can compile stats (19).it is simple data recording. Lawyers prosecute following "accidents" but they are not considered experts. Neither does being a mechanic constitute a formal qualification in collision analysis or road safety The acid (and legal test is whether a court of law would recognise your formal and documented qualificationd and accept evidence of your opinion rather than just fact! Do you have such qualifications or are just a verbose self appointed individual whose ill informed comments illustrate an obsession with speed?
    No one (not even John Siddle) seems to be claiming that speed on its own causes crashes but you appear incapable of understanding that it can be a contributory factor. The higher the speed, the more likely a driver can not avoid an impending collision. Too fast into a bend, exceed the critical curve speed then impossible to keep the vehicle under control and crash WILL occur. Cause? Excess speed pure and simple! A real expert would understand that! So be careful of your claims about "untruths" when you are wrong! Some of us out here are formally qualified, accepted by the courts as experts, tired of your public rantings and prepared to go to the media to expose your flawed claims. So of us are also prepared to provide expert evidence which will expose you claims that Mr Siddle is lying or incompetent as libellous.
    TRL studies have PROVEN that reducing speeds will reduce collisions but I presume you would claim they don't know what they are talking about either?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. My CV is not the issue but it is about right and wrong so let's deal with your latter remarks first. No 'Speeding' can never be a contributory factor as you suggest. Too fast happens at all speeds including below the limits so cannot be'speeding' can it? It is dangerous driving. Going too fast into a bend is mostly below the limits such as a 20 mph bend in a 50 zone. So clearly that is nothing to do with 'speeding' either is it?

      Yes of course the slower everything goes the less collisions. I don't ever disagree with that, but then let's have road safety Nirvana and have zero speed and then we all die from lack of basics. We have long passed the cost effective cut off point of that where we are killing people from the poor economics of that and feeding billions into the Road Safety & Speeding Industry that would save more live in the NHS and with more police and rescue services. Oh and John Siddle, pious as he may be, is earning quite a lot from all this to sing the right songs isn't he? Now unless you can explain how, to exceed an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole, set by someone who isn't a crash investigator by the way, can cause anything to happen, then do bring on any libel actions and whatever experts you wish. Speeding, if present, will only ever be coincidental not contributory. This is a life and death issue and involves the prosecution, for profit, of thousands of people so John Siddle and the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership must tell the truth..But even the law supports my expertise. If 'Speeding' causes accidents, why no death by speeding? Why do police fail to prosecute high speeds with dangerous until someone is killed by the way? Suddenly what they regarded as speeding becomes death by dangerous.

      Now to my CV. It's being a top driver and police motorcyclist that gives me driving expertise not being an accident investigator. Anyone can get taught to investigate an accident by the way, even people who don't drive. Since it is solely a driving issue, being an expert driver enables me to understand where speed fits in the scheme of things. Being a prosecutor, having dealt with the accidents and having studied motor engineering too is all icing on the cake but in blindly supporting the limits, you are blindly supporting the decisions of faceless officials who have no background at all aren't you? The courts decide who experts are and so in driving issues, including speed and speeding, I expect they would accept expert road drivers don't you? They would have no problem however realising that 'speeding' will not be any kind of factor in a road accident since physics wouldn't allow it for the reasons I explain.At the moment any Tom,Dick & Harry is setting road safety policy and you prefer that?

      When I was a copper, I had to believe in any prosecution and know it was fair and just. When a limit is too low and the road layout invites higher speeds, it entices inadvertent speeding. For you and your colleagues to persist you have to tell yourselves that all this speeding is naughty disobedience to justify yourselves. You should all be ashamed.

      All this focus on dishonest speeding profiteering is distracting from genuine alternative effective road safety policy.

      Now choose. Try the libel case or start to listen to the evidence I am now advancing. But until a libel court decides I am wrong then you lot are and that means a revision of your attitudes to 'speeding'. That would be good for genuine profitless road safety.

      By the way. Who are you? You know who I am. Put a name to your threats.