North Yorkshire RPU unashamedly using bereaved to make false public statements on speeding & IPCC think it's an 'abuse' to
make a polite complaint about it.
-
'Speeding' cannot cause an accident or death.
-
Too fast ( Dangerous does)
-
Had the driver survived, there's no such charge as death by 'speeding' He would've been charged with death by dangerous driving
-
Why is 'speeding' in the fatal 4 yet dangerous driving isn't?
-
The three legal states of speed: Speeding, dangerous driving and careless driving, all adequately deal with any aspect. Other confusing and vague non legal terms should never be used by any official to promote a policy.
-
'Speed Kills' is false because no speed would kill us all. So 'No speed kills' is correct.
See response here
Dear Ms Pudden,
Thank you again for your letter of the 6th.
May I say that, as a hard working volunteer for road safety and an ex police expert in the subject, the rhetoric being used against me, 'Vexatious' 'Abusive' and 'Oppressive' for politely raising the truth, is totally inappropriate and has now probably been added to some database too. How this helps road safety is beyond me.
I am still puzzled. The officer/s who published or originated the offending tweet can easily be established.
The interim mail from Mr Tooke ( refferred to by the IPCC) avoided the points completely and more worryingly, would not even acknowledge dangerous driving as a cause of road accidents and this one in particular.
There is no question that the police, especially their road traffic experts, should know their science and so the comment was not only dangerously false, but was at least a gross incompetence or a deliberate deception. 'Speeding' causes nothing. That they used an innocent bereaved to promote this false remark to deceive the public is extremely cheap & nasty.
I do not need a solicitor but given the foregoing, perhaps you should ask yours that if I publish that the IPCC have now encouraged a deception about speeding via an innocent bereaved by deeming it an abuse to complain about the police perpetrators, would it be fair comment? Of course he can check from scientists, if by exceeding any number on a pole, (speeding) it would cause a reaction to confirm that I am correct.
However, given my very reasonable resolution, basically not to repeat the offence, I will now write to NYP CC & their PCC to ensure NYP do not repeat the stunt.
Perhaps in future I can depend on IPCC to take genuine road safety, a life and death issue, much more seriously than it has hitherto the next time it occurs. We must start focusing on genuine accident causes instead of the profit based incorrect policy as it stands.
My aims are for genuine, profitless non ideologically based expert road safety, and no unnecessary prosecutions of many thousands of perfectly safe drivers for profit. Who, except the vested interests, can seriously object to those aims?
I hope you will support me in this endeavour in future.
Wishes
And our final response.
