RoSPA has been reading this blog…
In response to my comments yesterday, Jo Bullock (for it was she who spake on the BBC – I couldn’t recall the name when writing the article) has emailed me. I reproduce her comments below in their entirety. Right of reply and all that. Regardless, I stand by my comments on raising the speed limits – the proposal is a sensible and pragmatic one and the gainsayers are making assumptions when they talk of increased casualties.
One comment I will make and it is this; whatever you say to the media will be twisted and used against you…
Anyway, without further ado:
Dear Longrider
Further to your blog post, I wanted to fill you in on the background to media coverage related to the horrific accident on Friday.
The pre-recorded clip shown by the BBC was only a very small part of what I discussed with BBC journalists throughout the day on Saturday and also with other journalists across the weekend.
At RoSPA, we did not proactively share our views on the 80mph limit, or, indeed, any aspect of the awful tragedy on the M5 – we only responded to direct enquiries from the media, and we, like other road safety/motoring organisations had many enquiries. The 80mph speed limit proposal, and also the issue of potential distraction, were the two most common lines of questioning from both broadcast and print journalists, and this is continuing today. I’m sure you will have seen comments from other organisations on these issue too.
Before recording the BBC TV piece in question and also during some of the recorded answers I gave to questions, I spoke at some length with the journalists about how I was in no way happy or able to link the M5 tragedy directly to the proposal to increase the motorway speed limit to 80mph. I actually told the journalist who recorded the piece that RoSPA would in no way seek to gain “political mileage” in such a way, not just because of the massive insensitivity of doing that but because it was also far too early in the investigation to even begin to speculate about the contributory factors to the crash – I outlined that a whole range of issues needed to be looked into.
The BBC, however, was doing a backgrounder piece on general motorway safety to accompany its breaking news coverage about the accident and this was the package they wanted RoSPA to be part of, not the breaking news to talk about the actual accident. As well as talking about motorways being the safest roads in the UK, supported by the national road casualty figures they shared, the journalist felt it important to mention the current big issue that people were talking about with regards to motorway safety – the proposal to raise the limit to 80mph. That’s why she asked me directly about this issue. In my answer, I was very clear to stress that RoSPA’s view on the proposal was one that we had held before the accident and that it was in no way prompted by the crash. Also, in no way did I urge the Government to reconsider its 80mph proposal “in light of the accident” – as has been suggested in a couple of places. I’m not sure if other organisations have done that or not, but that line has certainly not come from RoSPA.
It’s important that people talk about whether the motorway limit should be increased, and blogs are a great place to do this (I’m sure there’ll be a lot more discussion when the Government issues its consultation), but I am sorry if on this occasion people thought RoSPA was seeking to gain something in the aftermath of a horrific crash.
Best wishes
Jo
LR – I agree with your position regarding the 80mph limit and the accident, and with the 80mph limit more generally.
As much as I detest interfering busybodies it is pleasing to see such a considered response to your original post. I somehow think that approach won’t continue which would be a shame.
Good to get a response though.
Fair enough. But a clip by a spokeswoman from Brake was played on Radio 5 all morning, and she certainly did mention scrapping the proposal, with a strong implication that the M5 accident was the reason. Said it was “immoral”.
Brake are somewhat more nanny statist than RoSPA from my experience.
Fair enough, RoSPA got stitched up by the Beeb. They’re not the first and they sure as hell won’t be the last. Still, disappointing that RoSPA are yet one more body that seems unable to grasp that simple numerical speed is really not all that important. At two extremes, you could safely go thousands of miles per hour providing you had room to stop before you hit something (and spacecraft do because there’s very little to hit up there) but driving at almost any speed across a crowded playground would be insanely reckless. It goes without saying that Broke can’t get this either.
we did not proactively share our views on the 80mph limit
Nor did we share them in normal way either.
I saw a lady from RoSPA on the BBC on Saturday evening (or was it yesterday?) and she was making a real song and dance about the 80 mph limit. Positively gloating she was that the proposal would be shelved again. But I don’t know if it’s the same lady as wrote to you.
Probably the same as it was Saturday evening that I was on about.
Fortunately, the IAM are in favour of the increased limit.
The half-wits at brake though are calling the proposal “inhumane”. They certainly have no qualms about waving dead babies around when they don’t agree with something.
But hang on!
This rospa lass has time on her hands to respond to some bloke on the nets’ blog?
Much as I like coming here LR, you are hardly Safespeed or the ABD. No offence intended, as I am aware of your own qualifications.
Perhaps this rospa girl has a bit too much time on her hands?
Or perhaps she may be avoiding posting on sites dedicated to proper road safety for fear rospas views will be pulled to pieces by those with greater knowledge of the subject?
It’s fairly standard reputation management. Having been stitched up by the Beeb, they don’t want to let a bad rep get out of hand. This place has a fairly high google ranking. If you google “RoSPA M5”, guess what comes at the top of the page? That’s why they emailed me.
As for the IAM – having taken and passed their motorcycle test many moons ago, and subsequently qualified as a driving instructor, I am well aware of their approach to making progress. It is a stance with which I fully concur. Indeed, dawdlers on a motorway are a bloody danger.
Thanks for the explaination LR.
Dawdlers on the M-ways are particularly dangerouse when they pull out to overtake the elephant racers without indicating and refusing to exceed 60mph.
Mate of mine just got put in hospital with a broken back by an agressive dawdler who swerved to prevent him overtaking after he had commited to doing so. It was 6am, so no witnesses and (predictably) the dawdler didn’t hang around.
I am amazed, AMAZED that the BBC would lie and distort to push its prejudices.
As someone once said: the Left, climbing over the dead and dying to plant their flag.