These all have massive car parks because.....they need drivers....!!
Friday, 10 December 2010
These all have massive car parks because.....they need drivers....!!
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Monday, 6 December 2010
- Four wheel skid. Basically when the car is sliding straight. To create one, drive straight (not fast) and slam brakes on. This will cause a four wheel slide. Remove the cause by releasing brakes and it will bring back steering. I used to demonstrate this by slinging my hat out in the snow, driving at it, creating a 4 wheel slide and then my passengers tell me what side to pass the hat on. It works believe me and the only way to believe it is to do it. Start slowly and then build up with confidence. So to correct it, simply remove the cause, which is braking, and gently steer around object or, to stop, if the ABS hasn't kicked in for you, jab jab jab the brakes (cadence braking) until she stops in a straight line before the object (hat).
- Two wheel or one axle skid: Take away the cause which is power (Foot off the accelerator peddle that is). This should then recover traction and steering. Add cadence braking to this too if the space is running out and there is no space for a direction change so stopping is essential.
- A rear wheel skid, on rear wheel drive, can also be recovered by steering briefly, no brakes or throttle, towards the direction that the rear is going to straighten it out. But if space is too short use cadence braking to stop in a straight line.
- Always get deceleration and slowing done on the straight and not in a bend or a turn and try to keep the engine as your slowing agent with minimum brakes.
- In bad conditions, 2nd gear will get her around locally with the least braking required and best control using the engine.
- To avoid skids or correct them on snow or ice and slippery roads, speed and space is the key as well as smooth and gentle steering and braking. Leave at least three times the normal safety distance from the nearest vehicle ahead and three times the normal stopping distance. This will give more time to react correctly to the skid.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
before I prosecuted anyone, that the prosecution was just and fair and that I understood precisely why I was prosecuting them. I believe that, although many things have changed in the police service since,that duty of care would still be expected of any good police officer.
After all, any prosecution can be a life changing event and a matter of extreme worry for some. The same care should apply to the prosecution of 'speeders' because, the outcome, can lead to loss of employment,increased premiums,financial hardship to families and resulting strain on marriages. With all that in mind, let’s look at a typical Statement of Reasons for a number of speed limits currently being proposed in an area which can result in prosecution of any number of safe drivers on these roads after their installation.
· The proposals are aimed at improving road safety for all users.
· The proposed speed limits also meet the criteria set out in
· Therefore, in accordance with the County Council’s Policy, it is proposed to establish the speed limits as set out in the Schedules to the Order.
· The Chief Constable, xxxxxx Parish Council, xxxx Parish Council and xxx District Council have been consulted.
And that is it. There is no evidence of accident history at all on these roads, and certainly no mention of solely speed caused accidents. No scientific basis is given. No mention as to what the police thought or how they were to police the new limits and to be quite frank, the views of the local parishes and district council are irrelevant unless they hold some expertise in driving and road safety anyway.
I assume that any traffic officer worth his salt would be an expert and want to ask what is the expertise of the person who wrote this order and now expects him to prosecute it? I would.
So surely before police point cameras at people for simply going above a number, shouldn't they ask how the number got there and if it was justified? I would.
Would any responsible police officer be happy with these limits?
What about the councillors who nod this through? Shouldn't we expect them to be more discerning and questioning on our behalf?
In the meantime, we should all look for these notices in our local papers and ensure that no speed limit is accepted unless there is a good reason for them and that the speed limit is the problem at the site and cannot be corrected with other remedial action.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Here an Association of British Drivers' member looks at the Charity Commission response to the BRAKE complaint:
'The Charities Commission are an organisation who were integral to the last Government's agenda and find themselves at the centre of this Governments.
The way forward?
"The charity's objects include environmentally related purposes and the Commission's role does not extend to determining the accuracy or scientific basis for statements made by the charity in furtherance of those purposes."
Translation - Spout any old green BS and we'll call you a charity.
"We acknowledge that the charity's website lists as Supporters/Donors a number of organisations and commercial enterprises which could indeed be held to have interests in areas associated with motoring. These interests are however beyond the remit of the Commission to address or comment on."
Translation "We don't care how you finance yourself or how corrupt your Charity is"
"For many people, an atmosphere which becomes un-breathable/unhealthy due to increased carbon content"
Translation "We know stuff all about science"
Are the Charities Commission the right body to oversee the the introduction of the 'Big Society'? Use Brake as a specific example of why the CC needs reforming if the 'Big Society is to be delivered with any credibility and write to the Daily Mail.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Subject: RE: Brake - 1093244 CC:07412466
Dear Mr Peat
Thank you for your emails of 9 and 10 November 2010, in connection with the above charity and your concerns regarding vested interests/political subtexts associated with its activities and funding.
We appreciate the time and effort taken to prepare the additional information you have provided and having carefully considered all of this we would advise as follows:
- The Commission has considered your concerns and determined that none of the issues raised are ones which require us to raise them with the charity, or take any regulatory action.
- The charity's objects include environmentally related purposes and the Commission's role does not extend to determining the accuracy or scientific basis for statements made by the charity in furtherance of those purposes.
- We acknowledge that the charity's website lists as Supporters/Donors a number of organisations and commercial enterprises which could indeed be held to have interests in areas associated with motoring. These interests are however beyond the remit of the Commission to address or comment on - for our purposes we can simply note that for whatever reason they have chosen to make donations to, or support, the work of the charity. It is not uncommon for charities across the entire spectrum of the third sector to have such support - indeed many charities could not continue without such support, particularly in the current economic climate - nor is it a cause for concern provided the funding received is applied to further the charity's objects.
- For many people, an atmosphere which becomes un-breathable/unhealthy due to increased carbon content could reasonably be said to represent 'the end of the world' for life as it currently exists. We understand your argument that the world itself may well physically continue, albeit with an altered atmospheric content, however we do not believe that the statement or underlying principle represents a cause for concern requiring our involvement.
- Similarly, while we agree entirely that statistics and percentages ideally require a clear base value to enable informed consideration, it is not within our remit to require charities quoting particular figures to include relevant base values. Interested parties are of course able to request these figure directly from a charity if needed.
As we have already advised you, how a charity achieves its purposes (within the framework of charity law) is a matter for its trustees not the Commission. We are not the arbiter of how a charity should best express its goals/aims to the public - except where there is evidence that these are expressed contrary to its objects. While we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your interpretation of the various statements made by the charity, it simply is not for us to test which interpretation is correct.
The actions or motives of non-charitable organisations or commercial concerns are beyond our remit and authority, we can make no comment in relation to concerns focused on their activites.
We appreciate that you may well be dissatisfied with our decision not to take up your concerns and, while this does represent our final decision, you may care to review our internal complaints process as detailed on our website. The following link will take you directly to the relevant guidance:
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Road safety should be left to those with genuine expertise
Keith Peat, Association of British Drivers, East Midlands regional co-ordinator, Sutton on Sea
AA president Edmund King, in defending his massive public poll on road safety and driving matters, is also defending himself (Letters LTT 15 Oct). There are too many inexpert cooks interfering and controlling the life and death issue of road safety. And many, like the AA, who are in the motoring insurance business, have a vested interest too.
Mr King is regularly referred to by the media on road safety and driving matters but how does being the president of a motor repair, recovery and motor insurance firm, make him an expert driver and road safety spokesman?
Likewise the ladies of BRAKE, who are supposed to be a victim support charity, are treated as experts too. Yet BRAKE’s list of sponsors also means they have a massive vested interest.
Road safety is the only life and death matter that I can think of where every Tom, Dick and Harry has a big say. Mr King compounds this problem by trying to make it a consensus issue of thousands of other non-experts like himself.
The Association of British Drivers, unlike Mr King and the AA, are totally independent experts with no vested interest and who, as self-funding volunteers, have no reason to tell it other than as it is.
Like any poll you can get the answers you want to get. At the moment a poll I am running says that 87% think the road safety industry’s billions of pounds, of which insurance is a part, would save more lives in the NHS and emergency services. But is this how we want road safety to be run? By vested interest in-experts craftily polling thousands of other in-experts?
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
BRAKE is sponsored by profit vested interest companies from motor insurance, public transport and yes even a speed camera firm.
Part of my complaint to the Charity Commission:
'........It's interference, commentary and media statements are way beyond victim support, which I applaud and is into the very dangerous life and death realms of matters on which it has no expertise or understanding; as such BRAKE is therefore not only political but probably highly dangerous as well. The danger is that most of the very lucrative Road Safety Industry that supports BRAKE, are not only with a vested interest of massive profit but most of its activity does not stop one single road accident either. Incorrect conclusions in road safety will also kill!
The above is contrary to BRAKE’s stated aim of ‘stopping carnage’ then. And most of this is achieved by exploiting charities like BRAKE to present an emotional false case on the Industry’s behalf.
If the Charity Commission are to allow BRAKE to make statements on other than victim support or to interfere in the life and death issue of road safety, then I charge that they have vested interest supporters and are thus themselves with a vested interest and that must cease. If they wish to continue to make statements about driving and road safety then they should acknowledge independent experts who are willing to assist a correct conclusion otherwise they will be no more than a political anti driver group with little knowledge of their subject. Is that what the Charity Commission supports as this subject is far too serious to be made a political one as seems to be the case with BRAKE...........'
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Since 2006 there has been a very costly and totally unscientific speed limit review set up by the last government and is still ongoing until 2011?
I have been surveying these and they are not based on any rationale or accident history at all. For example: 50 limits on dual carriageways, will inevitably mean that overtaking where it would be safe becomes illegal so crashes will inevitably be created by this policy on two way roads and single carriageways with opposing traffic.
Most of the unscientific limits of this review has cost the country billions to install and in the unnecessary slowing and criminalisation of a major infrastructure, about £3 billion per annum for every 1 MPH reduction.
Has this nonsensical speed limit review been considered for immediate abandonment within the financial cuts not withstanding the highly dangerous elements as outlined?
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Thursday, 23 September 2010
ROSPA have just published their top accident causes and included was just enough nonsense to justify the continued prosecution of safe drivers. Here I challenge them BRAKE, RAC & AA to denounce it.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Saturday, 14 August 2010
I have written to Mike Penning, Transport Minister via my MP to point out that when they restrict the safer dual carriageways so that you cannot legally pass HGVs there, you push the overtakes out onto the two way roads and opposing traffic instead and cause crashes. He and his merry men, having set the trap, say its our fault if we crash. So that's all right then!
Department for Transport
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
The HBB are now after recognition tags to be fitted to cars where the drivers supply their banking details to speed up bridge tolling. There are a number of obvious snags to this but whether we agree with tolls or not, this is the thin edge of the wedge for the use of these tags and also the ANPR system to be applied anywhere. Where next? Grimsby? Lincoln? Louth by-pass?
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Monday, 14 June 2010
Thursday, 3 June 2010
First we have Bob Gifford of PACTS writing to the Health Minister (click here): And for those of you who do not know PACTS, (Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety), sounding very important and official, is nothing but a private lobby group of non-experts, and is overloaded by vested interest groups, from public transport, insurance, speed camera manufacturers and so on.
Then here is my letter to the same minister:
3rd June 10
Dear Mrs Milton,
False road safety policy affects public health.
I congratulate you on your appointment as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health.
I am writing as an ex traffic officer, who has dealt with road accidents, compiled the statistics, prosecuted traffic law, prepared accident abstracts for the legal profession, a class 1 advanced police driver and motor cyclist, and my trade was motor engineer. I think I can claim to be an expert driver and an expert in road safety.
Unfortunately nearly all those who will advise you on healthy transport will not be experts at all and in most cases have a vested interest and another agenda. I do not. I am totally altruistic in my work and my concern is in three basic areas:
- We fail to address real accident causes. A subsequent health issue.
- We criminalise drivers needlessly. This causes stress.
- The cost of the massive and profitable Road Safety Industry to the economy means that there is less money for health and thus people die.
You would never imagine, from the publicity and promotions that since 1993 road casualties were dropping massively before expensive Road Safety Partnerships and their cameras and in fact have flat lined since. Do you appreciate that, after about 300,000,000,000 driver miles per year, there is less death on the road from any cause than by accidents in the home? About 4 times more for breast cancer and about 4 times more for asbestos related illness and about 6 times more from NHS failings?
So the Road Safety Industry, represented by a private Parliamentary lobby Group and several other charities and foundations it sponsors, tend to overstate the negatives of the private car owner and road transport too. This is always in favour of the public transport operators and operators and manufacturers in The Road Safety Industry.
That this is a multi billion pound industry, where no-one in it is so for altruistic reasons,(Why not if it is about the good cause of human safety and life or death?), can be judged simply from the very costly equipment that is now required, from crash helmets and seat belts to booster seats, air bags etc., that apart from the profit motive, although they undoubtedly save lives, don’t actually stop one single accident happening in the first place.
The falsehoods about speeding, perpetrated by a simplistic and untrue slogan and the official use of non legal terms such as ‘excessive speed’, ‘too fast’ ‘in a hurry’, all of which are used by officials and in police statistics and yet do not exist in the Road Traffic Act. These all come under dangerous driving and are simply used to muddy the facts to justify false speeding policy which is costing this country billions.
We estimate that for every 1 MPH we slow road transport, it costs on average £2,000,000,000 pa. (About £20 billion a year total). How many hospitals could you build with that? How many ambulances and fire engines could you buy with that? How many lives could we have saved? So what is the cost of this highly lucrative Road Safety Industry, its in-expert lobby groups and charities, in the terms of lives lost to its false policy and costs?
When a motorway is closed for 11 hours or a city closed for half a day, whilst a road accident is treated like a murder scene, how many millions of pounds are lost? What of the knock on accidents later in the day through stress, making up time or tiredness? Who is costing the activities of this industry and the impact it does have on the NHS and the economy? No one? Why not?
A study of trends will show that there has been very little gain but so far there is no study of the impact of the costs of road safety policy.
Why do we have over 40 road safety partnerships all spouting the same mantra? Send the emergency staff back to their stations to save lives there and make up the shortages in the police, ambulance and fire service from where they came. Employ the civilians elsewhere until, by natural wastage, they are not replaced.
We need to think radically about freeing up the driver, restoring speed limits to a natural level as the 85%tile method did. Focussing on real accident causes and above all, understanding that the British driver is doing very well and if they were not doing it, the economy of this country would collapse overnight and many thousands would die from it.
Beware of approaches from vested interest and unqualified lobby groups. This life and death issue should only rest with independent experts in the subject.
We now need to be turning these costs around and saving lives at the same time; both directly on the roads but also by efficient use of the driver and the roads.
I will be most happy to assist you further. Best wishes and good luck in government.
Friday, 28 May 2010
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
There is nothing more dangerous in dangerous pursuits than non-experts calling themselves experts.
It appears nobody is an expert in anything - apart from yourself.