Here is an example of the typical pious but profiteering face of The Road Safety Industry if ever there were.
Ex Sergeant Dave Kay, of Lincolnshire Police Road Safety Partnership, at one time acting chief copper there, clearly was on a good screw for doing life saving. Very pro prosecuting perfectly safe drivers too. This partnership actually denied to me the self evident, 'Reduce the need to overtake reduces the attempts and thus reduces the overtake accidents' and also 'The more a driver can see the better his driving and thus less night-time crashes' Here he is now, involved with two consultancy companies, still no doubt piously peddling his peculiar 'life saving' technique for money!
K Consulting (Lincs Ltd) http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dave-kay/15/65a/b99 & Mannor Ltd http://www.freeindex.co.uk/profile(manorr-ltd)_273749.htm
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
This says it all. 'No-one knows how this accident happened'? Oh dear oh dear. 'If they weren't "speeding we are totally flummoxed"To which I wrote the following:
No sooner do I pen one letter in response to the 'speeding' issue do I read an astounding account of evidence submitted about a fatal crash that, because neither driver was 'speeding', no-one, not even the crash investigator, can give a reason for it.
The crash investigator even uses the term 'excessive speed' which I deplore because no such state exists in the Road Traffic Act. There is either 'speeding' or driving too fast which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the speed limit; as in this case it seems.
'Excessive speed' should never be used by officials because it muddies the water between 'speeding' that causes no accidents, like in this accident, and driving too fast which does.
If a driver loses control of his vehicle it is because of excessive speed whether 15 MPH or 40 MPH. Don't the Collision Investigation Units even understand that much?
I quote the following extract from my earlier post which was written before I had read this story:
'........not one accident is or can be caused by 'speeding'. By driving too fast, which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the limits too, does but not 'speeding'. No camera can see 'too fast'. They can only see driving above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole..............'
So the cause of the accident, if reported correctly by the Echo, could only be driving too fast for the bend, or the conditions PC Brown; no matter what the speed limit was.
And this tragic crash is why it is more important for drivers to drive to the road and conditions than to a speedo and for cameras. I am confident that PC Brown would not disagree with drivers driving to the conditions at all times.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
The RACF has commissioned a report which it claims is vital to road safety policy and that is to account for the 'antagonism that can seriously jeopardise road safety'. The report focuses on the attitudes of cyclists and drivers toward each other. See Item here
Isn't it easy how something so apparently benign and constructive can actually be part of an already established attitude and policy? So let's look a bit deeper into their proposal to understand what is really behind it.
The reader can be forgiven for associating the RACF with the RAC.
They are two separate organisations. The RACF is not a pro-motoring group and in fact supports the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers by virtue of totally unscientific and arbitrary speed limits. Added to which they are not road safety or driving experts either. We can therefore be forgiven for asking what exactly is their CV to be making any statements on a life and death issue anyway?
But aren't they being totally fair and un-biased between driver and cyclists in their reports? Not exactly no! In fact they are all to the advantage of the cyclist by talking as though there were a level playing field.
And thus how smoothly we are all lead to think of all road users as equal when in fact that is not the case at all. So let's look again at this:
What is cycling? Well to put it crudely, it is to put oneself into the path of rather heavy fast moving machinery and plant; usually operated by any Tom Dick and Harry. Would any sane and right minded person wish to do that?
But B.J. isn't the only politician who wants to show off his cycle clips credentials is he?
And then there is Councillor Jane (the cycle clips) Urqhart of
Nottingham tram fame.
So where are all these people so wrong?
Why are politicians falling over themselves to show off their cycling credentials when to do it is so nuts, that to place oneself in so much danger, would be an offence under some elf'n safety rule if it were anything else wouldn't it?
The RACF has really commissioned an anti car anti driver report and that is because there is no level playing field. Cycling is done by a tiny minority RACF. Whereas everyone depends on the 30 million drivers of this country and the economy would collapse without them, no-one would miss cyclists at all.
The push bike is a political menace simply because any politician who rides one is in a minority and as I have demonstrated, has to be mad.
Cycling, used to pretend to all of us that it can be an alternative to the car, is not only a lie but a menace to the 30million drivers that need the politicians to support them.
So when the media start promoting this RACF anti car propaganda, they will in fact be promoting madness!
Right. I have a buckled wheel to repair.
Monday, 17 January 2011
unnecessary slowing, no unnecessary speed limiting. Protest now on all driver grievances. How?
Simple: Just avoid for one weekend all those business, retail parks and city centres that depend on the driver for trade just for one weekend. It's that easy. Pass it on by twitter, email and F.B.